THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

Rule by Dramatics

I tend to laugh in the wrong places, and then feel very lonely.

One example I gave in my book was that, at the age of 17, I first heard the Preamble to the Soviet Constitution. It declared that the USSR was a union of workers, peasant, soldiers, and intellectuals." I laughed out loud. Then I noticed the rest of the class and the professor were looking at me funny.

Again.

To me, the idea that this guy will work in a factory, that guy will work on the farm, and the others guy will be out there freezing his butt off on the front until he loses an arm, while I am "the intellectual" who sits in an office and gives the orders is FUNNY. Who would fall for a load of crap like that?

Who would take that crap SERIOUSLY?

Everybody but me, apparently.

I did the same kind of lonely laughing at a documentary dedicated to the oncoming weather catastrophe. At one point, they state that in fifty to a hundred years the ocean would overwhelm the coast, and that over fifty percent of America's population LIVES on the land that will be drowned fifty to a hundred years from now! The clear implication is half our population is in eminent danger of drowning.

I STILL can't write this without bursting into a fit of giggles.

I live in the state where many people didn't get out of the way of Hugo. I know Katrina drowned a lot of people. But even the present administration of the City of New Orleans could probably evacuate most of the population within fifty to one hundred years.

In order to keep up the drama, this program went on to show how Africa had suffered when the weather went awry. But Africa can't cope with ANYTHING. When was the last time you a picture of starving child who was NOT in Africa? Hundreds of thousands are starving in North Korea and in places like Haiti. You don't have to be in Africa to have a black skin.

If half of the money spent on Studying World Hunger were spent on food and transportation, nobody would be starving outside the black and Communist worlds. We had a blog entry about a Japanese researcher in Britain who did a study saying that Africa's problems were due to low IQ. A representative from Oxfam, the anti-hunger group, attacked him for being a yellow naziwhowantedtokillsixmillionjews.

What does Oxfam have to do with this? Nobody cares WHY a child is starving, but Oxfam is there for ideology, not hunger. Can you imagine how many children could be fed the minimum diet they need for the salary that career spokesman gets?

But this is not the point. The point goes back to why that documentary had to shout that half of America was going to drown because the population could not be moved in a period of fifty to a hundred years. You and I know why they implied that:

It was EXCITING.

A whole classroom full of people takes "a union of workers, peasants, soldiers and intellectuals" seriously because it is about the most exciting thing you can to a classroom:

That lecturer up there living the welfare-state life of a tenured professor is not the drone he looks like. He is a Hero who will lead the Working Class. He, along with his fellow intellectuals, meaning YOU, will overthrow all those generals and politicians and capitalists - No one will ever again ask him, "If you're so smart, why ain't you RICH?" - - and he, along with his Faithful Hippy Companions - YOU, no less, will assume your rightful role as rulers of the Earth.

That's why I laughed my ass off. And that's why I was the only one who did.

Rule by Dramatics II

The article above tells you one reason why actors tend to be leftists. Leftism is based on dramatics; Evil Capitalists versus Feeding the Hungry, the World is About to Drown and so forth.

The old British actor James Mason always liked acting without an audience because, he said, "I hate for people to see what a silly thing I do for a living."

Going to pieces on demand in front of a camera is not what most of us would like to be seen doing. Most of us have trouble smiling three times for a photo that isn't coming out. Note the person who can be a professional actor tends to be the opposite of Mason, he is someone who cannot get ENOUGH drama.

What has come close to killing the white race is precisely the fact that we have SOLVED all the dramatic problems.

You can RAISE MONEY on dramatic problems. There are huge organizations in DC and New York City and everywhere else that are LOOKING for dramatic problems to raise money on.

Naturally, this desperate pursuit of anything dramatic is going to get a bit silly. Like the idea that, of there is global warming, half of America's population will simply sit where they are for a century and drown.

"The poor we have always with us." But we DON'T. What Jesus called "poor" consisted of people whose most usual cause of death was starvation.

Not going to bed hungry.

Not a lack of Vitamin D.

STARVATION.

I have seen the funny movies where a beggar demands that Jesus make him a leper again because he made his living begging, but in the real biblical world the competition was fierce and the poor starved.

I have watched the third world go from those times, when I could SMELL the special odor of starvation on beggars to now, when they beg for money BEYOND food.

The white man has solved the problem of poverty as any other generation saw it. But you can't raise a dime by saying THAT.

We have a world in which no one, even in the third world, can imagine what a world without whites would be like. And that, boys and girls, is our biggest single problem.

Seek and Destroy

The two pieces above, and a major part of my work, consists of making people take a new look at themselves. I watched while the word "liberal" went from everybody's favorite label to an abandoned term, all in a decade or two.

And during that decade or two, liberals had absolute control of all means of communication outside of very local newspapers in the South and West. There were NO, repeat NO alternative media AT ALL.

So how did this seemingly hopeless attack on "liberal" in the time John Kennedy took office make it a word you didn't USE after 1972?

Simple: "Liberal" went from MAKING YOU LOOK like an idealist to making you look like a traitor and a fool. As long as the anti-racist or the pro-Communist or the libertarian LOOKS like an idealist or an intellectual, they will be out in force.

THAT is the vital function that respectable conservatives perform. Respectable conservatives began to populate the media at the exact moment that liberalism was becoming a laughing-stock. Suddenly every liberal was paired with a Faithful Conservative Companion.

I distinctly remember that, in the 1950s and early 60s, you would have two liberal Republicans and three liberal Democrats. I remember being in Washington at a Young Republican Leadership Conference when Jack Paar had William Buckley on his program. It was shocking at the time!

In fact, about half the audience got up and walked out when Buckley left and Paar shouted, "I KNEW this wasn't my regular audience!" But back then everybody was aware what his regular New York audience was. Can you imagine someone making such a self-revealing statement today?

That is where things were in 1962. One conservative on a late-night talk show was revolutionary. By 1972 every liberal had his Faithful Conservative Companion.

And it was accomplished, not by new arguments alone, but by new arguments SUPPLEMENTED BY IMAGE-BREAKING. You cannot let the other guy walk away with his image intact. He is NOT an idealist. He is NOT worth listening to. He is Mommy Professor's robot. He hates his own people and wants them destroyed.

Do not seek and correct. Seek and DESTROY.