THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

THE ARGUMENT FOR INTEGRATION CHANGES, PHASE III | 2002-12-21

White integrationists still regard blacks as a sledgehammer with which they can break up white society and get rid of whites. Integration is NOT "race-mixing." Its NOT "mixing the races." Integration is only demanded in white majority countries.

Integration has nothing to do with "the races". It is ONLY intended to be used as a sledgehammer against the white race.

But regarding blacks as nothing but a sledgehammer against white society is insulting to blacks, so whites have not been able to say that since the 1960s.

So now integration is not AGAINST whites. It's FOR whites. It gives them Diversity. That shows that blacks educate us just by sitting beside us.

Oh, goody!

Meanwhile, I am still a white Southerner and I want to be left alone.

We'll pay blacks for the privilege of being left alone, just as we were willing to fight a war to be left alone.

But not leaving Southerners to themselves seems to be the only purpose Northern whites and liberal minorities have.

Pathetic, isn't it?

DAVE | 2007-01-17

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

Like the Mantra, this notion that nonwhites have a fundamentally different self (soul, feeling, and basic perspective) is one hell of a dangerous idea. In reality, it is just a different way of talking about race, but an extraordinarily effective one.

I measure the worth of what I read if I remember it in an enduring fashion. This is an idea I will not forget. That means it is a very powerful idea.

Ideas like this get out, watch out, because the world is likely to get transformed overnight.

The generation of ideas that stick (that are truly powerful) is the main value of this seminar. For example, I just can't get "Mark's Brilliant Line" out of my head. ("Those who own the present own the Future. Those who own the present NEVER have any serious relationship to what is really going to happen.")

It is such a powerful perspective because it alludes to how people regularly assume their beliefs are determinative of outcomes, while in fact they never are.

The real chain of causality is rarely apprehended, which is why commitment to the never-ending examination of subsurface assumptions and basics is so critical.

Comment by Dave

CRITICISM IS NOT HATE | 2005-08-27

That is the title of my program this week, Saturday 3pm at the The Untrained Eye. You can download these programs anytime you feel like it. The magic of the Internet.

One of the sure signs of a authoritarian state is the silencing of criticism.

Two rules

1) Every authoritarian state always begins by silencing all criticism of its doctrine and

2) No authoritarian state ever says it is silencing criticism just to be mean. It ALWAYS gives a Reason.

Nationalist governments pass some kind of Patriot Act. The very name of that Act comes straight out of George Orwell. Anyone who criticizes the government is declared to be attacking National Unity.

Hitler, Mussolini and Franco are all spinning in their graves right now because they never thought of that wonderful title, The Patriot Act, for their policies.

After the defeat of the Axis in World War II it was as inevitable as the rain that the new authoritarian regimes would base their authoritarian regimes on being AGAINST Hitler and Mussolini.

Those who oppose Bush's Patriot Act are exactly the ones who want authoritarianism in the name of being ANTI-nationalism and ANTI-racism.

An old politico like me yawns and says, "So what else is new?"

PLEASE, NO GOSSIP OR HEN SESSION, BUT THE LESSON | 2014-02-13

BUGS got hacked (in a way - easily managed) by a person who has had fits here regularly and been banned.

Originally, many months ago, he demanded that I provide him with hundreds of thousands of dollars he said White Rabbit had promised him for helping in a YouTube production. He had not the slightest doubt the fortune was there, and that I could either pay it myself or, even stranger, that I had the power over WR to force HIM to pay up.

So he raved and he screamed and he threatened and insulted.

Lesson One: I have warned over and over and over about working with anyone who "has real talent, but he's a bit unstable." I call them TTGH's, "Take Toys and Go Home," as in "I tell you all right now, if you don't do it my way I'll just quit, right when the whole project depends on me."

And the usual next line amounts to, "I'm as dedicated to the Cause as anybody, but it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing."

They almost invariably find this Principle at the very moment they know you are depending on you the most.

I am not withholding the name here because this is a general lesson, and as usual I don't want the lesson to be lost in a hen session about one particular person.

This incident is critical because it illustrates the LESSON I have stated over and over and over but which, like so many real lessons, gets buried in the hen session where commenters cluck about how it fits into the Latest News or other trivia.

We have been "hacked." The person who hacked us probably got his info from my computer, since my great weaknesses are computer illiteracy, pretty common in a man my age, disability-level ADD which means I have to write passwords down AND remember where I put them.

So I will no longer be able to put my stuff directly onto BUGS: I will have to have someone else do it, which, with a person with my problem in concentration, means you will be getting none of the spontaneity in muses "nigger" and comments and I can do less articles.

As an interrogator, I have some reason to doubt this guy's sincerity in our cause. My reason for this is another good lesson: He uses "nigger" and "Jew" and like terms to an extent none of us use.

By the way, I am now a "fat Jew!" And that old standby, a queer.

When someone uses those words over and over, they are trying to buddy up by using the kind of language SPLC tells them we use all the time.

But one who does a lot of interrogating quickly learns not to be SURE of any conclusion. This a caution you learn in almost any field.

This guy also seems to genuinely have a problem I ran into very, very often as a Narcotics Anonymous sponsor: bipolar disorder. He is either very, very polite or shrieking. In the shrieking phase he loves to use language like someone with Tourette's Syndrome.

So he sounds a lot like one of my sponsorees when he was, as we put it, "Off his meds."

The quotation marks are another lesson in another area. His meds may have stopped working or be the wrong meds. So we just use the term "Off his meds" as, if you will pardon the expression, a generic one.