THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

REALITY CHECK | 2006-07-15

I just checked Yahoo! and it turn out that the movie "The Night of the Generals" was made in 1967. So by the time I saw it I had had a lot more experience with totalitarian regimes and the third world than is good for anybody.

In that movie Omar Sherif was the hero, a German police official who was investigating murders done by some German generals in occupied France and occupied Poland. Finally, in late 1944, he accumulated evidence that the German general being played by Peter O'Toole had committed the murders. So he walked into that SS general's headquarters, surrounded by loyal SS men, to arrest him for murder. He had no backup.

As it happened he walked in to arrest this SS general at the very moment when it was announced that a bomb had been planted in Hitler's headquarters and the Fuhrer had been injured and all loyal Nazis were being called to arms to suppress the rebellion. So when the Sharif character announced to the SS general, the guy with a skull on his hat and a 9MM in his holster, guess what happened?

The general pulled out his pistol, shot the policeman, and went out to call his troops to action.

You may have difficulty believing this, but when the Sharif policeman got the bullet in his chest, his only reaction one of complete surprise, which seems to be what the movie makers expected of the audience.

I reacted with complete surpise to his surprise.

If a policeman went into a Stalinist enclave of the KGB to arrest the commanding general, what would any rational person expect would be the reaction of a general with a gun at his side? Forget the movie idea that this was at a moment of crisis. Today we are all aware of the fact that if a policeman went in alone to arrest a general in a totalitarian state, he would be shot.

I am trying to give you an insight into the mind of the 1960s. Americans then had no experience whatsoever with the real third world or with real totalitarianism. Back then a hippy was seriously considered to be a real revolutionary.

Back in the 1960s all of the media featured hippies and called them true revolutionaries. But back to our reality check. How could anybody believe that a policeman could talk in and arrest a genreal working for an absolutist dictator? By the same token, how could anyone believe that true revolutionaries were people who were always covered by the media?

You don't go in alone and arrest generals in a totalitarian state. And nowhere on earth are true revolutionaries given constant prime time coverage. The fact that none of this ever occurred to anybody at the time is manifest in the audience's total shock at the fact that Sharif's policeman was shot and the SS general went on with the emergency. The same population never considered it odd that "true revolutionaries" were on every talk show.

Reality check: somebody was nuts here, either me or the American public.

THE NINE COMMANDMENTS | 2013-09-08

Someone gave a link to a site about Dante's Inferno, and the first and only thing I read in it was "the nine circles of Hell."    If you went to a link defining the Commandments and it referred to the Nine Commandments I doubt you would read any further either.

"Why is this disinformation produced?"   I didn't bother to find.  Have they repealed the Tenth Circle for traitors, or the First Circle, where Virtuous Pagans are not actually tortured?

That would make the title of Solzhenitsyn's book, the First Circle, a bit off.

I don't care.  There is plenty of internet crap where they simply repeal inconvenient facts.  In the Wikipedia version of Zoroaster, it declares his a false religion, that ancient Persia had no effect whatever on Jewish and Christian doctrine, and Z was absolutely sixth century BC, which Christians declare because the first record of Jewish monotheism is seventh century BC.

The BBC version of Zoroaster dates him from 1200 BC or up to a thousand years before.   This would mean that Cyrus, "who did the Lord's work" for the Jews is likely to have introduced them to monotheism in the form of Zoroastrianism.

My essential point is that one simply cannot use the internet without having "Why is this information produced?" firmly and constantly in mind.

The days of just quoting some source are over.

YOU ARE THE CAVALRY TO OLE BOB! | 2013-06-13

We have reached a new stage in BUGS.

At the beginning I was the Source, and every person who got into action with the Mantra WANTED me to be the Source, the Boss, the Final Word. There was one single reason for this, and only one:

I had invented and developed the Mantra, but That was NOT the reason you looked to me as the Authority. You looked to me as the Authority because I was the only person who had USED the Mantra.

Those of you who used it found that it was dynamite, but that, like dynamite, you had to learn to handle it. But it was exhilarating for you when you DID use it right.

AT LAST, using this magic formula, you could slam dunk the truth right down their throats.

But you got sidetracked and lost out when you went into your old mode.

You greatly preferred winning and so you decided Bob could tell you how to keep winning.

Over the years a dream has come true for me. There is now a core of BUGS stalwarts who have won with the Mantra out there in the real world many, many times.

A few years back I was the only one who had ever used the Mantra. I single-handedly cleared out the accusations of "Racism" and the regular apologies and denials of "Racism" in the Opposing Views section of Stormfront.

Everybody admitted that.

But, until Lord Nelson finally came along, nobody else USED the Mantra!

Yes, I invented the Mantra. Yes, I developed it and I was the only expert on it.

But being the only one was NOT fun. I HATED it. It was suffering to be the only one who was out there using this wonderful weapon. These were years of suffering with which you can easily identify. Back then EVERYBODY on our side was an anti-Mantra pro-white(AMPW).

You have had far more than enough dealings with the AMPWs to fully realize what it felt like when EVERYBODY was AMPW and I had to deal with them alone!

It was every bit as bad as you think!

If you empathize with my long, lone campaign, you will realize that this "change" in our relationship is an absolute joy to me.

I don't WANT to be the only Mantra expert, or even the chief Mantra expert, any more.

This is a celebration.

You cannot easily imagine what a pleasure it is for me to bitch when you don't come up with the right answer that we have learned in the field to some standard anti-white argument!

You can see how bad it was to be alone with the Mantra.

But now I want you to fully understand what a joy it is for me to read YOUR experiences, for me to be corrected by you, as fellow professionals.

The cavalry has arrived!

MAINLINE PROTESTANTISM | 2006-04-22

Shari says,

Are you saying that the Catholic church will not defend and even promote the notion that whites ought to mate only with whites? If so, I can say that I have noticed this and been puzzeling about it. I don't know where it came from other than confusing nice and good. Our bishop said,in relation to illegals, a while back,"be kind, be kind,be kind." Which I translated in my head to be nice, be nice, be nice. But, I have to admit that I don't know how to be good rather than nice either. Other than that my husband and children are white, but my children are adults and struggling.

Comment by Shari

MY REPLY:

Like every other mainline church, the Catholic Church has done all it can in recent years to destroy the white race. All the churches today are simply one more branch of respectable conservatism and liberalism.

The most horrible example of this in recent times has been the Reformed Church of the Afrikaaners in South Africa. The Methodist Church did this to me when I was a child.

But as usual I am going to veer off into what your comment made me think of.

Thinking about what you said, I realized that I see three major branches of today's Western Christianity:

1) The Catholic Church,

2) The mainline Protestant Churches,w hich include the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterian, Lutherans and so forth

3) The evangelicals, a category that exists in my own mind.

I say this because some Baptists are just more mainline churches, while the Bob Joes types are in the category of evangelical.

You can tell which is which not just by their theology, but by a more obvious measure.

ALL of the mainline churches are dropping steadilyi n membership.

The harcore evangelical Baptists are all taking large numbers of converts, and have been doing so since the 1960s. The respectable Baptists, those who do not call themselves Southern Baptists, are stagnating along with every one of the mainline Protestant denomincations.

There is a giant growth of evangelical churches in South America. It is one of the least reported historical turnovers in history.

Please, please, PLEASE understand I am not talking theology here. When it comes to the numbers and major conversion, this ia matter that is vitally important to a political pro.

Politics, real politics, is about what people WANT.

If the militant vegetariansim had had a steadily increasing membership for two generations, I would discuss it and look at it very carefully.

This would NOT mean that Bob takes vegetarianism seriously or that I am sympathetic to it.

I am trying to sell some ideas, so I want to know why ideas, any ideas, sell.

I haven't gone into this because I was afraid everybody would get all tied up in theology.

But the simple statistical fact is that category 1), the Catholic Church, is still a net gainer in the matter of CONVERTS, not juts in its birth rate.

Every single church in category 2), the mainline Protestant, is going steadily down.

Every single church in category 3) is heading upwards in CONVERTS, and has been doing so for most of my lifetime.

I am NOT interested in this as a matter of theology. This is a critical POLITICAL phenomenon.

There were practically NO evangelists in South America when I was born. Now there are tens of millions of them. They are heavily into the politics of Central America.

The media almost totally ignore this.

They are NOT our friends. But they are important, because they are doing something RIGHT in a matter of practical politics.

Here is a major lesson I get out of this:

Conventional wisdom is dead wrong.

Conventional wisdom tells us that the way to succeed in any kind of politics is to go along and get along.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the mainline Protestant denominations are the ones who do absolutely nothing BUT go along and get along. Every political fad becomes part of the official doctrine of every church from Methodist to Lutheran to the more respectable branches of the Baptists adopts Politically Correct dogma as the Voice of God the minute some sociologist comes up with it.

The Catholic bureaucracy in Rome tries hard to do the same thing, but the Catholic Church can thank its lucky stars that it so rooted in old, "outdated" theology.

While evangelicals sell US out, they do run the "Christian" right.

In fact, the only reason the Catholic Church gets as much grief from Political Correctness freaks as evangelicals do is because the Catholic Church is so much BIGGER than they are.

So if you look over what I just said, you will notice that on critical rule over thepast two generations has been that churches are growing in direct proportion to the amount of grief they are getting from the PC freaks.

Or, to put it in even more basic English, churches are growing or dying in direct proportion to how much grief they are getting from mainline liberals and respectable conservatives. The more they "with the times" the more they are DYING.

To the extent that churches "go along and get along" they are DYING.

We do not approve of the politics of any of them on race. That is not the point.

What IS the point is that, in the long run, the way to die is to go along.

Think about the conclusion the media would be trumpeting if the opposite were the case. What if churches that go along with fashionable oopinion were growing and those the media disapprove of were dying.

Do you think THAT trend would be ignored inthe media the way the real trend has been?

If the opposite were the case, every magazine would have an article in every issue about how traditional Catholicism is dying out. Every issue would have pictures of the empty churches "out of date" preachers were talking to.

There is NEVER a media picture of the ever-emptier churches where mainline, government-supported preachers in Europe are talking to churches.

In a really respectable Anglican Church in England the congregation each Sunday is smaller than the choir used to be.

When was the last time you saw a picture of THAT in the media?