THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

THIS IS CRITICAL, PLEASE READ IT: THE MEDIA "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE REAL MIDDLE | 2001-06-09

If you know real electoral history, you know that the "middle of the road" theory doesn't WORK.

Look at Congress. If "middle of the road" worked in real elections, most people actually elected to Congress would be middle of the roaders. But in the real world, in both houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of people actually elected are solidly liberal or solidly conservative.

In real world presidential elections, as the last article pointed out, when Republicans go middle of the road, they don't just get beat, they get stomped.

But the "middle of the road" theory sounds so logical it seems like common sense. We picture the political spectrum as two-dimensional: liberals are on the left and conservatives are on the right. If you look at the world that way, most voters must be moderates.

In a left-right view of politics, the "middle of the road" strategy seems obvious. It always convinces Republican pinheads.

Ladies and gentlemen, if what seems obvious from your picture of the world doesn't ever WORK, then there is something wrong with your picture of the world.

My first book was dedicated to showing that real American politics is not just between conservatives and liberals. As I explained in some 60,000 words, there are two more political positions: 3) that of the moderates and 4) that of the people. The moderates and the people are as opposite as are liberals and conservatives.

Liberals accuse professional conservatives of representing big business and big military expenditures, the "military-industrial complex." They are perfectly correct about that.

But in my first book, I explained in detail how liberals represent an even bigger establishment, an even bigger power group than the military-industrial complex. This is what I call the education-welfare complex.

The education-welfare establishment is bigger by far than the military-industrial complex. What is more important in political terms is that every dime the education-welfare establishment spends, every iota of power it has, is the direct result of political decisions. Its power and almost all of its money depends directly on political leftism.

For the above reason, the education-welfare establishment is more politically ruthless than is the military-industrial complex. There are some liberal generals and leftist businessmen. But on college campuses, ALL opposition is crushed and silenced. No matter which way politics goes there will be a military and businessmen will make a profit. But the government's education-welfare establishment is completely dependent on government programs that don't WORK.

The education-welfare establishment lives almost entirely on liberal politics.

So liberals say conservatives just represent the military-industrial complex. Conservatives say liberals don't care about the people, they just care about bureaucrats and liberal theories.

My first book stated that THEY ARE BOTH PERFECTLY CORRECT.

The title of that book was A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES.

This shows that the two-dimensional theory of politics, with only the left and the right, is dead wrong. There are

1) liberals, who represent the education-welfare establishment and,

2) conservatives, who represent the military-industrial complex.

BUT THERE ARE TWO MORE POLES

3) moderates, who represent a compromise between those two establishments, and there are

4) the true populists, whose primary concern is "We, the People of the United States of America" They feel that "The People" should dedicate themselves to the interests of"Ourselves and OUR Posterity."

In other words, the true populist position is a direct quote from the Preamble to the United States Constitution.

Most of the positions of group 4) have been declared unconstitutional.

If you want a perfect illustration of four poles, look at immigration: 1) liberals want open borders because it brings in blindly obedient leftist voters from the third world. They will vote for things that sound good but don't work. THAT IS THE MAIN REASON THEIR PART OF THE WORLD IS SO POOR ITS PEOPLE HAVE TO LEAVE.

On the other hand, a massive influx of cheap labor is great for short-term profits, which is what 2) big business, is concerned with.

In the long run, massive third world immigration will make America a third-world country, and 4), the people, don't want that.

But no one is more fanatically pro-immigration than 3), a "middle of the roader."

Moderates and the courts have declared that any discrimination between "We the People" or "Ourselves and Our Posterity" on the one hand, and illegal aliens on the other is directly contrary to the United States Constitution.

Why? Because the moderate represents a THIRD POSITION. The moderate is halfway between the military-industrial complex and the education-welfare establishment. On immigration, both establishments want open borders, so moderates want open borders.

In other words, the moderate is the exact opposite of the interests of the people. That is why both conservatives and liberals love them and court them. That is also why the people don't vote for "middle of the roaders."

The big example of a "shift in the middle of the road" right now is Jeffords leaving the Republicans. But, if Senator Jeffords of Vermont is the middle of the true American road, why doesn't Jeffords represent a big, representative electorate?

Vermont is so tiny that it only has one representative. Vermont's only congressman is also the only outright socialist in the Congress of the United States. Like Jeffords, he calls himself an Independent and votes with the Democrats.

Vermont is supposed to represent the true American "middle of the road," but it is actually a tiny, isolated stronghold of New England Yuppie Yankee leftism. So how in heaven's name does the media get away with calling Vermont the typical American electorate?

Yankee leftism sounds like the middle of the road to conservatives and liberals because they have a two-dimensional view of the electorate. That doesn't just make them wrong. That makes their whole political outlook insane.

OBSERVATION | 1998-11-14

The excuse for refusing to submit military action to a declaration of war is that things move too fast these days. Nobody has noticed that that is absolutely untrue. In the old days, fighting could have been going on for days or weeks before a declaration of war could be made. We are all aware that the Battle of New Orleans was fought two weeks after the War of 1812 had already ended.

The real situation is exactly the opposite. The congress can be assembled, fully informed, within the day of any incident. It is easier, not harder, to formally declare congressional support for a military action. People are used to hearing the word "faster" in connection with modern technology, so as soon as someone says this is an excuse for not consulting congress, our mindless political commentators, and our mindless people, accept the word without any thought.

It isn't true, that's all.

CRACKING THE WHIP | 2005-01-29

One doesn't reason with animals because they aren't capable of reason. Human beings are. That is why words are important. Words must have fixed meanings if rational communication is to occur.

How could you ever build a bridge or even bake a cake if the number 4 sometimes meant 17, sometimes 3? How can you have a rational conversation with words used as weapons to bludgeon people as if they were animals?

Real Christians are bound to live by the same standard they apply to everyone else. Jesus summed it up in the "Golden Rule."

The religion called Political Correctness has no fixed standard. It grows at the whim of its priesthood, just as the Roman Caesars claimed godhood and unlimited authority, and created laws on a whim. The Christians were persecuted because they disputed the right of the Caesars to do so. The Romans didn't care what gods anyone worshipped in private, as long as they recognized Caesar's godlike authority in temporal matters.

The professor-priesthood of the religion of Political Correctness doesn't even stop at that. They want to dig into everyone's private thoughts. Where are they willing to draw the line?

They have created a monster, which feeds off the innocence of college students and the enormous taxes and tuitions siphoned out of the public. They use words as mere weapons to beat down any opposition.

Look at how fearful one of the students in the documentary was of being branded a "racist" in his permanent record. Look at what the school administration was calling racist. He was posting fliers with the title of a Black author's book. He didn't make it up.

"Conservatives" try to be respectable, ingratiating themselves to the left. They praise MLK, condemn "racism," and talk about "real diversity." When you accept the premises of Political Correctness by accepting their language and morality, you are on a very slippery slope. In fact, you've already lost the battle.

WORDISM: SEA CHANGE | nationalsalvation.net

Look, gang, our entire world, the world we are trying to save, was referred to collectively as Christendom until very recently, when Political Correctness became our established religion.

For over a thousand years non-white invasions were few and far between. Most of us never even saw a nonwhite. So we killed each other wholesale over commentaries or dogmas about one book.

Today, modern Christianity is just self-hate. Today, Judaism is just self-pity.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that Communism was just a perversion of Christianity.

A sea change has occurred. Our world is now RACIAL, and very few people can't FEEL this. Nonwhites are deluging our world. We sit here fighting each other over the correct versions of a BOOK.

Let me give an admission that is also an illustration. Someone will point out correctly that I have been guilty of this same mistake. So instead of hearing my point, he will be arguing over whether I am complaining about our fighting over the interpretation of a book while I am complaining about arguing over an interpretation of a book.

So, instead of uniting for our race, we will be arguing over WHETHER somebody is arguing over a book.

The perversions of Christianity are only vital to me and to Stormfront to the extent that they help destroy our RACE.

This is NOT a CHURCH.

Our self-hatred is the result of a perversion of our old faith - the new one is PC.

Our dedication to sterility is a perversion of our old faith. Our divisions are traceable to perversions of the old faith.

Today we say the color of the skin doesn't matter, all that matters if that you BELIEVE in socialism or libertarianism. But that goes right back to the fact that arguing over loyalty to BOOKS is an integral part of our history.

People argue that the color of the skin does not matter is someone is a "good person."

This comes directly from our old obsession about whether someone was a SINNER or not.

That is a big matter if you are trying to join a CHURCH, not whether you are trying to save our race.