THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

WHERE ARE ALL THOSE MEXICANS? | 2000-11-11

Do you remember Bush's Mexican Convention, the one that included the first speech to a national convention in Spanish? Do you remember all those Hispanic voters who were going to turn out and give California to Bush?

Nobody else does either. For a while there, the media could speak of nothing but the coming wave of Mexican votes for Bush. But when the real election day approached, everybody forgot about it.

So who gets credit for the increased Republican presidential vote? The answer, said the media, was a group to which the networks have given a brand new name. I saw it splashed across the screen on network TV.

They called it "The White Christian Right." Sounds like the Klan, doesn't it?

What a coincidence.

It is the first time I had ever seen that label. Apparently it was conjured up just for Election Night. I forget whether it was used by CBS or CNN. Or both.

But it turns out that the Mexicans did not pour out to give the "inclusive" Republican Party their support.

The reason Bush did so well, said the media, was because he got over 90% of this "White Christian Right," while his father and Dole had gotten less than 80% of it. In other words, after selling out for all those minority votes and liberal votes, Bush got a basic Republican vote, and little else. It was his gestures toward conservatism that won for him.

Once again, this was the opposite of what the media predicted.

The press called Bush's post-South Carolina campaign, "The Bob Jones Redemption Tour." As always, they said he had to go left and win all those Hispanics who were just panting to support him in California.

But in the end, it was his rightward shift to win South Carolina away from McCain that saved his base for him.

The press -- always unanimously -- gave an equally absurd analysis of why Republicans lost California. It was, they said, because Republicans had earlier sponsored popular initiatives to take public services away from illegal aliens and to abolish bilingual education. Both those initiatives won overwhelming majorities in California. But the media unanimously agree that the Mexicans who were against them on those initiatives would have voted for Bush this time if Republicans hadn't sponsored them.

Let's translate this into English. The media declares that the people who embrace bilingual education are natural Republicans. They say that the kind of Hispanics who are more worried about their illegal brethren than they are about American taxpayers would actually have trooped over to Republicanism this time.

It's insane when you state it that plainly, but all the media agree on it.

It's weird how liberals can state the most insane propositions, but they only look as ridiculous as they are when somebody translates them into straight talk. And if a conservative spoke plain English, he couldn't be respectable, so the liberals get away with it.

NEW RADIO PROGRAMS | 2006-03-29

Kelso tells me that my Radio Stormfront broadcasts since February 24 wwill soon ge on my Audio Archives site at whitakeronline.org

You can go to whitakeronline.org and hit Audio Archives or go directly to:

http://www.whitakeronline.org/townhall.htm

In either case, I will probably have to remind Kelso again before they go up.

Ther is always a real problem not repeating myself but makijng sure that each of my statements is a tight weave with the others.

I am trying to provide a consistent way of thinking. You can't do that without being somewhat repetitious.

As an interrogator, I found out one basic rule: when someone talks about others, he tells you all about himself. The most obvious example of this is people who talk about the time about Hate as a motivation. Hate is the complete explanation for someone's attitude, but only if you are the kind of person for whom hate is a motivator.

Many a time I have listened say "It's not about hte MONEY" half a dozen times in the space of five minutes.

The obvious conclusion is that it is at least partially about the money.

My latest program, "The Product Called Information" is along the same lines.

People seem to think that shirts and potatoes are produced byt he amretk, whereas information is somehow objectively and spontaneously the produce of an objective desire for truth.

Information is a product, like any other product.

If you do not understand that a person who left to talk is really telliung you all about himself, you will not understand that information is product. And if you don't understand that information is a product, you know nothing about how to get and sift the data you receive.

Some years ago an Australian couple, he white she Chiese, did a study on newborns. They "swaddled" them, that is, they tied them down. The Orienta; babaies consistently strugled a while and then yielded tot he inevtiable, which is exactly the stereotype of an Oriental. The white babies just kept on fighting.

I am sure many a Russian baby died in swaddling, but it was considered a necessity in a land ruled by Orientals.

Now, you say, that is very interesting. But there was no follow-up study.

If you have to ask why, I am not sure I can explain it to you.

All studies conducted on grants always conclude that the races are the same.

To put t his down on the level where an imbecile or a college professor can understand, anything that doesn't back Political Correctness does not get financed.

For once I am being unfair to professors. Anybody who succeeds in academia knows this going in.

So Political Correctness has a backup. When a study like that Australian one comes up, they ask "Has that study been confirmed?"

That study has not been repeated. No one would be allowed to repeat it. This is not just a matter of financing one more study, which would be impossible. It is also the fact that if your university repeats that study at its own expens you will find the grants closed to you in every OTHER area as well.

"These are not reliable people." "Why are they repeating this study at their own expense if they nothing to prove, a Special Agenda?"

Ther Secret Agenda is that they are naziswhowanttokillsixmilli0njews.

But nobody has to explain all that. The study came out wrong and it will not be repeated, for reasons everybody in academia knows are obvious.

If you don't already know this, I wonder what world you are living in.

And if you are living in another world, I can't really explain anything to you.

FOLLOW THE REAL MONEY | 2010-08-03

People love to recite Wise Sayings. But they seldom apply them to the real world.

"Follow the money" is pretty obvious, and when someone wants to impress you he can trace imaginary money through Swiss banks to financing Evil. He is fully convinced that a vice president who already has several hundred million dollars has no interest in power for its own sake, but just wants to make more for the oil company he partially owns.

They will Follow the Money around the world but never across the street. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have never made a dime anywhere but in supporting causes. Our president is one of them.

But the flow of money in this case never gets a word.

You can see it everywhere. You can see National Review replacing the World Communist threat with a World Arab Threat. You can see all the tens of thousands of people who made their livings as Friends of Peace, i.e., of the Communists, instantly transformed into Environmentalists.

But no one mentions it. They want to discuss the "frame of mind" that makes a person go from one cause to another.

In the real world, the people in the Save the Whales, if they had a job before, generally had a job saving something or, as Obama's resume only says, "social activist."

The Left doesn't denounce common sense statements like this. It ignores them.

If you want to make a living as a respectable conservative, you follow the guidelines set down by the establishment media. As the first publisher of National Review for over thirty years, William Rusher said, "The staff of National Review doesn't believe anything until it is published in the New York Times."

So there are no articles about how people who are now middle aged and have never made a living outside of activism make a living.

But this is pure Follow the Money. If you read the articles, it is as if these people existed on air.

Which makes so much absolutely clear, in fact obvious, to me that which seems so strange for people who are looking for the Latest Conspiracy or the Big Excitement.

In 1994, the House of Representatives went Republicans for the first time in forty years, during which its leadership kept wisely saying, "The votes are in the middle of the road."

In fact, the House had been controlled by the Democrats for all but four years since 1931.

Its Republicans leadership gave regular lectures on How to Win Elections by Being Moderate.

There were about fifteen thousand Democratic House employees, in Washington and in the District. About ten thousand lost their jobs.

Where did they go? Damned few went where the computer specialists went when that industry collapsed, to MacDonald's or Wendy's. They retired or got jobs in the same industry in the same city.

This is the only place you will hear those thousands mentioned as a political factor, because this is following the money across town rather than around the world.

JAMES BOND, THE BRITISH CLASS SYSTEM AND INTERRACIAL COUPLING | 2003-06-21

The latest James Bond movie is famous because of its co-star. She is black and she is the girlfriend of the white James Bond.

When they want a white person to do a first in interracial coupling, they do it with an English white person and an American black. The first time a white girl was shown in a romantic scene with a black on American television, the couple was Harry Belafonte and English singer Petula Clark.

James Bond in the person of Roger Moore was the first white man to kiss a black girl in a major movie. As far back as the 1950s every single newspaper had a picture of the queen of England dancing with the black president of newly independent Ghana.

British accents often front for leftists in America.

The media has long had a desperate shortage of liberal radio talk show hosts. They used to have a guy with a British accent who, like a good little Englishman, repeated every conceivable liberal cliché with a perfectly straight face.

Another Englishman, Christopher Hitchens, was the token Marxist on American television. But be made a fortune on Public Television and is becoming too American now in his political opinions. They might have to find another Englishman to front for the nut left in America.

I think the reason for this use of Englishmen for interracial couplings and liberal clichés is that an American who did it would be laughed at. But, for an American, an Englishman is one step removed from reality.

The Queen of England wants anybody in the old British Commonwealth to be able to come to England. A peasant, she says, is a peasant, no matter what "colour" he might be. Anybody who is loyal to the Queen, says the Queen, is as English as anybody else who is loyal to the Queen, and has just as much right to live on that cold little island as someone who was born there. So the Queen is everything because of how she was born. A white Englishman is nothing because of how he is born.

The modern Englishman eats that up.

The English do not discriminate. To be able to tell one thing from another is one meaning of the word "discriminate."

Truly, the trendy Englishman does not discriminate. That makes him the perfect shill for American leftists.