THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO THE HISPANIC-"AMERICANS" ARE LOYAL TO | 2005-04-09

Hispanic-Americans have no loyalty to the United States, and Bush and the media are loyal only to them.

Everybody knows that any politician who tries to do anything about illegal aliens will lose if he has Hispanic voters. The media agree that California Republicans cut their own throats politically when they tried to keep Americans from paying for benefits to known illegal aliens.

Hispanic voters who call themselves Americans have no loyalty at all to Americans. Their only loyalty is to other Hispanics.

If they want me to stop saying that, they will have to stop voting that way.

We all know that the reason Bush opposes protecting the US border is precisely because Hispanic voters are loyal only to other Hispanics, America be damned.

That is the rule Bush lives by. But nobody is allowed to state the rule Bush lives by in plain English.

I just did.

MORE ON BUDARICK | 2006-07-22

Budarick's website ( our discussion repeated below) reminds me of Catell's Beyondism. There was an actual convention on it, and Beyondism was considered a threat for while by the Jews. I think Budarick may want to look into Beyondism and comment on it in his blog. Maybe Budarick could also take up where Cattell left off.

To make it clear that Beyondism was considered a threat by our enemies, I refer you to the attack on it which was the first item to appear in my Yahoo! search inspired by Budarick:

Beyondism: Raymond B. Cattell and the New Eugenics

by Barry Mehler

Originally published in Genetica 99: 153-163 (1997). Revised for posting on ISAR web page, Copyright ©, ISAR, January 1998.

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/Cattell/genetica.htm

ORIGINAL PIECE:

Budarick

Filed under: Comment Responses— Bob @ 12:59 pm Edit This

NO SPAM

NO SPAM

Dear Bob,

Please spread www.quatzikosahan.com widely and on StormFront too.

I have given up my love affair with Hitler!

I am taking on the world without the crutch of Hitler to lean on.

I now have for the first time original material of substance

on my website and i shall be working on it EVERY day.

Go have a look.

When my ban on SF is over in September

i shall apologize there and then get on with MY work.

Thanks for all your help Bob.

We sure are going to kick some ass from now on!

PGB.

Comment by PeterGene Budarick

MY REPLY:

You have gladdened an old man's heart!

Remember that Hitler himself fought his heart out for the Second Reich in World War I, but when it fell, he went on. It is time for you to do the same.

Welcome aboard!

HUMONGOUS ANTS | 2006-04-04

In the last generation, conservatives worshipped Japan.

The Japanese were verything that conservativve Wordism said would make a people great.

Best of all, the Japanese weren't WHITE, so the conservatives could worship them and do what makes conservatifes deleriously happy:

They could outliberal the liberals.

Conservatives even began to admit that blacks had a lower average IQ than whites, something they had denied wildly in trying to prove they were more anti-racist than liberals were. Now they could point out that Jaspanese average IQ was higher than white, and they could insist that Orientals were The Master Race.

How anti-racist can you GET?

Japanese technology surged ahead, its per capita income approached the ultimate, the US per capita income.

Then Japan did what all Oriental countries do. It used up all the advances whites had introduced, used them better than whites did, and then stopped.

So you may ask why, since I have described China as following hte path I want whites to follow, I would not settle for a world where all the white countries were brown, but China, with its higher average IQ, was left alone.

First, of course, is loyalty. To be a respectable conservative you must deny any feeling whatsoever for your own race.

But there is another reason.

Let us be clear, first, that loyalty is enough.

But I do not regard a world of coloreds and Orientals as a world of human beings. To a historian, the Pharoahs and Mesopotamia and the Aztecs were Great Civilizations.

To me, all the Great Civilizations were giant insect colonies.

Ants have very sophisticated societies. They have very full lives. They are born, they live furiously, and they die.

A human society which lives furiously and then simply dies, unchangingly, is a giant set of ants.

If Spengler was right, then men are very large ants. They are born, they grow up, and they die.

So what?

Only whites have the capacity to go to the stars. Only white society will constantly change and reach new heights and newer heights from there.

To me, that is what HUMAN life is all about.

Ants, no matter how much they suffer, no matter how tall the pyramids they build, are not HUMAN.

In a world with whites, Orientals can be HUMAN.

In a world without whites, no one is human.

PERFECT PEOPLE NEED NOT APPLY | 2005-12-27

I got the following comment, and puzzled over it a while before clearing it:

"I think that most people know that something is wrong, even if they are snowed about what, exactly. It seems that the truth must out soon, whether it is a disaster or not. Shari"

Comment by Anonymous

How did "Shari" get in a comment by Anonymous?

I think the new title Anonymous is using is Libanon, which is more informative.

As long as it doesn't embarrass Shari, all I want is the comment. This one certainly

couldn't embarrass her.

But I LIKE the fact that this confusion occurred. Maybe the machine gave me "Anonymous."

Maybe Shari got mixed up.

All this relates to an entirely different point Joe and I are discussing.

Joe says that false statements hurt one's credibility.

This is true.

But we also have very little space, and we have to make our points at the sacrifice of credibility. As I said, none of the most hostile reviews even mentioned some egrecious factual errors in Plague.

If those points had been central to my argument, you had better believe they would have shown up big time.

So you have to face the fact that everything you say is not EXACTLY true.

So somewhere along the line, a computer or Shari made an error.

I wanted Shari's comment.

Strictly speaking the person I have always referred to as Anonymous either did not write this or made an error. So by blindly repeating what I have here my credibility is shot.

That's not the way I judge things.

My question is, "Would this embarrass Shari?"

No.

I want the comment in, it lets me make a point and it will not embarrass Shari.

As to my credibility, if anyone is that much of a nit-picker I can't reach them.

As Joe says, credibility is critical, particularly if you are as far out as I am.

But I have a weapon. Anyone who critiques me dreads the title "nit-picker." It destroys THEIR credibility. It makes THEM look desperate.

So I am on another knife-edge. I have always been the one who said the unsayable and just barely kept it within the limits. There is no rule-book for doing that.

I am on a knife-edge between saying things plainly and saying things WRONG.

The only rulebook I have for that is you.

And if you don't correct me, Joe will skewer me.