THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

Conservatives worshipped Proxmire. One day a congressman called me into his office. I was known for knowing a lot of things, including scientific terminology. He told me he wanted to do on the House side what Proxmire was doing in the Senate. He wanted me to look at the National Science Foundation weekly report and pick titles to ridicule.

There was no job security on Capitol Hill. You could be fired on the spot, and a lot of people were. I risked my career by telling the congressman that Proxmire was not only a moron, he was an enormously destructive moron. I told him about some of the basic research programs Proxmire had tried to destroy that had led to enormous advances. I explained to him that because of Proxmire the National Science Foundation had given grants to far less valuable research projects because they had titles Proxmire wouldn't attacked.

I asked the congressman not to be another Proxmire, and if he had to, to get someone else to do the dirty work. He actually listened and dropped it. I was very lucky. Not only can you lose your job by refusing point blank to do what a congressman asks, that is the best possible way not to get another job on Capitol Hill.

I would rather have died than be ruined professionally.

But I would rather have been ruined professionally than join the Moron Brigade that is attacking the Mars program right now.

National Review conservatives, who think they are real class, often act like the most cowardly of drunken rednecks. Please read this week's Whitaker Online about "Silk Pants Aristocrats."

I admit I spent my share of time in redneck bars, and the "Hold me back" guy was always there. He would act aggressive and then back down. But as soon as some kind person took his arm, usually to keep him from falling down, he would get tough

"Hold me back! Hold me back!"

He would act like he was trying to shake off the person holding him up so he, a dangerous and angry tiger, could get at the guy he just backed away from.

You know the type.

And that is exactly what conservatives on television remind me of when they demand that American Taliban John Walker be lynched from the nearest tree.

I call Walker a traitor, but I also have the guts to call powerful people traitors. Conservatives would never dare demand punishment for Jane Fonda or other 1960's "Idealists," but they are all over Walker.

Liberals gave conservatives permission to go after Walker, so the liberals have to hold them back.

Southern Nationalism gives us the opportunity to change the world by offering a nation where people want to live. In every country on earth today, leftism and respectable conservatism have united to force people to live the way liberals want them to. If we provide a nation which rejects all the leftists experiments, leftism will collapse forever.

Real secession, the slightest hint of a real choice, will be devastating to leftism in a way that respectable conservatism can never be. The left has an exposed Achilles heel, and that fatal exposure is the simple fact that their entire enforced program is ridiculous, and nobody really WANTS it. Leftism is gigantic fraud waiting to be exposed. Only respectable conservatism and the lack of any true alternative keeps this titanic fraud going.

One place which is truly independent, where people can live among the people they choose, and give their children the education they choose, and have the kind of justice they choose, would be fatal to the left. One place like this would be the envy of all other people in the Western world.

Nobody WANTS leftism. "Devolution" is a code word for the fact that people want OUT of this system. REAL devolution will be CUMULATIVE: it will grow as the escape becomes a flood.

As soon as people find they can have REAL devolution, everybody will want it. But the emphasis here is on the word REAL.

In Scotland, there is going to be a referendum which, if it gets a majority, will lead to independence in four years. Sean Connery was denied a knighthood in January because he supports Scottish nationalism.

But you can have NOMINAL independence, and it won't mean a thing. After all, when Scotland or the South or Quebec gets "independence," it will do so as the result of a signed agreement. That agreement will include matters like free trade and military agreements with the country they are separating from.

When and if Scotland and Quebec become "independent," the nationalist leaders will be so desperate to get their titles as Prime Ministers and so forth that they might agree to anything. More important, they will want to appear to be Respectable Leaders in the eyes of World Opinion. They don't want to look provincial.

So the Scots and the Quebecois will be pressured to agree to keep their borders open to massive third world immigration. They will agree that Scotland's goal is to be "multicultural," In other words, Scotland is welcome to be a country as long as it doesn't insist on being Scottish. Likewise Quebec.

There is an easy way for Scotland's independence movement to be tamed. Right now the United Kingdom is in the process of giving up its sovereignty to the developing United States of Europe. The pound will be replaced by the Euro and all economic policy will be run from the new central government of Europe. Economic policy will move to the European central government.

Europe began its unification plan in the 1950s with a small and reasonable attempt to reduce tariffs. This was to make trade easier and to "provide for the free movement of goods throughout Europe." Then a little change occurred in the language. One day the centralizers began to say that the idea was to "provide for the free movement of goods AND PEOPLE throughout Europe."

As usual, nobody questioned that apparently small change in language. But it was no small change. It was a gigantic step. It meant that every state in Europe was to give up its control of immigration. The centralizers, who favor enormous amounts of third world immigration into Europe, were to be given authority to impose that on every part of Europe.

So if Scotland signs on to be a part of the United States of Europe, its "independence" will be a fake. I expect that there will be a lot of pressure for this kind of fake "independence." Fake opposition and fake alternatives are all we have today, and the left knows how to keep it that way. Real nationalism, real independence, would be a threat to the whole leftist program, so that is the first thing nationalist leaders will be required to give up.

Liberals are always quoting surveys where people tell them what the establishment wants to hear --- that multiracialism is wildly popular with everybody. But, oddly enough, they will never allow any alternative to it. Every last white person must be chased down. If it's so great, why can't it stand competition?

To follow on with this example, every professor who wants to keep his job assures us that multiracialism and multiculturalism are wildly successful and make people happy. All the media assure us that practically everybody is wild about multiculturalism and multiracialism. But they demand that every single stray white person be chased down and forced into a multiracial community.

If multiculturalism is so great, why do they have to do that? They cannot allow there to be a place on earth where whites are able to live in their own communities, because they know very well that most whites will want to go there.

There is no area in which liberalism can allow any real competition to develop. In every area, from dealing with criminals to education to economics, liberalism can only survive if it is enforced on everybody.

Liberals cannot allow any white majority country on earth to close itself to third world immigration.

No community can be allowed to treat criminals as criminals. No community can allow parents and taxpayers to use their money for any schools they want to, because that would mean the end of the state educational bureaucracy. No community can be allowed to exist which does not chase down whites and force them to integrate.

If a country were allowed to do ALL that, the left would be doomed, and nobody knows that better than leftists. Nothing would be more fatal to leftism than REAL secession, because real secession means real CHOICE.

When they tell you how their system is beloved by all, your reply should be short and simple: "You want to put your policy up against ours? OK. Let's try it. Make my day."

The trouble with what we want is that it is 1) obviously reasonable, and 2) obviously fatal to the political left. It is obviously reasonable that we would have the right to have our own land and to live to ourselves if we so choose. But it is also obvious that, if we ARE allowed to live to ourselves, absolutely everybody else is going to want to join us.

This is not because WE are so great, but because what THEY impose is so obviously awful, and it only survives because it allows no alternatives.

One instance of TRUE secession will lead to more REAL devolution, and that will lead to yet more. We must settle for nothing less than this real and therefore cumulative form of secession.

When the twentieth century began, Americans felt totally inferior to Europeans. Especially European nobility.

A few years back a friend of mine married a real Austrian Countess and it was kind of a joke between them.

But if we felt inferior to Europe in 1900, the rest of the world BELONGED to Europe. Back then the whole world was part of one empire or another. By 1900 Europeans were dividing up China, though it was officially independent.

By 1945, Europe was a blasted-out ruin. Its empires were on the way out and the homelands were destroyed. They had been saved from fascism by the United States and, if they had been left to themselves, they would have become colonies under Stalin.

But American east coasters STILL felt inferior to Europe. Even looking at the total catastrophe European thinking had made of itself, they still worshipped European thinking.

In 1945, East Coast "intellectuals" could not understand why a bunch of "cotton-chopping Southerners" and "corn-fed Midwesterners" were not desperate to copy everything from Europe.

Nothing liberals do ever WORKS. The East Coast and Ivy League worship of Europe was a formula for the same disaster Europe had just created for itself. So naturally post-War liberals thought it was the only way to go.

Professors and the media will never grow up. But some people HAVE to. One of the former Eastern European Communist satellites that has done well economically was trying to find an economic plan to make the transition from Communism to capitalism. Their leader said, "And we don't want something cooked up by East Coast academics."

This leader had observed how East Coast "intellectuals" had dealt with the Communists he knew so well, and he wanted no part of their idiocy.

By 1945, after total destruction and tens of millions of deaths in Europe, Europeans were not so charmed by their "intellectuals," most of whom were Communist by then.

You see, to an East Coast "intellectual" (or a William Buckley), "European" means "foreign," it means "exotic," it is means "classy."

But the few European "intellectuals" who didn't fall for socialism did not see themselves as "exotic." To them, Middle Americans were exotic. Today, American tee shirts in Moscow are considered very avant-garde. East Coast intellectuals sort of know this, but they don't have the imagination to UNDERSTAND it.

If there is wisdom in this world, it won't come from the thinking of blasted-out Europe. It will be somewhere in the thoughts of the Reagans and even the Bushes. It is only when they listen to the Voices of Shrewd that they screw up.