THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

ANOTHER ELEPHANT | 2010-09-30

When I was organizing conservatives in college it surprised nobody that the two biggest groups against the left were mutually exclusive.

The Young Americans for Freedom went by the Sharon Statement and allowed huge differences in how it was interpreted. The one thing they required, though, was that one believe in God.

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was at the top of the charts then, as it has been recently. They called themselves Objectivists and claimed only one point of view, but their arguments were as furious as any other group's.

But the one thing that you could NOT do and claim to be an Objectivist was, of course, believe in God.

On the left there are differences of means but not of ends. If you are a Christian Socialist your ends are the same as those advocated by Communism, Social Democracy, and Marxist Anarchism.

The end is "from all according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The left agrees this end is difficult to the point of near impossibility, but it IS the end of the entire left.

No one was surprised that the fundamental credo of the two anti-leftist groups were exactly opposite. It was taken for granted that the ideal society of the young, Catholic backbaygrouch would be a shrieking nightmare to the Objectivists, and vice-versa.

I have said before that you have to disconnect your Knee Jerk Button when you read BUGS. Whatever else may be said of Randian Objectivists, they are NOT conservatives in any reasonable rendering of the word.

I formed an anti-leftist coalition, and in that time and place any anti-leftist was a conservative, just as in a European country where 99% of the population are either Catholic or Lutheran, all the other denominations are called "sects."

On campus all opposition to the aims of the left came under one label. The fact that the two main groups were mutually exclusive did nothing to the fact that they were automatically classified together in Mommy Professor's domain.

This fact, which we never THINK about, is proof that the campus is, indeed, Mommy Professor's domain.

The left does, indeed have a single aim. Its ideal is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." A leftist priest and a Marxist have no difference on this goal with an agnostic social democrat.

We accept that anyone who does not accept this goal is classified, without question, in the media and on campus, as a "conservative."

It is sitting there like an elephant in a living room, the assumption that there is one Direction, one Faith, toward which our society aims, and all opposition to the One Direction has been openly classified as a single Heresy all our lives.

But nobody notices.

AFTER THE PLAGUE | 2005-12-20

Before I continue, let me state my gratitude that my plea that you not abandon me to Comments (0) has already been answered by two comments.

In our last exciting chapter, I explained:

1) Why my first book in my own name was such a success;

2) Why I got no credit for it; and

3) Why writing the book taught me WHY I would get no credit for it.

As usual, the epiphany that came to me was so obvious that I was astonished it hadn't gotten to me before:

We live in a world of human beings. Human beings are motivated by some pretty obvious things. If a philosopher wants to be really popular, he maages to obscure this obvious point in a thousand pages of abstractions.

So now we come to why I am so astonished that we have gone from a lecture to a seminar here.

If you spend all your time in politics, you have to make a LIVING at it. If you have to make a living at it, you don't do what I did, spend two eyars writing a book that will make you hated by everybody who could give you a job.

So if you have to make a living at it, how do you do it?

Let's take one example: fundraising. If you run an organization you have to send out regular appeals for cash.

Try to imagine sending out a fundraiser that says:

"Bob Whitaker wants to spend the next two years writing a book that will cause a political revolution a few years from now."

Hardly.

While I was writing my book those who were making a living in this game were sending out weekly fundraising appeals about the meat shortage, how Gerald Ford had lied about something, about why, if we didn't win a fight over a big bill in congress, we were forever lost, so pour in money RIGHT NOW.

In fact, just as you would wonder if you read Plague what all the fuss was about, you would not erecognize one single subject that fund-raising letters in 1975 said were the crucial issues of all time.

Today, if you want to make living, you talk about the Mexicans pouring across the border. You talk about Iraq. You DO NOT talk about the fact that we have more enemies of everythng we care about coming out of the universities than we have coming across our open borders.

Intellectually I did what I did ALONE.

But a lot of people helped me because they understood that what I was doing was so EFFECTIVE. I dedicated both of my first two books inmy name to my former wife, the second AFTER we were divorced.

Other people came to my aid. We were running press conferences nation on joint marches by working class people who were fighting the educational establishment about dirty textbooks and busing, when my press man was riding with the Independent Truckers blocking DC traffic at ruch hour, and other things.

I had a full time job on Capitol Hill to pay for my expenses in doing all this.

When the few people who were doing all this came together, I would regularly say, "So what we have concluded what Bob will write."

What we were doing was shaking the earth, but everybody thought only I had the secret formula.

They could never understand that the secret was in THEM. They were furious loyal people who never questioned the fact that they wanted the make the world right.

Well, hell, that's what every fund-raising letter tells everybody.

I said that there is a motivation for those who want to make a living at politics. There is also a motivation for those who give the money.

It's called entertainment.

When you get a fundraising appeal, you want to be entertained. Entertainment is not hearing again and again that Ole Bob is writing a book that will have a big effect in the future. Entertainment is having something shocking to say about Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter or President Bush or Laos or Vietnam or Iraq.

When we had something exciting to offer, like thousands of working people paying their own way to come to Washington for a joint march against busing and textbooks, the people who wanted in on it were in the thousands.

But when the excitement ended, there were only three or four of us gathered in a room planning the next step. Everybody else was concentrating on how to become spokesmen for the last excitement.

I got a laugh out of the fact that the Communist World, which couldn't galvanize working people the way we could, declared that my little group of several people which didn't even have a bank account were a highly financed group a bunch of capitalists were bankrolling.

The others in my group got a laugh out of it, too, but theirs was a little sadder. They still had the idea that we should have the financing that the smallest group devoted to passage of Senate Bill 29207, whateverthehellitwas, had.

It never occurred to me that we would.

I knew what we were doing. They only knew that it WORKED.

They proceeded on faith, I proceeded on knowledge.

They are likely to get to heaven before I do.

The bottom line is that I am not used to having anyone else understand what I am doing.

But I am HOPING this will be like A Plague on Both Your Houses. In a few years everybody will be puzzled by how hard I was trying to push the obvious.

It's happened before. It can happen again.

Today the very Wallace Democrats that I personally taught the right how to deal with are now referred to respectfully as the Reagan Democrats. Just one of my achievements was that the press now recognizes those once despised "Wallace Democrats" as the key to electoral victory.

But the next change we need is more fundamental. And we need more than one "Bob will write..."

Bob can't do this one by himself.

Bob's Mantra:

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours in EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries.

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I want the final solution to the BLACK problem.

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I say that, I'm a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

USE THE MANTRA BUT HOLD ONTO THE BASICS | 2013-02-17

Probably the hardest part of Mantra in action is leaving out so much. Those without Mantra discipline are quickly put on the defensive by anti-white yells of "racism" and "ignorance."

We, on the other hand, put the enemy in a defensive position.

More than that, we put them in a DESPERATE position.

While other pro-whites find themselves on the defensive reciting volumes of information, our opponents are desperate to change the subject with standard nonsense we refuse to deal with, and with personal insults.

But there are points that are very important for us to KNOW but which our discipline does not allow us to discuss. In the years to come, when we have progressed to the point beyond repeating the Mantra, we will have to have a basic world view.

One of these points is wordism. We simply don't have the time during our assaults to explain that anyone who is not a nationalist or a racist is a wordist. He has given up all natural loyalties or blind loyalty to a bunch of words.

We don't enjoy forcing our way into discussion groups on other subjects, but we have to because no one gives us a chance to discuss our subject.

A white traitor, any traitor, is far far worse than an enemy.

It bothers me when commenters go into a theory that indicates they have forgotten the basics.

These are the basics on which we must construct our world in future. That is a reason for having this page here, while the real work goes on over in the Swarm.

One of the major lessons of the 2012 and 2016 elections, (the paycheck conservatives will get a boost in 2014 and claim that whatever they did worked), will be that as a matter of arithmetic whites will have to negotiate as whites. To repeat, this is a matter of arithmetic.

The white minority will remain an overwhelming plurality. But no one can succeed in the future without seeing us a huge, self-supporting minority rather than as some sort of wordism to be imposed on everybody.

MILITANT IDIOTS | 2012-02-27

Gavin used the term "militant idiots."

In the real, one to one battle between us and evil, people who love to hate their own people and glory in it, terms like "militant idiots" are INFINITELY more important than any pamphlet you can write that proves to the world that you are a Genius.

William Buckley hated my guts. Bill Rusher, who had been with him for decades, told me so.

Two of his brothers hated me, too.

Because what I said hit HOME.

I did not criticize his use of "untranslated French."

I called it "The Miss Piggy Complex."

He HATED that!

An article in Arizona that was infuriated at the Mantra being posted up IN A MEN'S ROOM was sent to me as a challenge.

I replied, "Maybe next time your Thought Police can keep your toilets free of Heresy."

I NEVER get a reply.

How can I make this point?

Don't reply with something that will show the world What You Know.

Your reply should be calculated to hit home.

William Buckley was a pathetic attempt to be a snob.

So I called him Miss Piggy, which was perfectly accurate.

"Militant Idiots," militant ignorance, Thought Police, Miss Piggy Complex. These hit home and they HURT, because everybody knows they are TRUE..

These represent the short sword. They go for the gut.

It took years of practice on the Field of Mars to develop the short sword.

There was little glory in finding a new short sword thrust.

My experience tells me that there is more POWER in boiling the enemy's ego down to its basics, to coming out with a phrase like "Miss Piggy Complex, " than there is to any pamphlet telling the world how sophisticated you are.

Classical history is full of the names of Authors who wrote Great Writings.

But History does not even mention, nor does it KNOW, the names of the people who developed each short sword thrust that ruled the world in the time all the glorious tracts were written.

At the top, they were TERRIFIED of me.

Bill Rusher never understood exactly why they were scared of ME in a way the liberals never SCARED them.

This is serious, this is LITERAL: Find what HURTS.

It takes time, it takes effort.

And no one will ever give you credit for it.