THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

HINT 1: WHAT THE MEDIA CALL "RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS" ARE AMERICA'S HISTORIC ALLIES | 2001-09-27

To liberals, the term "freedom of religion" means that one does not take religion seriously. If a Baptist says something bad about Catholics or vice versa, a liberal says he is against religious freedom.

In actual fact there is no religious freedom if you are prevented from making a PURELY RELIGIOUS STATEMENT, no matter how extreme it may be.

Americas' religious freedom is important precisely because we take our religion so seriously. It is the right of a Bob Jones to say all Catholics are going to Hell. It is the right of an American Catholic to say that there is no salvation outside his One True Church. See September 9, 2000 - THE UN DECIDES TO "USE" RELIGION.

For generations, the most steadfast allies America has had, both at home and abroad, have been the very people our media call "religious extremists." Almost the only people who denounced Joseph Stalin in the 1940s were Protestant fundamentalists and conservative Catholics.

This is also true of non-Christian resistance to our enemies.

After fifty years of armed victory, Soviet armies were finally stopped and almost destroyed in Afghanistan -- by religious extremists. Osama Bin Ladin gave up life as a billionaire businessman in Saudi Arabia. He went to Afghanistan and put his life on the line against those who were invading Moslem territory, which he looked upon as blasphemous. In that country all of the real anti-Communist fighters were "religious extremists."

The Buddhist Dali Lama is the symbol of resistance to Communism in Tibet.

As more than one conservative Jewish writer has pointed out, the media culture takes it for granted that the words "liberal" and "Jewish" are interchangeable. But even among Jews the group which is most deadly serious about its faith, the Hassidim, votes solidly conservative.

So now the line is that Bin Laden and his Islamic fundamentalist followers have no goal but the destruction of America. According to today's media line they want to come over here and destroy us because we are "free and rich and good."

Does that really make sense to anybody?

AFKAN AND DAVE | 2007-12-07

Dave talks about streets smarts and AFKAN talks about confrontation. I will not repeat READ THE COMMENTS, but it is interesting to me how our thoughts all come more and more into OBVIOUS interrelation.

When I was in drug treatment, one fellow had the others, they were mostly teenagers, scared to death. He was an ex-con on parole. One day he went over the line and I looked him in the eye and said, "Don't mess with us old farts. You don't know where we've been."

This did not have the dramatic effect of terrifying him. He just looked at me and decided I made sense. Every person who lives a life of confrontation makes a calculation. If he goes after everybody he's dead before he reaches age twenty. I was just somebody he knew not to push.

Now let me make a really wild leap. In my graduate school, two of my professors LATER got Nobel Prizes in an area called Cost-Benefit Analysis. Both of those professors were kicked out of the University of Virginia because cost-benefit analysis was considered too esoteric and came to the wrong conclusions.

But every psychopath like the one I dealt with there and the white trash I dealt with in my youth practiced cost-benefit analysis all the time.

I have been around an awfully lot, so I can be very friendly to people I meet on the street, the kind of people I am used to dealing with in drug rehab, and then look them in the eye when they ask for something and say "No."

Others should follow Dave's advice EXACTLY.

But it really sounds wild to say that the person I am confronting is practicing cost-benefit analysis. He looks at me and decides it isn't worth it.

So Dave talks about street smarts and AFKAN keeps going into confrontation. I talk about Nobel Prize level discussion and facing a psychopath.

All I ask is that you understand the UNITY of THOUGHT here.

PRO-WHITES ARE ON OUR OWN IN A VICIOUS WORLD | 2011-03-18

From time to time some young person on campus asks me how much he can say and still not be liquidated career wise. Some are actually staying on for an academic career, and they do not look forward to all those years of hypocrisy until they get tenure.

I am not very comforting, nor do I think I am the person who could advise them best:

I went back to grad school briefly in 1992,and from that and other sources I know that the suppression of thought is much greater seen than when I was in academe, and it was rough then.

I am able to say what you want to say because I am safely retired from a workaholic career.

You can probably get away with some version of Mantra as a "special concern," but you had better be orthodox on all else.

It will be of interest to me if you get away with some version of the Mantra before you get warned.

You can do good field work as you find the answer to your own question. What CAN you say? You will have to find that out in the field rather than from a person who's a generation out of date.

I think you can get away with some version of the Mantra. But even tenure won't protect from this kind of heresy,

Like the Soviet samizdat writers, "You will NEVER be FREE."

So, as always, I want to remind you that YOU have to learn all this in ACTION.

My drilling can be very useful to you, but one reason it is is because I read GCVI carefully, and I read the reports people send to me.

Calling my stuff your drill has some lessons in it. The most obvious thing you find in military history is that professional soldiers fight exactly the same way they lost the last war. The strategy of France against Germany in 19870, 1914, and 1940 was exactly the same, and each time they got stomped on.

This may be part of the explanation why so many pro-white leaders keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. They can't overcome their DRILLING.

You note I am wrong about a lot of details and even spelling. You will correct me if I go too far over the edge, and the only facts that would make my writings seriously wrong would be if someone actually showed me an Ancient Civilization whose people collapsed PERMANENTLY and who didn't turn into brown people, or how the world was anxious to get rid of any other race than ours.

I give you pivotal realities, and the details are part of the explanation. But the real test of what I say is when I am out there trying my stuff on real people. My advice to you is tested daily on the battlefront YOU are on.

As we get more participants, we will have some who report their experience among the Thought Police, who make no secret of their existence, on campus.

In the Soviet Union, samizdat writers had no guide but how many of their fellows were arrested for a particular article, to the extent they could find out.

But, as one commenter pointed out, the samizdats did not make real progress until they broke through the Silence, exactly the way BUGS is aimed at doing.

A totalitarian today makes as few open martyrs as he can. Everywhere the modern tyranny ruins or commits people, it doesn't smash their door down.

The Silence has been imposed steadily on America. Racists used to be interviewed by talk show hosts, under very unfair conditions, but they were interviewed. Then all the hosts decided that anyone who even interviewed one would be committing heresy. They were no longer subjected to ridicule, because Archie Bunker showed a lot of people saw through the game, so they were subjected to the Silence.

Today respectable conservatives are the "other side," the ONLY "other side." In their later years, the Communists adopted this strategy.

In East Germany I saw the headquarters of the Social Democratic Party of the DDR, an "opposition" voice supported and chained by the still-Stalinist Communist Party which ruled East Germany. The Russian Orthodox Church was a branch of the State in Soviet Russia, which paid the priests' salaries.

Those who thought the Church would oppose the regime were sadly disappointed.

Respectable "Christian" conservatives know which side their bread is buttered on.

This is a life-and-death game for young people who expect to depend on academe for their livelihoods. Nor is any other pro-white's livelihood much safer.

In a case like this, I am not about to play The Wise Old Man at the risk of people's ruining themselves taking my advice.

If you have some good advice on this and you withhold it from Comments, you are taking the same risk with your comrades' lives.

The final authority in BUGS is not Bob, it is reality.

RICHARD | 2008-01-28

At least white nationalists should be a little more aware than the conservatives who were taken in by people like "marxist-turned-rightwinger David Horowitz".

I trust most Stormfronters wouldn't be as gullible as Jared Taylor and start thinking that jews have suddenly discovered their inner Klansman.

-- richard

When Dr. Duke stood up at the AR convention and attacked the Jewish presentation, he said, "You are accepting the neo agenda!" Afterwards when I saw him he was very upset with himself for upsetting Jared Taylor and the AR group.

But, as I told David, if HE didn't bring his point up, who the hell would? What is the POINT of being David Duke if you get bashful?

After my continued warnings about neo-racists, you would assume that Jared Taylor would be my bete noire. No. Jared is out there presenting our point of view as close to the mainstream as it can be. Jared's close circle is solid.

Jared Taylor has an inner group which advises him, good people all, like Sam Francis before and Sam Dickson the whole time. Jared is trying to bring us into the mainstream. David Duke does not want to be out here with me, totally unacceptable.

I get the impression that Jared is even more of a loner than I am! He is trying to do something that no one understands but himself. Hence the Jew.

To be perfectly frank, the people in this movement do not DESERVE both Jared and David Duke. But powerful minds like that are taking their positions. As I said, we need a Jared Taylor to go mainstream and we need a David Duke to call his actions into questions.

Can anyone actually imagine two minds like that of Dr. Duke and Jared Taylor in any other movement? Jared and David got in here when we were tiny. What we do NOT need is to cling worshipfully to some big-name outsider who converts to us.

THAT is what killed conservatives. Big-name neos took over.

And we need to watch Jared. The difference between going mainstream and going neo is a hair's breadth. THIS is the sort of thing we need expertise on.

Which is why I said we don't deserve Jared and Dr. Duke. They are trying to deal in Realpolitik, but our only reaction to Obama's win was to bitch and moan and pine for Ron Paul. This is amateurishness in a time when professionalism will win.

Thank God for Jared and stay on his tail. If this sounds contradictory, you are an amateur.