THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

A MODEST PROPOSAL | 1998-12-05

The United States sends some five billion dollars a year in outright aid to Israel. This does not include unrepaid loans and a few billion a year more we send to Egypt each year, mostly for their friendship with Israel.

The United States sends an absolute minimum of over five billion dollars a year to protect Israel's borders. The Christian Coalition and liberals say that is not enough.

I just noticed that, on "Christian" television, they just started advertising to get Christians to pay for Russian Jews to immigrate to Israel.

Apparently the Jewish community has no money of its own. We all know that, when it comes to supporting liberal causes, the Jewish community has lots and lots of money.

So this Christian evangelist nonsense of raising money from the Christian community to send Russian Jews to Israel is both typical and ridiculous.

Sillyass respectable conservatives really tick me off.

So what could we say that would REALLY make both the liberals and the Christian Coalition go ballistic?

How about this

What if we proposed that, for every dollar we spend protecting Israel's border, one dollar had to be spent to protect AMERICA'S border? That would mean we would have to spend five billion dollars a year to keep out drugs and illegal aliens!!

The Christian Coalition would certainly loudly oppose such a proposal. It might offend Hispanics. Ralph Reed and his successors want to get cool with minorities. So it turns out, according to Reed, that God wants him to be cool with minorities, too. Therefore, a proposal that Americans spend as much to protect our own borders as we do to protect Israel's would really upset both the present leadership of the Christian Coalition and the liberals.

That means I just HAD to bring it up.

PART 2 | 2016-11-02

If you will read Part 1 again, in A Plague on Both You Houses, 1976, I stated that the Trump Lesson today is exactly the same one the Cucks made for the generation before Reagan.

Give her credit, what Hillary Clinton said about America's working people, that they should be ignored by their "Betters'" like Hillary, was verbatim what William Buckley would have said if he had Hillary's guts.

Let me give you THE example of this:

I was having lunch (Yes, luncheoneering!) with William Rusher and he was discussing the building of the National Review building in the the mid-1950s.

One of the most essential volunteers in doing the work was a young man name George Lincoln Rockwell, later the founder of The American Nazi Party. Buckley and Rusher were very greatful for the help of Rockwell and his guys, white guys who could actually handle this alien thing they called a hammer.

So, in what I suspect was a period of alcohol-induced good feeling, Buckley asked whether Rockwell would like a favor in return.

Rockwell asked a business favor for what had clearly been many hours of intelligent and hard work: He asked for Buckley to arrange for Buckley an few top staffers, including Rusher, to meet with him for supper one day and discuss how much of this "Liberal" business was -- Guess what? -- really "The Jews."

Buckley, who, like so many of us in our youth, had a problem holding his liquor, rememembered how many times conservatives had recounted tales of how they, Ivy League Intellectuals, had won all those easy victories over Evil Bigots with a few brilliant words. Or rather, Buckley remembered what his Genius Buddies had TOLD him how they had won all those victories over the Bigoted Peasants.

Rusher also remembered when a younger and drunker Buckley had to be dragged away from the table screaming that people like William Rusher, who was NOT a CATHOLIC, were fake conservatives.

So Buckley and Rusher and others worried over this debate they had promised to have with Rockwell, who was, outside of the Buckley-Clinton myth that they were lowah clahss retards. Realized when sobriety hit Buckley that Rockwell was highly intelligent and highly informed.

In other words, a guy who got publicity with a swastika on his arm would wipe the floor with an effeminate lower-grade but moneyed fake from Yale.

Then Rusher grinned and told him the Brilliant Strategy they used to get out of Buckley giving into his words, which is a minor matter for any Ivy League spoiled brat.

When Rockwell showed up, waiting for a little discussion in return for a lot of work, nobody Buckley had promised was there.

Instead there was a Catholic bishop theologian, all pretty in his little dress.

I felt sick. Rusher thought it was great.

But I was a Southerner and an Old Fashioned American. My Word was VERY serious business.

To a Wordist, his own Word of Honor meant nothing, because he has no word of honor.

His only Words are those of the guy in the cute dress.

So I swallowed down my rising gorge and tried to smile at the Rusher-Buckley Act of Genius, and he got me a job with John Ashbrook.

I didn't lose my munch, but I did lose my lunchioneering.

I want you to see this, so there will be a Part 3 to explain about the Jon Stewart comment.

OBSERVATIONS | 1998-09-26

1. Conservative respectables are wonderful for liberals. One of the leading lawyers supporting Clinton on MSNBC mentioned he had hundreds of sex offenders as clients. In short, he makes his living getting sex offenders back on the streets ASAP. Not one conservative respectable picked up on that - of course. Alan Derschowitz and Arthur Miller are Harvard lawyers who have devoted their lives to getting repeat criminals off.

Respectable conservative debating this say - guess what - not a word! Boy, those conservative respectables are brave denouncing letting criminals back on the streets - until they have to face off with one of the people who do it. What a bunch of prostitutes respectable conservatives are!

2. CODE WORD: "irreverence"

Charles Groden exposed himself as such a fanatical liberal that, despite his expensive contract, MSNBC had to take away his daily show. Nobody wanted to watch him.

The new Charles Groden at MSNBC is named Keith Obermann. Like Groden, they say he is "irreverent". Which means he smiles and says liberal things.

Watch that word irreverent.

GENERAL EDUCATION SHOULD BE FUN | 2004-11-05

I prefer historical fiction to reading "oral" history.

I prefer historical fiction because it is more accurate.

You see, a writer of historical fiction has a hundred thousand fact-checkers. The people who read historical fiction LOVE history, and every one of them know history in detail.

The average professor is the expert talking from his throne, or he is not read at all.

If you read a good book of historical fiction, the writer begins by telling you exactly what is fiction and what isn't. The Hero Historian, the one who writes Definitive histories, deosn't have to answer to anybody. Your average college historian answers to his faculty superiors.

I do NOT prefer to fly in an airplane that is built according to Physics Fiction.

Studying history is part of one's general education. Physics is a science. We need a country full of people who have DIFFERENT areas of general education. We need hsitory buffs, archaeology fanatics, political junkies. We do not need a rigid program of giving everybody exactly the same amount of history, sociology, and economics.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean much if everybody speaks the same thing.

The simple fact is that the people who had to take all those history courses don't know any history.

The simple fact is that nobody cares whether young people learn social sciences because the stuff that is taught doesn't matter in the real world. You just need a diploma from the education monopoly, and the social sciences get a piece of that pie.

We have all the uniformity we need. We all have the Internet, documentaries, even propaganda. I think teaching the social sciences after high school is out of date.