THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

LAW: AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS | nationalsalvation.net

A white farmer in Zimbabwe died recently from head injuries from an attack on him and his family while he was practically the only white farmer trying to hold onto his land in the Zimbabwe court system.

Other white farmers just left when the government took and divided up their land. His wife and children, some badly injured, are limping out of the country with the rest of the whites who settled there generations ago.

This incident reminds me of the summation of the Dred Scot Decision of 1857, which was "A black man has no rights under the (US) Constitution that a white man need respect." A white man has no rights under the present Zimbabwe Constitution that a black man need respect.

U.S, law specifically denies refugee status to any white person in South Africa no matter how he is treated.

Under US immigration law, no South African white has any rights that a black South African need respect.

US immigration law states that Africa is for the Africans.

The Thirteenth Amendment only says that slavery was illegal. It freed the slaves, which was a big deal at the time.

A VERY big deal at the time.

From December, 1965 to July of 1868, the status of blacks under the Dred Scot Decision was the official Federal position. The fourteenth amendment's ratification was false, but the fact of the matter I that, after July 20, 1868, when Seward declared it was ratified, it was ENFORCED.

All bullshit aside, the United States Constitution consists of what is ENFORCED. When the Federal Courts decided in 1834 that a major part of Georgia still belonged to the Indians, President Jackson said "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let it ENFORCE it."

And that was the end to the Indians' claim to half of Georgia, an area as large as ALL of South Carolina.

There is a Whitakerism here, a point that is so absolutely part of our thinking that it is unnoticed.

No one will notice the basic point. People will be scurrying to Google to argue whether the land involved was the number of square miles I have specified. They will ignore the reality:

The Courts have not changed their ruling since 1834. They have accreded the fact that, in the end, all that matters is what President Jackson chose to ENFORCE.

Indian tribes have been given many, many MANY concessions, especially under Political Correctness. But, since 1834, Indian tribes have no rights under the Constitution that white people MUST respect.

FONDA'S APOLOGY | 2000-07-29

Wordist thinking made liberals feel free during the Vietnam War not just to criticize the war itself, but to carry the flag of the enemy in their Peace marches. In Havana, Bella Abzug cheered loudly as a film was shown of an American plane being shot down by the North Vietnamese.

It is exactly this idea, that a nation is just a set of words, and you can pick the best set of words to be loyal to, that made outright treason such a routine thing in the 1960's. Abzug's loyalty was with her good guys, the Cubans and the Viet Cong. She felt they had a better set of words. The fact that the pilot going down was from the country where she was born and raised meant nothing at all to her.

That would be nationalism, you see. If she didn't cheer the killing of Americans, Abzug would have been a Nazi, you see

During a trip to visit her heroes in North Vietnam in the 1960s, Jane Fonda posed for a picture manning a Communist anti-aircraft gun which was used against Americans. She apologized for that again last week.

But, if we use Asquith's argument, why should she regret what she did? Unless she is at all loyal to "her" land of birth or "her" people, she did exactly what she should have done. In the 1960s, Fonda proclaimed that, if Americans knew what Communism really was, they'd fall to their knees and pray for it. Unless she was a Nazi, how could she not be for shooting down American pilots?

At the time she posed at the controls of that gun, she felt the Communists offered a better constitutional order, or set of principles, than did the United States. In that case, loyalty to the United States would have made her a nationalist, or anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Like many on the right, I was against the Vietnam War. Like Reagan, my position was that we should fight it seriously or get out of it. Unlike Reagan, I stuck to that position.

But my loyalties have always been to my own people and my own country.

Nowadays, old liberals say they were completely patriotic in the 1960s. They say they were just for Peace and Love. Naturally, when they say that on television, respectable conservatives get that goofy grin on their face, nod vigorously, and wipe the drool from the side of their faces.

During the Gulf War, all the old leftists claimed they had been against the war in Vietnam, but they were all for the troops. Respectable conservatives nodded and drooled.

Back on planet Earth in the 1960s, the standard terms the leftists used for American soldiers in Vietnam was "paid killers" and "baby killers." Some of them also bombed buildings. At Kent State, they burned down the ROTC building and every leftist peacenik I know of defended it.

Another thing some of those Peace Lovers used to do was to call parents and wives of soldiers in Vietnam, pretend to be from the Defense Department, and tell them their son or husband had been killed in action.

But they were all for the troops. Right, respectable conservatives?

Fonda's treason during Vietnam was not unique. It is just that that photo put her beyond the protection of respectable conservatives. Seeing that photo, even they can't grin and say she was just being sweet.

"IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT..." | 2005-01-22

We always hear the phrase, "in your professional judgement," and we think that means we are talking to a person who is trained to look at the facts objectively, cooly, and without taking sides.

That NEVER happens.

The person you are asking to be "a professional judge" in a particular specialty has earned his status as a professional precisely by being part of a very narrow group. You cannot spend four years in pre-medicine, four years in medical school, two years in internship, two to five years in specialization, all among professionals in the same field, and come out of all that without at least a lot of the attitudes of all the people who have trained you, worked with you and, above all, decided that you are the kind of person they want in their profession.

SEGREGATION TODAY, SEGREGATION TOMORROW, SEGREGATION FOREVER! | 2002-05-18

Now to the awful truth: what Netanyahu is proposing is a permanent state of segregation between Jews and Arabs.

Us old segregationists used to wear a white button with five letters on it written in blue: NEVER. Everything we said would happen with integration is exactly what happened with integration. I leave it to all the other self-styled Southern Spokemen to beg forgiveness for having opposed integration and saying it wasn't a wonderful idea.

It was NEVER a good idea, so there is no reason for me to join the Southern Crawl (THE SOUTHERN CRAWL DOESN'T WORK--September 23, 2000).

So when the Likkud Party said "Never!," it touched a chord.

On the other hand, I have made it very, very clear that I have strong and lifelong Arab sympathies (September 13, 2001 - MY ARAB SYMPATHIES).

I can understand militant Arabs and I can understand militant Israelis. It is the Generally Accepted Position (GAP) which all the respectable people accept that is utterly ridiculous.