THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

WHAT MAKES GODZILLA LOOK LIKE A LAME KITTEN? | 2016-06-15

From the first moment of the movie, Godzilla is titanic, a force of nature one never even imagines.

And he's dead meat.

Ferocious Godzilla's life span as the Monster of the Universe is limited by another factor.

We call it "chatter."

We call it "just talk."

His death is not dependent on the action of Great Heroes.

He will live until some guy who can't fly because he wears glasses gets a report through to HQ. They will then chatter a command to some other guy sitting at a desk. Soon Godzilla, and Godzilla's big brother, are strictly past tense.

When I worked on Capitol Hill one of  the best stories, which could have been true, was about an office manager who had worked at the Defense Department.

Until she misplaced a regiment. She put an entire combat regiment into the wrong base in the wrong state.

That regiment could have had a nuclear weapon. That regiment would have taken out Godzilla.

She mixed up the communications and misplaced it.

BUGS is group dedicated to bringing chatter to a professional level.

We have made things go viral and we may have discovered a new rule that groups who fund raise under the present system have to cripple themselves in terms of the power that would vaporize Godzilla.

HOW TOMORROW'S CONFEDERACY WILL DEAL WITH TOMORROW'S REALITY | 1999-03-06

We are becoming more and more an atomic society, a society in which each person is a separate unit. A person can sit at home with television, he can buy about anything on his computer, or he can talk to almost anybody on his computer or on the phone. Our jobs are becoming more and spread out, and we no longer all go to a single central city for anything.

By the time we attain independence, technology will have moved forward another computer generation or two. If we are to look to our future as an independent South, then, we must think in terms of that world. We may find that our present demand for devolution is outrun by technology.

Instead of having a problem with the basic unit of society being too big, like the Federal Government, we may well find we have problems uniting something as large as the South into a single meaningful unit.

This is a reversal of the historical trend. For thousands of years, we defined civilization in terms of large size. The very word "civilization" means nothing but "city-ization." The history we learned in school ignores the advances made in Northern Europe that did not involve cities. With all the great praise of the Roman Empire and groaning over its collapse, it was the northern "barbarians" who advanced European welfare with a huge leap in the middle of the so-called "Dark Ages."

In the seventh and eighth centuries, these "barbarians" DOUBLED the output per acre of land in the former Roman Empire of the North. Output per acre had stagnated for centuries before then. In fact, there had been precious little advance in this area since the beginning of agriculture millennia before.

These "barbarians" introduced the first real plow. Brilliant Roman civilization had used the same poking stick they had inherited from a thousand years before. The "barbarians" invented the horse collar, which replaced the primitive Roman harness that had been choking horses for centuries. The "barbarians," again in the "Dark Ages," invented the horseshoe and the three-field system.

All that we learn in history courses is that everything collapsed and ignorance ruled when the Roman Empire was driven out of Northern Europe. The fact is that real production and the real standard of living went up for the mass of people.

To us, the development of civilization means the pyramids, the empires of the Middle East, the huge slave-based societies like Imperial China or Rome. Historians go where the records are, and the records are where the masses are forced together and enslaved. All this leaves us completely unprepared to deal with real history.

And being unable to deal with real history makes us unable to deal with the real future. The real future will have little room for city-ization.

Today, the only reason we have cities is because our technology is still primitive. The city is rapidly losing all of its old functions.

I remember very well when you had to go downtown to get almost anything you couldn't buy in a general grocery store. A general grocery store back then had about what you would now find at a convenience store. Any Wal-Mart or K- Mart in a small town today has more than the whole city of Columbia could offer in 1955.

The big cities offered as much as Wal-Mart or a shopping center today has, and they had entertainment as well. But even a big city did not have all that you can get on cable today.

And remember we are talking about a society that is still absolutely primitive in terms of a few decades from now.

There are those of us who will always be dissatisfied if they cannot go to a live play or hear a live orchestra. That is charming and all, but let's discuss reality here. Most people, even the ones who claim all those artistic preferences, will not go to such performances when we get better-than-live performances in our homes.

In the Old South, if you said you needed to talk to someone, it meant you had to wait until the weather was good, get dressed, get out the horses and hitch them to the wagon, and go and see if whoever you wanted to see was at home. Now you call.

Have you seen the New York hit play, CATS? I have. I saw it on PBS, and it is coming out on tape. Actually, I saw the part I wanted to see. I wasn't in the mood, and I wasn't stuck in a New York theater seat, so I'll see the rest if and when I feel like it.

It has been years since I bought anything in the downtown part of Columbia where we used to buy pretty well everything. I simply do not remember the last time I HAD to go downtown to buy anything. In fact, the only time I have to make a trip to buy something is a trip out to Columbia Mall, which is well out of town.

Meanwhile the cities are becoming havens for communities of people who simply don't belong out there in the countryside. "Inner city" has an unpleasant connotation. But the inner city is also being taken over by homosexual communities and other groups who need to cluster. I am all for their clustering, myself

1) I do not want them near me, and

2) I do not want them to be miserable, so, in a truly Southern way, I act accordingly.

3) I segregate myself and those I identify with.

No longer do we need to live together and tolerate each other for the sake of production or marketing. We will all deal with the whole world from our living room, via computers and virtual reality.

There will be very little you CAN outlaw on the virtual reality Internet. Because one will be a direct part of the world via the virtual reality Internet, enforced "multiculturalism" should be totally abandoned in terms of where one has to live. Since everyone can reach everywhere from where they sit, there is no reason to force people to live in "multicultural" groupings.

In this as in other areas, the Confederacy will first be distinguished by what it does NOT do. The Confederacy will not, for example, begin with the things other countries all did first. Some examples of the first things we have traditionally expected every new country to do: 1) set up a post office and issue national stamps, a first sign of sovereignty, 2) print its own currency, 3) set up embassies in other countries.

The Confederacy will NOT have a post office. The government-run post office, whether it is run outright by the bureaucrats or is a state-granted monopoly as in the United States, is an expensive, cumbersome dinosaur. Whereas every other form of communication is open practically 24 hours a day, for example, our outdated postal monopoly makes people form lines from 9 to 5 for postal business.

The only reason we still have a Post Office is because we have a law which says that only the Post Office is allowed to deliver first class mail. By simply not passing such a law, the Confederacy will have the world's first private, truly efficient, and TAX-PAYING mail delivery service.

As for money, more and more transactions will be by machine with plastic. But even plastic is soon going to be replaced by handprint or voiceprint identification.

Nor does it look like there will ever be any Confederate embassies. Embassies were developed back in the days when communication was slow, and an ambassador had to reside in a foreign capital to represent his country's interests. Today, Paris can deal directly with Washington.

As Ross Perot has pointed out, traditional embassies are pretty well passe. International relations should be handled by teleconferencing or other means. "Face to face" meetings of leaders are staged affairs, and do exactly the opposite of what they should do.

It would be far, far better if leaders met more regularly by simple teleconferencing.

Our present political setup was developed to deal with the world as it existed before all these changes. Things were organized on a clear, step-by-step continuum. If you lived in the middle of South Carolina, and you wanted something that was available only in Atlanta, you ordered it through a store in Columbia. To express your opinion, you elected delegates from your county, who in turn elected delegates from the state, who in turn went to national conventions.

Now, what we do more and more is simply to email Washington, DC. Under earlier technologies, our work determined where we lived. We had to learn to deal with whoever our job put us into contact with. Now, more and more, we can determine where we want to live according to our preferences.

What I would like to do is to be able to live in a community of people I feel comfortable with, regardless of how that may upset Politically Correct people. In earlier ages, this would have limited a number of my horizons.

In a few years, I can have all the advantages of dealing with any kind of people I choose, and still live in the kind of community I choose.

In my opinion, this will lead many of us evil whites to live in evil, overwhelmingly white communities, just because we want to. Since nonwhites no longer have to live with us in order to obtain the advantages of dealing with us, this takes nothing from them.

Liberals point to poll data and tell us that all whites want desperately to live in mixed communities. If this were the case, Charlotte would not have just signed its umpteenth agreement to force integration onto its people. If this were true, we would not have this insane national policy of chasing down whites with busing and "low-cost" housing, then white flight, then more busing and "low cost" housing, and so forth. (Please see my February 13 article, "When Are You Integrated?") As I said in an earlier article, I think the rise of super terrorism is going to put all the theories of multiculturalism up against a test they cannot pass. (See November 21 article, "Superterrorism")

Nor is superterrorism the only reason we may have to divide up into widely separate units. We have new diseases like the Ebola virus and the AIDS virus, both of which are mutating. There is also the fact that old infectious diseases are becoming immune to all of our present antibiotics.

The only sane policy is for us to spread out into self-contained communities. I like that idea. In any case, the new reality is that an individual will be a part of the world community by virtue of the new technology.

There will be no natural, step-by- step units between him and the world in general. He will not deal through local cities and local governments and then to higher units. The individual will be part of the world.

That is one end of the new duality technology is producing. The other end is that the individual will be dealing with that world directly and ALONE. He will not go to the state convention as part of his county group.

So we have a person who is part of the world through technology. He can deal directly with government through technology. But he also needs a sense of belonging to a community. His entire sense of community will come from where he lives, so where he lives must be entirely his own choice. The world of the future should be a set of communities, united on a voluntary basis.

The function of such a voluntary unity is one for which our Confederate mindset is admirably prepared. We are, in fact, the only modern political thinkers of our age. This is because we are the only people who are accustomed to thinking in terms of bringing separate units together voluntarily under one umbrella. Every other group today can only think in terms of all the units being brought together into one unit by some kind of force. This includes the libertarians.

Under libertarians or liberals or the Christian Coalition, you must have one society, obeying a single law. Libertarians want open borders and open communities and open markets, and they will do anything they have to make this happen everywhere within their domains.

Confederates are very used to thinking in terms of local areas which only have very limited obligations to the central state and the central market and the central ideas that are supposed to govern everybody in a single area.

In other words, you pays yo money and you takes yo choice. Your community must help provide for the common defense.

And that, boys and girls, is the way everybody is going to have to learn to think. Technology is making us, at the same time, a single society and a fragmented society. With each year that passes, the potential for a single person to kill anybody within miles of him is becoming simpler and simpler and more and more available. With each passing year, it becomes less necessary for voluntary communities of several thousand people each, the population of a town or apartment complex, to live within miles of each other.

We will have to have compact, voluntary, trustworthy groupings of people. No matter how much libertarians may cry about it, these communities must have strict control of physical access.

None of this will limit our economies or our interaction with the rest of the world in any serious way. We will be able to live among those we choose to live among and deal with anyone we choose to.

As Confederates, we have no universalist ambitions as to how everyone should live. But we do have very, very strong opinions on what should be allowed in our own communities. So the society of the future will come naturally to us.

LOTTERY AND ASSIMILATION | 2007-07-15

When I was a ten-year-old in Cuba, I already understood that Latin American countries had lotteries because it was the only chance that the average person had to get ahead.

Blacks weere mixed with whites there because, from the point of view of those who owned everything, all peasans were equal, just as the Queen of England tday says that any of her hundreds of millions of Commonwealth former subjects has the right to move to England, even if they do elbow out the white peasants.

Now we have state lotteries, the super-rich in charge, and everybody who is not rich is equal to everybody else. We live in Batista's Cuba. To the very rich, all those peasants are the same. The LAST people who object to this attitude on race are the Marxists.

Leftism and respectable conservatism agree that all peasants are equal. So do today's leftists. And we have also gone Latin American on assimilation.

Don't worry. Batista's Cuba will be replaced with a rightist or leftist form of Castro's. Cuba rumbled for decades, then Batista's Cuba collapsed in a matter of hours.

To others, the suppression and rumbling dissatisfaction shows that the System cannot be beaten. I watched the Soviet Empire go. I watched Batista go. I watched Perot come within a hair's breadth of being elected president, certifiable though he was.

Nobody thinks the coming election will make any difference. Politics has ceased to have meaning, but the discontent is palpable. It just has nowhere to go.

I must have been raised in a different world, because all this strikes everybody ELSE, from racial defeatists to respectable conservatives, as STABILITY.

And remember, when the collapse of Batista came, Cuba went from fascist to Communist, ALL THE WAY. Russia went from Communist to fascist. If things are the way I see them, the safe, moderate position today will put you in enormous danger in the future.

You may have to EXPLAIN your "anti-racism:"

AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, WHITE CoUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

" It is said that there is this RACE problem. They say this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"

"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

http://whitakeronline.org

http://www.nationalsalvation.net/

BOB THE TACKLE | 2005-04-19

I have pointed out that when I was playing high school football, the coach would often shout, "Feel around you, Whitaker, maybe you're still in bed!"

So the obvious question is, why would the coach let a dunderhead like that play in the game in the first place? In my case, the reason is because I was strong as an ox, if not any brighter.

But my point has to do, not with the tackle, a linesman, like I was, but with the backfield. They are the guys who run for the touchdown. Those in the backfield got the glory when they were running with the ball.

As a result, a coach had a real problem when those backfield heroes were running a fake. In a fake, the quarterback acts as if he has handed the ball off to one ball carrier and then actually hands it to another. The idea is, of course, that while the other team is tackling the guy who doesn't have the ball, the one who does get the ball goes through for a touchdown and gets the glory.

So the guy who did NOT get the ball is critical. He is the whole point of the fake. For the fake to work he must be a damn good actor and not get the credit with the crowd.

If you are in the line blocking, you are used to not getting roars of approval from the crowd. Not so the backfield. So when a fake is played in high school it is almost impossible for the guy who does NOT get the ball to convince anybody he has it. He just runs it out like he does in practice, and everybody on both teams has been in practice a lot so they know he hasn't got the ball.

In other words, you are asking the backfielder who does NOT get the ball to run interference while the guy who DOES get the ball runs for the touchdown and gets the glory. The crowd is not going to notice that HE is the one who caused the touchdown any more than they will see the blocker who opened the hole the touchdown runner went through.

In fact, the only person who notices a crucial block or a great fake is the professional scout. Many a wildly cheered backfielder has never understood why the scouts never noticed him. The reason is because that scout is there to find people who will win the game for his team.

To put it simply, the scout is not there just to see who RUNS the touchdowns. He is there to see who CAUSES the touchdowns.

I'll give you an example from my political career. For years most Republicans were trying to get the black vote. Others could do arithmetic.

Those who could count noticed that the combined conservative Wallace vote and the Nixon vote in 1968 amounted to 57%, a landslide against the left. But in 1972 the Republicans sang the praises of the Magic Political Center, where they could pick up the precious black vote.

Only an evil racist would try to get The Wallace Democrats.

At long, long last, after the disaster of 1974, even many respectable conservatives were coming to the conclusion that they needed those evil Wallace Democrats. William Rusher, publisher of National Review, had been one of the most fanatical opponents of going after those evil Wallace Democrats. In 1974 he had an epiphany. He is one of those few people who can learn from a mistake and declare in public that he had made it.

By the way, this was when Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran demanded open borders for Mexican immigrants.

So in 1975 William Rusher wrote a book demanding a coalition of Wallace Democrats and conservative Republicans. That was when he met with me. I had a long, long record as a Wallace Democrat vote-getter. In the 1970s I had been in the streets with anti-busing groups and anti-textbook groups. In 1968 I had lived in a campaign headquarters in the steelworker district of Chicago getting the Wallace vote for my conservative Republican candidate. Long before that I had worked the textile worker vote in South Carolina to get them for Goldwater.

And on back, ad infinitum.

I had always gone where no Republican had gone before.

At that point, Rusher's problem was that he represented an extreme point of view in the conservative establishment. He needed somebody who was reasonably well known where it counted to put him in the mainstream. He needed interference.

I wrote a book that put him back in the middle of the Republican Party. It was called "A Plague on Both Your Houses."

I even demanded the preservation of the white race in "A Plague on Both Your Houses."

Rusher did the Foreword to that book, in which he specifically excluded himself from my nasty comments about William Buckley.

I also made remarks in that book about how Reagan was pussyfooting on issues "Wallace voters" were concerned about. I know for a fact those remarks had a HUGE effect on Republican strategy because I knew so many people in the Reagan Administration. I became a Reagan appointee.

When my book came out Rusher's heresy was forgotten. National Review had a cover article attacking my book.

But then Jeffrey Hart wrote the National Review review of that same book called "Read This One."

In the meantime nobody noticed how my book made Rusher mainline.

If Whitaker had been trying to make points for Whitaker, the coach would have said, "Feel around you, Whitaker, maybe you're still in bed." I became the extremist.

But I was not making points for Bob. I was making points for the team, and Bill Rusher has never forgotten that. Everybody else has, because they are the crowd, not professional scouts.

Conservatives are not pros.

But being for the team is not enough. Rusher needed somebody who was good at what he did.

A scout does not notice how hard you try to work for the team unless you are also a damned good tackle. I am a damned good writer. Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus gave it rave reviews and the Library Journal recommended it for purchase.

It was a damned good book.

Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus and the Library Journal all distanced themselves from the opinions I expressed, exactly the way Rusher did. What they said was that it was a genuine, well-written point of view which barely avoided all the third rails of political rhetoric.

Nobody else could have conceived it, much less written it.

So Rusher and Hart became a non-radical point of view. In 1980 the term "Wallace Democrats" was totally forgotten. They became the mainline Reagan Democrats. Reagan ran the touchdown and the Soviet Union was history when he finished.

Could it have happened without me running interference? I doubt it. But others would say I had nothing to do with the final outcome.

Who cares? Our team won, and that was what I was in the game for.

Recently I was walking alone across the bridge over the Moscow River, right in front of the Kremlin. I stopped, turned, and gravely gave that symbol of Soviet tyranny the finger.

It felt good.