THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

CONSERVATIVES LED THE FIGHT TO MAKE CALIFORNIA LIBERAL | 2003-08-16

I have to keep repeating points until some dumbass conservative spokesman finally realizes how useful they are. Let me give you an example.

Pat Buchanan used to support open borders. He joined all the other conservatives in saying that that "free enterprise means the free movement of goods AND LABOR."

But the reason labor moves out of Mexico is because Mexico is a political disaster. If those laborers move to a country which is not a political disaster, they become the people of their new country. So they turn the country they move into into the same political disaster they came from.

I tried desperately to get conservatives to face this obvious fact. But they kept repeating, "free enterprise requires the free movement of goods AND LABOR." Open borders forever! I wanted to grab them by ears and shout into their faces, "You idiot, labor VOTES!"

So conservatives talked about free enterprise and worked to bring in all the anti-free enterprise immigrants they could.

I tried for years to talked to those morons about reality. I gave a paper at a major economic conference with a Nobel Prize-winning economist in the audience in which I pointed out, in more technical language, that if politically stupid people come up, they ruin the economy. No one disagreed.

Conservatives kept repeating that "free enterprise means the free movement of goods AND LABOR."

In 1982 I put together "The New Right Papers" for the world's third largest publisher just so I could make this one point in it. I finally got the respectable conservatives' attention. Free enterprise finally had a good argument against the "Free enterprise requires the free movement of goods AND LABOR" argument. This helped a lot in making National Review and other respectable conservatives oppose immigration.

Being against importing leftists always made political sense, but the argument was needed. Arguments matter. Ideas matter. And there is nothing that is as hard as getting conservatives to accept a good idea.

Conservatives take all their arguments from what liberals say. And liberals never approve anything that would be a good idea for conservatives.

So conservatives fought for open borders for decades. Again they surrendered the real fight without conservatives even knowing it was going on, and now the biggest state in the Union is a leftist bastion and the left's minority base is large and growing.

SIEGECRAFT: HUMAN NATURE | nationalsalvation.net

Here I respond to April Gaede at alt-right on her use of the phrase "anti-racist."

She and her husband faced off with the terrorist fringe of the "anti-racist" movement, but then again in today's America who is against "anti-racism?"

So like in the USSR, who was against communism? (Even if the gulags were a bit extreme.)

Lesson: when the phrase "anti-racist" is used you sideline millions of people much as millions of people in the USSR were sidelined because "everyone was a communist."

Mantra logic is the dissection and destruction of the "assumption" that exists in all ideology and theology.

I've long asked myself for a short succinct definition of Mantra logic. I think I have it now.

Eg; The ASSUMPTION that there is no human nature.

The ASSUMPTION that anti-racism is exactly that and not just anti-white.

Notice how our N&Jers and Crime and IQ professors never attack their counterparts' assumptions? Wonder why their effectiveness is basically zip?

On another thread one of our professors lectured me about Stephen Pinker's Blank Slate with the assumption that Pinker is a nice man who means well. Pinker is guilty of promoting our genocide therefor I assume he is not a nice person. You decide folks is Prof. HP right or little ol' me?

Simmons

COMPROMISING WITH INSANITY IS INSANITY | 2003-05-03

Conservatives and sometimes liberals like to say that America's foreign policy should be dictated by America's national interests. But the first thing you notice is that America is the only country in the world that pays little or no attention to its own self-interest.

South Korea hates our guts. The only time we get any response from South Korea is when we threaten to pull our 35,000 troops out. We get nothing out of keeping our troops there. In fact, as long as those troops are there South Korea, Japan and China will look on North Korea as our problem.

Our interest dictates that we make South Korea and Japan pay plenty for our troops being there or we pull them out.

Making them pay to keep us there would be a better strategy, too. Japan, South Korea and China can have an effect on North Korea, but they don't bother. American troops are in South Korea, so it's our problem. That could be fatal attitude.

So why, in the name of sanity, would a rational country never even seriously consider pulling out troops out?

Well, the problem here is that liberals would pull all troops out of everywhere when they threaten Communist countries like North Korea. Meanwhile, however much they mouth the words "national self-interest", respectable conservatives have to compromise with liberals to stay respectable. So Bush ends up begging the liberals to LET us keep troops in South Korea South Korea sees how to blackmail us, so Bush ends up begging them to please let us keep our troops there because they know we are desperate.

National self-interest would the best possible policy for a person who was genuinely interest in our self-interest. But we cannot consider that because we must compromise with liberals.

In other words our foreign policy represents a compromise between American self-interest and a compromise with liberals who hate America. They really do, though no respectable conservative would say "liberals hate America." Conservatives say that liberals "Blame America first." If someone said "Blame Jews first", don't you think conservatives would say they were anti-Semitic?

But to be a respectable conservative you have to insist that liberals are patriotic.

Meanwhile, back on earth, liberals are anti-American and anti-white..

So we have a compromise between those who hate us and those who claim to be in favor of our national self-interest, as any rational country is. So we get a sick foreign policy.

This is what is called compromise. This is what is called listening to both sides. This is what is considered moderate and adult.

Meanwhile back in the real world giving liberals half of the national dialogue is exactly like negotiating with terrorists.

IRAQI PRISONER SCANDAL, OH BOY, NOW WE CAN TEAR THE GRUNTS' HEARTS OUT! | 2004-05-15

Finally we have a scandal we can deal with!

It's been years since the big scandal was the destruction of the life savings of thousands of small investors by big corporations. Nothing has been done about that because the guilty people are worth at least a hundred million dollars each.

The big corporate scandals are being handled exactly the same way the Clinton scandals were. His Attorney General kept saying she was investigating them, and nothing happened. Then Bush and his Attorney General came along and buried them completely.

The government is still "investigating" the corporate thieves. Gosh, it's complicated when you go after rich people!

And not just rich people. The next big scandal involved Catholic bishops. They convicted a few small-time priests of personally raping little boys, but no one will ever make any trouble for any of the bishops who caused far more such rapes by helping out the priests committing them than any single priest could have caused.

No decent person dares point out that any bishop who was not fully aware of little-boy-rapes in the 1970s was a complete idiot, and that you don't become a Catholic bishop if you're not smart.

No decent person will mention that obvious fact, so I will point it out.

But these guys are bishops! Going after them is worse than going after a billionaire!

Praise the Lord, those who were cruel to Iraqi prisoners are just Army grunts! Them you can kill!