THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

ACCORDING TO ALL OF TODAY'S CONSERVATIVE SPOKESMEN, MCAIN IS RIGHT -- LOYALTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS TREASON TO TRUE AMERICANISM | 2001-07-14

Pro-immigration people always equate resistance to open borders with racism. They say that there is no room in America for whites who worry about white people. The natural corollary to this is that there is no room here for Americans who worry about Americans.

According to Lincoln and McCain, Americans have no more right to be here than anybody else. This is a nation of immigrants. So good whites are not loyal to whites, good Americans are not loyal to Americans. Both must only be concerned with all races and all nationalities.

ON THE OTHER HAND, liberals and conservatives agree that non-whites are naturally concerned about the well-being and the fate of their own kind. It is logical that the same principle would apply to good Americans.

To be a non-racist, you can't be pro-white. To be a good American, you cannot be especially concerned about Americans.

But if your loyalty is to something which is either non-white or non-American, other rules apply. For example, "Hispanic" refers to an official minority. It requires fealty to a culture based outside the United States.

It follows, as McCain said, that American Hispanics should be loyal only to their own race and culture.

This is no contradiction if the required definition of a non-racist white person is correct.

This is the inevitable logic of the Gettysburg Address. Liberals and conservatives have repeatedly agreed that America is a Melting Pot united only by paper. They agree that this the basis of Holy Diversity. This, they tell us, is True Americanism.

So McCain says that an American of Hispanic origin should be loyal to the people of his real race and his real culture, not to the American people.

Unless we change our present definitions of racism and Americanism, he is perfectly correct.

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: WHITES REALIZE THEY ARE A THREATENED MINORITY | 2000-01-01

I had difficulty deciding what to write for the millennium WOL, because I write every piece for the new century. The reason I write here is because I am a veteran of over four decades of real political warfare, and the war, not yesterday's battle, is my area of expertise.

The issue that will be the most important in the future is invariably the one today's establishment is most desperate to avoid talking about. Today, that issue is race.

For a short time during the integration battle in the 1950s, liberals kept saying that we had to integrate because whites were outnumbered. They pointed out that colored children were being born in ratios of at least five to one to whites throughout the world. That line of argument stopped abruptly. Liberals suddenly realized that if they kept it up, some whites might realize the real position they were in in the world.

Though few people are aware of it, this is the effect the shrinking of the world through technology is having on a lot of people. Most people are more tolerant racially, but at the same time the idea that whites have a right to feel threatened is growing.

In the long run, a victorious political strategy is one that takes what everybody knows is true and sticks to it, letting the other side discredit itself. The ruling establishment, such as that which enforces Political Correctness today, can always be counted on to rely more and more on brute power and intimidation. That is what destroys it.

One aspect of the leadership that wins in the Western world will be that it will simply talk rationally about race, as about everything else.

I have no trouble discussing white fears with real, flesh-and-blood members of minority groups. In the future, whites with normal concerns will want to be represented, and, once they are, it will become part of the routine political landscape.

I don't think you can imagine how it would cripple leftism if we were to simply make the point that white concerns are real and legitimate, and leave it at that. Right now, every conservative allows liberals to make them prove that they have no racial thoughts whatsoever. In short, they let the other side subject everybody to a Thought Crime accusation from the word "Go."

I have spent four decades as an expert on political warfare.

I tell you the right is doomed if they do not deal with this Thought Crime business. As long as the left has this "racism" weapon UNCHALLENGED in their hands, the right can only retreat.

OBSERVATION | 1999-05-08

NATO's bombing of Serb television makes it clear this is a liberal war. Normally, a television station is a civilian institution, and Clinton and his stooges declare they are only attacking military targets. But attacking Serb television is legitimate for a fascinating reason.

Serb television can be attacked because it LIES! That is EXACTLY what every liberal says. Naturally, CNN's pet conservative, Kate O'Beirne, immediately agreed.

No one, least of all respectable conservatives, said that Serb television, IN THE OPINION OF LIBERALS, lies. No, if liberals decide it lies, it needs to be bombed.

No respectable conservative would deny that.

This is a major escalation. Anyone liberals accuse of lying in Serbia is now a fair target of violence.

If liberals say you lie, you are a legitimate target of violence. This is a precedent that will come back to haunt us all.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, RACE MAY BE ABOUT SKIN COLOR | 2001-11-24

"Third World" is the code word for "colored" and we all know it.

There is a rich white world and a poor colored world. Every year thousands of academics are paid billions of dollars to pour out rivers of ink arguing that this is an accident.

I seriously doubt that deep down they or anybody else really believes this.

Meanwhile back on earth the color line is the line which divides lands that are high in infant mortality, hunger, disease, and poverty from the opposite. People of color all over the world are desperately trying to get into countries which have white-skinned majorities.

The only countries today that are both white and poor are those which until recently were Communist. That is to say that the only countries today that are white and poor were ruled by those same Leftist Intellectuals who now insist the color of the Third World is an accident.

Oddly enough, both liberals and the IQ-obsessed people liberals call racists agree that skin color means nothing. The Jensen-Herrnstein worshippers say that the color of the skin is really something that happens to overlap with IQ. They all agree that skin color is just superficial, and that something Deeper and More Profound is involved.

Meanwhile, I see a world in which reality is divided by skin color.

I suggest that what you see may well be what you get, which is why we have eyes in the first place.

White people do not have black skins and sickle cells in their blood as a defense against malaria as do blacks.

White people do not have the epicanthric eye folds that Mongoloids have. These are the eye folds that make their eyes look "squinted" -- "slant-eyed" -- to outsiders.

What whites do have is decoration. Whites have blond and red hair and different eye colors, which helped them compete with each other for mates. Unlike other races, whites developed less to compete with the environment and more to compete with each other.

I think that a race is white because it takes the climatic high ground. Other races developed to deal with extreme cold (Mongoloid) and extreme heat (the black races).