THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

RON PAUL AND ROBERT TAFT | 2012-01-30

Summer in South Carolina in 1952 was hot. So we listened to the Republican Convention outside on our car radio. Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, who would die the following year of cancer, was neck and neck with Dwight Eisenhower.

Have you ever noticed how the establishment always wins the close ones? In 1976 President Ford won a very similar squeaker against Reagan. Taft had been the conservative candidate in 1040, 1944, and 1948, and each time the establishment beat him and put in a semi-Democratic candidate.

Taft represented a point of view which disappeared altogether with his death. He had opposed extreme interventionism in the European War, and he opposed extended American commitments against Communism.

Actually, what he opposed was what I repeatedly called "military welfarism," a term which is now for the first time being used.

You should y now take it for granted that the same Eisenhower who used the term "military-industrial establishment" was its greatest architect. He wanted American troops on European soil supplied by American taxpayers using weapons made by American industry .

In 1959, when Europe was on its feet industrially, Eisenhower renewed the old post-War contract that drafted American troops at American expense to go to Europe and protect them. By then Western Europe's economy and its population outstripped the Soviet Union.

But by 1959, with Taft's death, the Republicans Party upheld military welfarism as part of its Potemkin Patriotic policy.

Ron Paul is considered a real kook for saying that country which is collapsing under debt should not get into war after war.

Paul is throwback, but a very legitimate throwback.

DR. JENNER AND MANTRA THINKING | 2012-07-21

I have trouble instantly coming up with examples. But a very good example of "Why is this information produced?" occurred to me.

We used to say that the fashion industry was run by queers. This was one of those Lowah Clahss remarks that was not true. Then came AIDS. The fashion makers were nearly wiped out.

Then, about twenty years ago, Barbara Walters started talking about "Why is it that gay men especially have such talent when it comes to designing?" If she had said that twenty years before, she would have been a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. But after the AIDS epidemic, it was no longer a question about who were designers.

So the information manufactured had to be "Yes, gays ARE the fashion industry. So why are they so GIFTED?"

If you find white men dominating, the required discussion is how they are discriminating to keep out non-whites.

We all KNOW that. But I can't even get BUGS people to THINK that way.

Ok, what would a consistently well-paid have said on the same subject in the 1960s, before AIDS?

I can tell you exactly. He would give a smirk and say "I know what the Lowah Class says about how it's all queers in the fashion industry."

Then he would announce that "They did a study and found that fashion has the lowest percentage of homosexuals of almost anything>"

I heard them say it!

Repeatedly!

But it is very frustrating that YOU don't think that way. Instead of Mantra type insights I get too many lectures about how society works and names and stuff.

Another example. In the story of Doctor Jenner and vaccination, it always begins with "Everybody had long seen that cow milking maids didn't get smallpox."

Let me repeat that: "Everybody had long seen that cow milking maids didn't get smallpox."

Let me repeat that: "Everybody had long seen that cow milking maids didn't get smallpox."

George Washington was stricken sterile by the same smallpox that killed his brother. Academic medicine bled him to death when he got pneumonia.

A major portion of each generation was hideously marked by smallpox. Millions died of it.

And everybody knew that "Cow milking maids didn't get smallpox."

The did not know that people who read Galen could cure it. They didn't know that a person who read Greek and could cast your astrological chart could cure it.

"Everybody had long seen that cow milking maids didn't get smallpox."

Could somebody PLEASE get off explaining The State of the World to me and tell me what is wrong in the sentences above?

BASICS: SOCIETIES ARE RACIAL | nationalsalvation.net

According to every selective breeding theory about humanity, the Middle East should have the greatest geniuses on earth. The top man was allowed to have four wives and before that any number of concubines. The best genes would have proliferated, the way they do in the animal kingdom in most social animals, where dominant males have herds of females.

I do not think that anyone can look at the societies where harems and concubinage proliferated and detected a Master Race there. But all the theories that say that society is just a bunch of individuals with Family Values, the Work Ethics, and high IQ's would find all the geniuses there.

Not only is that not the case, NONE of the geniuses in those countries stands a chance.

Before we butterfly off this base, let's take a look at how BASIC this is. Let us see it CONCEPTUALLY. Building societies on individuals has been tried. It has not only failed, it has been history's main disaster. One Chinese designer of computer ware may be a useful citizen, but China as a society, without white CONCEPTS, is a stagnant ant heap.

A melting-pot building on individual qualities is not only not successful, it is catastrophic. If there were a single society where it worked, the Bell Curve would tell you it would have a hundred times as many geniuses as any other country.

One more time: It is not that this just didn't WORK. It was, in every single case, a catastrophe.

It doesn't matter how a society respected personal merits to the detriment of being WHITE, the result was ALWAYS a catastrophe.

I want some concepts as to WHY that is true. There are a million people getting paid to prove that it isn't. Nobody spends that kind of money trying to disprove and outlaw something unless it is an almost impossible job.

THE EVIL WHITAKER RETURNS | 2001-02-24

On September 2, 2000 I wrote an article entitled ONLY AN EVIL PERSON WOULD SAY WHAT WE ALL KNOW ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. It began it with these words: "So I will."

Watching Clinton moving in to a hero's welcome in Harlem, I do not hear anybody else speaking out loud about another fact that we all know. Once again, only an Evil Man would dare bring it up.

Blacks are the bedrock of Clinton support. Clinton is a corrupt man. But the fact no one mentions is that the overwhelming majority of the black population never hesitates to support corrupt people.

Remember Mayor Marion Barry, who was Mayor of Washington when he was convicted on drug charges? He was then overwhelmingly reelected Mayor of Washington. This is one of many examples where the overwhelming majority of the black electorate simply will not throw out the crooks.

The fact is that black countries and black portions of the United States are wretchedly governed by the officials they elect.

Robert Novak actually said that Home Rule in Washington is a failure. Everybody knows that. But every other jurisdiction in America has home rule. The big difference between DC and all the others is that the Washington electorate is black.

Normally, condemning DC Home Rule would therefore make Novak anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

But DC's Home Rule is costly to rich people, bureaucrats and media types. To liberals, these are the only real human beings. So Novak can get away with saying something they all know is true.

At the same time that he says that DC Home Rule is a failure, Novak also declares that there is something wrong with a Republican Party that isn't attracting enough of this wise and right-thinking black electorate.

Repeating that ritual nonsense helps preserve Novak's respectability.

The July 17, 1999 article, RACIAL PROFILING IS THE FAULT OF BLACK CRIMINALS, explained why my sort of Evil Speech is necessary. If innocent blacks are not to be unfairly targeted for police suspicion, they will have to start blaming black criminals for their predicament. Until then, they are simply excusing the real culprits.

So, should a Hate Crimes Commission arrest me and maybe Bob Novak for racial heresy?

You can either go to that logical extreme or you can encourage people to talk about unpleasant realities. We can either do what we do now, and refer to blacks as a wise electorate that must be appealed to, or we can demand that the erring majority of black voters start to think and vote like adults.

Blacks are certainly right when they say whites in general have white supremacist attitudes, but they don't want to face what that really means. What it really means is that whites think that blacks CANNOT become politically mature. Liberals and respectable conservatives insist that such a demand is cruel and unusual, and that the mass of blacks is simply incapable of doing any better.

So when Colin Powell tells Republicans that they must cooperate with the present black "leaders," he is saying that they cannot do better. When Republicans say they must "appeal to black voters" by abandoning principles and intelligent policy, they are demonstrating the most white supremacist of attitudes.

Since I am an official Evil Man, my attitudes are probably white supremacist. So maybe the unspoken attitude is correct. Maybe the mass of blacks can't grow up, and should be accepted as permanent political juveniles.

But we should refuse to give black voters any slack in our demand that they grow up politically before they are accepted politically.