THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

archives
articles

BASICS: THE PROPHET OF DOOM IS AS SILLY AS ANY OTHER PROPHET | nationalsalvation.net

I don't KNOW the future.

If you want to just make static here, you can declare that things like my suggestion that Indians MIGHT want Aryan babies is nonsense. You could argue that the Soviet Empire would have collapsed, Reagan or not. I call them as I SEE them, and when I don't think I SEE them, I don't call them.

As I KEEP pointing out, a Prophet of Doom is as silly as any other self-declared Prophet, but while everybody laughs at ever OTHER self-declared Prophet, the Prophet of Doom is NEVER laughed at. It may come from the same place that our absolute worship of stone-faced Chinese and American Indians who babble crap and do nothing comes from.

If you have a frown on your face, people take you seriously. Since Prophets of Doom have no better track record than any other prophets - take a look at the famous predictions of 1900 of what couldn't be done by top people - the only explanation is the Chinese one.

The East Indian/Aryan thing was simply a random example trying to get your head out of the latest newspaper. I don't argue it because it isn't my POINT. My POINT is that things will make up the future that sound absurd right now.

No Sovietologist lost a penny by being dead wrong about the future of the USSR. Nobody in intelligence lost anything by 9/11. I am alone in that I CARE about what will happen, not just about my next paycheck and a reputation.

NO ONE ELSE has talked about the GENERAL conflict between science and social science. You are a specialist in one or the other. But the simple fact is that you can't predict the future I you are a specialist. Specialists ALWAYS get blindsided. But it also never costs them anything, so that is not going to change.

One commenter put it perfectly: We are going to have to learn to THINK.

Someone asked me about general guidelines from me about comments I wouldn't bitch about. I can't think of any. Mark is bitching at me right now. I have no idea what he is getting at. I will bitch at you from time to time. If you have a point to make, you just have to live with it.

The points I just made strike me as important. Mark will ignore them and continue whatever jag he is on. Others will concentrate on what Mark is saying.

I'll just go ahead and make my points.

I might as well keep talking to myself here.

As I discussed in an ignored article, our previous problem was that we had to settle for organizing the masses, since the top of the idea chain was carefully protected at Harvard and in New York. Now the top of the idea chain is literally at our fingertips.

This changes EVERYTHING.

Someone dealt with my article Pro-White Collaborators on Stormfront with the reasonable suggestion that a real history of the pro-white movement be written. But that won't do it PRECISELY because of what I just mentioned. All the sex appeal is in Torch Light Parades a la Hitler or the forty thousand Klansmen marching in DC in 1927.

Trying to describe the importance of the intra-conservative battle which led to the "Wallace" vote becoming the Reagan Democrats and therefore to the end of the Soviet Empire holds no place in history compared to "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

In the American media, the emphasis is on shouting enemy victories and minimizing our wins. All the Torchlight Parade stuff is THEIRS.

No, a history won't do it, because a history of events has very little to do with a history of real power.

History and predicting the future have this same problem. In order for there to be a book on the future, somebody has to PAY for it. The whole field of Futurology has no connection to the future at all. Successful futurologists are people who get money and fame for predicting what people who have money and who buy books and who grant academic titles TODAY want to hear and deem reasonable.

The future is NEVER what people today deem reasonable. Least of all is the future ever what people in power and money TODAY deem reasonable.

I don't KNOW what the future holds.

I do know that every Tough, Practical Man would have said in 1980, "So the whole Soviet Empire is just going to fold up and go away? Don't be RIDICULOUS!"

In 1980, you would find out about the future of the Soviet Union by talking to a Sovietologist. Not one of them predicted anything like what happened. That is because Sovietologists concentrate on getting PAID, not on predicting the REAL future.

The end of the Soviet Union was being determined inside the minority party, getting them to go for the "Wallace" vote. How in Heaven's name could a professional historian or Futurologist or Sovietologist whose JOB depends on ignoring anything outside of Harvard and New York, POSSIBLY have a clue about THAT?

This is an example of how making a living predicting the future makes one absolutely helpless in the fact of the REAL future. The strategy Reagan used to bring down the Soviets had been publicly discussed among paleoconservatives for decades. Burnham talked about it for years in National Review.

Reagan found his Last Straw for the Soviet camel in the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI. Senator Kennedy called it "Star Wars." He never knew how close he was. SDI was invented by a SCIENCE FICTION WRITER, Larry Niven, in a conference Reagan had with science fiction writers.

Why would an incoming president have a conference with people no PAID "intellectual" would take seriously?

Because Reagan did not need someone to organize a torchlight parade. He needed people who could THINK. He did NOT need more people who knew how to say what they could get PAID for in the Fashionable Opinion market place.

In other words, a history of pro-white victories wouldn't do the job because most pro-whites wouldn't recognize a victory when they SAW one.