THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

JEWS: COME IN, WORLD | nationalsalvation.net

AFKAN just came up with a list of the great power Jews have, and says that proves they are THE Enemy on whom we must concentrate. Mr. Webb kept talking about how powerful the media were, and how hopeless it is to come up against them.

I seem to be the only person here who lived through the 1980s. The power that AFKAN ascribes to the Jews in the United States was paltry compared to the power the Soviet Empire had inside its borders. ALL criticism of government was banned, and the name of the tiny publications put out by starving Russians were called samizdat - "self-publications" - which were by definition illegal.

Now here is the important point: EVERY SINGLE professional Sovietologist absolutely agreed with AFKAN and Mr. Webb on this.

NOT ONE of the people we paid even hinted that the Soviet Empire would collapse in the last century. Even Science Fiction books by anti-Communists, like The Mote in God's Eye, predicted a permanent USSR.

PLEASE don't tell about that college professor you heard abut who predicted that collapse. He doesn't EXIST. If you discussed any internal collapse, every single expert would do what AFKAN and Webb do; they would just point at the power of Moscow and shout you off the stage.

That happened within my lifetime. That happened LESS than twenty years ago. In 1992, if Perot had not been a nutcase, the polls showed that he was out front and gaining. That was less than fifteen years ago.

So here we are again. The Knowledgeable Ones are explaining to me, AGAIN, that one group is very, very powerful, so "Resistance is Useless!"

And some bloggers STILL listen to them!

I've fought alone a long time. At least I now have SOME people with me.

AFKAN Replies to Bob:

The demonic Jews created and ruled the Soviet Union. Why do you suppose six of the seven oligarchs are Jewish? Why do you suppose that the Bolshevik Revolution destroyed all churches except one, but not a single synagogue was touched? How many of the Russian people died in the Gulag Archipelago, which was run by demonic Jews? How many of the Russian people died in World War II, solely in the pursuit of the JUDEO-Marxist dream of world domination through an international socialist order?

They may have lost for a season, but damn, it wasn't from lack of trying, including the ruthless methodical murder and torture of anyone who might conceivably pose a threat to them. Spengler predicted the collapse and transformation of Soviet Russia with awesome prescience. I think Yockey cited him in this as well in "The Enemy of Europe," if memory serves.

You are wrong about the professional Sovietologists. The CIA's own internal analysts looked at the necessity of importing food (which we sold our "enemy," staving off the foundation of all revolutions) and all manner of modern technology. The CIA's own internal assessment predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Their analysis was "massaged" under the Reagan leadership. After all, without the Soviet Bogeyman, how could the American people be kept in line in a country where the military/industrial/financial/political complex was concentrating more power, into fewer hands?

Remember, we built the (demonic Jew-controlled) Soviet Union. Anthony Sutton wrote an entire series of books laying this out in great detail. And the CIA's Internal Sovietologists knew it. The external Sovietologists would see the end of a lucrative profession, if their bread and butter was soon to recognize what it really was: "Russia," on the European side of the Urals, and mostly ice, desert, and Muslims for the rest.

What happened to the CIA's internal Sovietologists? The truth was simply bad for the business of the military/industrial complex. As well, the Reagan/Bush (mostly Bush) administration needed an external enemy to keep people's minds off their internal structural enemies. Remember 21% prime rates and the collapse of the real estate markets?

Incidentally, I met one of the CIA's Soviet Russia analysts at a conference concerning long-term energy prices and the net energy costs of extracting oil. He used the example of Siberian oil and how it made little sense from an energy perspective. Man, though, what it did to the forex reserves in Moscow. I think today, Moscow had no foreign debt, to speak of.

All of the election laws were rewritten after Perot to make damn sure it didn't happen again. Why do you think Buchanan did so poorly in the elections? He had the platform, he had the ideas, and he was systematically undermined from within at the State level. His platform even called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System.

What happened? Why can't David Duke get something going politically? Why is it that Channon Christian and Chris Newsom are kidnapped, raped, tortured by their racial enemies, and this - and so many events like it - do not make the news? Jewish control of the mainstream media - horrific race crimes committed against white people by our racial enemies become hush crimes.

Alex Linder is forming some sort of memorial service and a possible rally for Christian and Newson and against their and our racial enemies. I have no doubt you are a brilliant student of politics and human nature. Yet, Sam Francis was destroyed years before he died, Pat Buchanan couldn't get traction in the elections, and David Duke is neutralized at all points. See a pattern here?

We can start by supporting Linder's "feet in the street/boots on the ground" memorial, and I am sure he would welcome your suggestions. I am not a defeatist. I always say it is our power the demonic Jews are using against us. All we have to do it recognize this, and reclaim our power, a day at a time. While we can.

LIBERALISM IS NOT AN "ALTERNATIVE VIEW," IT IS INSANITY THAT WE MUST GROW OUT OF | 2001-05-05

Sane social policy can only be reached after we have gone through a horrible, costly, disastrous period of taking liberal policy seriously. So it was with crime and so it must be with black education.

Until we look at the old, insane leftist arguments as what they really are and reject them, we cannot return to sanity.

Most people now know how insane the old liberal policy on crime was. Criminals are not just victims of an evil society, as every liberal said in 1960. They must be punished for crime to be prevented.

On race policy, liberals still require conservatives to forget how insane their original justifications were. Policy in that area will remain a disaster as long as that denial persists.

Nothing liberals advocate ever WORKS. So liberals have to deal with constant failure, and they are used to it. They have several established ways of doing this.

First and foremost, liberals use respectable conservatives to make sure their repeated failures are never mentioned. In 1960, integration was supposed to get rid of what were then considered the incredibly high black rates of illegitimacy, drug use and crime. Now those 1960 black statistics are the average WHITE rates, and blacks are much, much worse off.

Blacks are better off now in some ways, such as pay. But their RATE of improvement in these areas was just as fast before integration and affirmative action policies were established.

So liberal policies are a disaster, as usual. But no conservative who does not want to be shrieked at and then ignored ever mentions such a thing.

The reason liberalism always fails is because it always violates common sense. One old common-sense saying was "one rotten apple spoils the barrel." Naturally, liberals sought to deal with those terrible black statistics by dumping the black students in wholesale with white students. The only result, as the old wisdom would have predicted, was that whites went down to black levels.

AIN'T WE GOT FUN! | 1998-09-12

Everybody else has on looks of outrage, sadness, and all the other praiseworthy emotions about the present presidential situation.

True to my absolutely classless tradition, I am having an absolute ball.

I have admitted fearlessly unto you that I have known Lake High for well over forty years. If that does not show a lack of class, I challenge anyone to tell me what does. But a joke Lake told sums up the present Clinton situation beautifully.

There was a professional con man who had taught his son all the tricks. One day, the little fellow asked his father, "Dad, is there ever a time when you should just tell the TRUTH?"

The father looked a bit taken aback, then he looked thoughtful. Finally he said, "Son, in a real pinch, ANY gimmick will do."

Thus spake William Jefferson Clinton.

Another classless remark: I LIKE Clinton. He is very much a Southerner. He is real trash, but he is the kind of trash I am used to. When he flew in the face of all the rules of politics and selected Al Gore for his Vice President, he gained a lot of loyalty from me.

They are both Southerners. They are Southern turncoats, but so is every other Southerner who is now a public figure. Clinton feels comfortable working with another Southerner, and I like that. When Al Gore went to Yale, he was a roommate of Tommy Lee Jones.

In these days, when the so-called conservative Southerners are every bit as anti-white as liberal ones, I fail to see the difference.

In the midst of the present flood of commentary, let me interrupt the chorus of conservative "DUHHs" to make a couple of simple points

First, no practicing addict to anything, be it alcohol or sex, should be president.

Secondly, the sexual harassment that occurred in the Oval Office had nothing to do with the consensual relationship between Bill and Monica. When any executive provides access in return for sex, it creates a hostile work environment for the OTHER, repeat OTHER, young women in the office. That is the harassment. It has nothing to do with the consensual relationship.

Now back to conservatives trying to contradict liberals who say it was a consensual relationship.

In Washington, I would always make points like that, which utterly destroyed the other side when they were made. But the conservatives always went right back to their "DUHHs." Their attitude toward me was once expressed beautifully, accurately, and I am not kidding here, in MAD Magazine: "Him smart. Me throw rocks."

I like Clinton's Southernness, but I DO hate liberals, and I am deeply and truly enjoying watching the total destruction Clinton's situation is causing liberalism. Even the press is talking about the libs' wild hypocrisy. The most amazing people are noticing that you simply cannot pry the truth out of these people with a corkscrew.

I said one thing to my brother Jon some months ago that is very important today. This Clinton thing has driven the first critical wedge between the American left and the national media

The national media is hard left, but if you understand it, you can do a lot with it. Back in 1982, Paul Weyrich discussed his astonishing success with the press in his article in The New Right Papers. He made the point that the media is made up of people, and the first thing you do in dealing with people is to figure out what they want from you.

Nobody gets along in the media if he is not a good liberal or one of the few thoroughly vetted and acceptable respectable conservatives. It is true that each person in the press is, ideologically, your dedicated enemy. He couldn't get there if he were anything else. But there is a huge mass of people there, and every single one of them is in front of you for a reason. They need news. They need a well-written press release that is highly quotable. If you write it well enough, they'll use your words entirely!

I was a new appointee in the Reagan Administration, for heaven's sake, and I got my picture and favorable coverage in the New York Times because I wrote a major part of the reporter's story for him! Paul Weyrich was born and bred up North, but he gave David Beasley his Orwell Award for demanding the removal of the Confederate flag.

I choose my friends well, gang! My smart remark to Jon came directly from listening carefully to Paul Weyrich's wisdom about the press. When the Administration struck out, it struck at Starr, but it also hit the media.

Everybody blames the press, but I noticed that this time the press took it personally. Maybe I noticed because I have dealt with them a long time. At the Voice of America, I was one of them briefly. It surprised me how badly they took it this time. I think that they were caught in a uniquely bad situation.

It is true that criticism of the press happens a lot, but it is always from only one predictable direction. They criticize the right, and are attacked from the right. They report something bad about a liberal politician, and he attacks them. If they criticize one group, that group says they're awful. This time, when the President jumped them for talking about the scandal, everybody either agreed with him or hid under the bed.

The press had to report the situation because that was what readers wanted to read about. Competition today is fiercer than ever, and they simply could not do the boring stuff and ignore the interesting story.

There was a time when the press could ignore anything it wanted to. Us older folks can remember when the network news ignored the burning down of major parts of cities all over America. People literally watched the news while they saw the smoke going up in their cities, and the press never said a word about it.

All good conservatives have forgotten that, but I haven't. Ask anyone over 55, and they'll remember it. I will never forget when one of the all powerful network anchors felt that the hundreds of thousands of letters of complaint required some kind of response. He complained that he had gotten all these demands, and in a clipped, angry voice, he read off the list of riots and burnings that had occurred THAT DAY.

When you hear the media commentators talking about the 1960's today, you can see that they are almost crying. Boy, those were the days! The three network bureaucracies had eliminated ALL opposition. They were absolute. They can't do that today. Even if they had wanted to, they couldn't have ignored the Clinton scandal. The fact that liberals refused to understand that hit home. NOBODY took the media's side in this.

Public opinion was four or five to one against them, saying that the people wanted to forget about sex and talk about social security, educational testing standards and other fascinating stuff. For once, the junk that people tell the pollsters, the same stuff that the press usually uses for their side, was used against the press.

The same people who would click the remote instantly the second the talk went from Paula Jones to national educational testing were saying they had had enough of scandal. And while they talked about Clinton, none of Clinton's opponents said a word. Good old conservative cowardice usually makes them smile weakly and say the press is fair. Usually conservative cowardice works for the press. Now it made conservatives tacitly back Clinton.

Everybody, on every side, was against the press, and the press could not do a damned thing about it. They can dish out abuse, but they are FAMOUS for not being able to take it. This time they had to take it month after month after month. The press got its butt kicked, and liberals are spending the last bit of moral capital they have left.

Ain't we got fun? Let me add, that right now Clinton is having the most exciting illicit relationship of his life. That is how addicts behave, gang.

OBSERVATION | 1999-05-15

On the "Talk Back Live" segment I discuss below, Professor John Lott of the University of Chicago made a point we should tell EVERYBODY about. Arguing against Clinton's knee-jerk demand for more gun control, he explained how a recent "save-the-children" gun control law had worked out.

In Mississippi, a student started shooting people in school. One of the faculty had a gun permit, and he had a gun in his car. But the car was over a thousand feet from the school, as required by the new Federal law. While people died, he had to run all the way to the car and get the gun, bring it back, and subdue the shooter with it.

As Lott pointed out, this man was a genuine hero. And, as always when a private citizen uses a gun to do a heroic deed, the press ignored his act of heroism completely.

The press ignored him, and that means respectable conservatives ignored him, too. Lott mentioned this hero and another in Pennsylvania who used a gun to subdue a school shooter. Have you heard about them from any conservative? Do you ever expect to hear about them from any respectable conservative on any talk show?

Are we all clear now on the function respectable conservatives get paid to perform?

No one who is going to kill people in a school is going to worry about the law against having a gun within a thousand feet of the school. Only this law abiding hero obeyed that law, and it cost lives. This is the only incident where this law has had any known effect.

Lott is the professor who did the University of Chicago study which demonstrated that the passage of a "right to carry" law leads to an IMMEDIATE decrease in the crime rate. As I explained last week, this is the sort of information that embarrasses liberals, so respectable conservatives never bring it up. (See May 8 article, "Armed Switzerland and the Colorado Shootings.")