THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

WORDISM: USING THE CONCEPT OF WORDISM | nationalsalvation.net

One of the big arguments for universalism is how much alike the Great Religions are. But if you recognize the disease of Wordism and you want to get back to actual concepts of Christ or Buddha or Mohammed, these "common" growths of the institutions that grew up in their names if the first thing you must jettison.

As one commenter said, I seem to love Christ and hate Christianity.

I see Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism as Wordist institutions that grew up after Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed. They are, in the worst sense of the word, growths, like cancer.

And they are, indeed, very much alike. The laws that govern the survival of any institution are very much alike. So Christianity was very much at home with Roman slavery and is very much at home with getting rid of the white race today. That's how institutions are.

With long, long Commentaries and so forth what Christ or Buddha actually said becomes incrusted with the same Wordist effluvia.

It is precisely by getting rid of "what the Great Faiths have in common" that one can begin to get back to the message. Wordism is one of our BASICS. Let's USE it.

PRO-WHITE COLLABORATION | 2007-08-19

The article below demonstrates the two rules you have to follow to be a Respectable Conservative:

1) Declare that liberals were always right until 1970 an grovel loudly about how bad conservatives were to oppose them and

2) NEVER remind a liberal that they were DEAD WRONG about ANYTHING.

This is easy for us to understand. But it is a lead-in to a point about many or most pro-whites which is NOT recognized.

It took US many, many years of facing professional ruin and angry mobs to get rid of what was absolute post-World War II doctrine: "Modern anthropology has proven that all races are equal in all in innate abilities" – a word or two varied, but it was always the same words. But if you ask most pro-whites, we never won a victory.

The myth of Soviet economic growth was dogma in the early 1960s. A few of us pointed out reality. It was by realizing that the USSR could not compete with America that led to what Kennedy denounced as "Star Wars' and the collapse of the USSR. Gorbachev believed we could build a Strategic Defense Initiative and he is ON RECORD as promising ANYTHING to stop it.

SDI called the Soviet bluff. They simply couldn't REALLY compete with America in any technical. This led to Soviet concessions, and the whole house of cards collapsed.

Liberals say it all just happened to happen on Reagan's watch. Conservatives keep their mouths shut.

I spent a large part of my life on THAT, so it matters to me, but our subject here is RACE.

Due to science and due to OUR efforts, the average anti concedes things about genetics that he would have gotten conservatives to LYNCH somebody for saying a generation ago.

Pro-whites beat their chests endlessly about how brave THEY are and, as one person put it, "THEY can't cut their out of a paper bag with a machete."

I lived through the FBI Terror against the South, and that was NO PAPER BAG. Ignoring the Mafia, J. Edgar Hoover spent untold millions of dollars infiltrating pro-whit organizations. I just fought integration legally, and I had an FBI file by age fifteen.

Te Feds sent us to prison in droves. Those prisons were NOT paper bags, especially for OUR people. But here is some newbie bitching about how brave he is. That's not important in itself. It is merely a symptom of the REAL disease.

The REAL disease is that pro-whites does EXACTLY what respectable conservatives do. They NEVER acknowledge that, against what was considered both insuperable power and Historical Inevitability, we WON SOME. Their time might better be spent learning about HOW to win some against these overwhelming odds RATHER THAN REPEATING THE ENEMY LINE THAT OUR ENEMIES NEVER LOST.

DAVE | 2007-11-17

PRENOTE FROM ME"

In The Dispossessed Majority, "Wilmot Robertson" points out that the oil industry is particularly unpopular because it was, at his time of writing, the only industry in America not controlled by "minorities.'

When I was on the Hill, the oil lobyists were the only ones who felt strong rnough to use the term "sand niggers."

ON TO DAVE:

Simmons,

Let me say first that if there were any group elites more aware of the fact that nonwhites "no can do" it is oil industry insiders. You have no idea of how thoroughly the politics of the oil industry revolves around that very issue. Accordingly, they see the world very realistically.

What passes for public debate all over the world is truly ridiculous. Only the uninformed respond emotionally to these debates.

But elites ARE FORCED to respond to these ridiculous debates if they are in any way dependent about public perceptions regarding the sale of their products, or reactions to their development activities. Accordingly, as heavily white dominated as the oil industry is, it takes care not to offend nonwhites for nonwhites purchase gasoline and live in neighborhoods close to their refineries. They also have international diplomacy issues to consider.

So now I have given you a specimen outline of the sensitivities involved for the oil giants. But let us leave aside the oil industry elites, for they are already quite solidly on Robert Whitaker's page already, and go to other types of "elites", say for example, "local command" types.

Now what I have actually done on several occasions is that I hold up my hand and say, "Challenge". (I get them to agree to take on a "challenge".) Then I say, "Let us consider this from a standpoint that in our current environment is strictly forbidden and considered pure heresy, that is let us consider this from a PURELY RACIAL standpoint."

Then I say, "Mexico is a very resource rich country, why are Mexicans so poor?" (The response is the usual bullshit). Then I say, "But what if the real cause of Mexican poverty is the Mexicans themselves, that they are simply genetically incapable of self-directed progress and of being equal to white people?" (The response is the usual bullshit).

Then I say, "Why should the directional flow of population be from Mexico and Latin America into our country? What makes that logical?" (There my respondents tend to stumble a bit). Then I quickly insert, "The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan and Taiwan, but nobody is demanding that those countries be integrated with mass immigration. What is going on? Don't white people have a right to exist?" (Here my respondents have tended to say, "You are indeed speaking heretically").

And my response back is, "Yes, I am speaking heretically. I told you my challenge was to look at this from a strictly forbidden standpoint.

Then the discourse usually gets to where the respondent makes some heartfelt statement about his or her belief that everybody is inherently equal and that whites aren't really threatened. But so what? That's throwaway bullshit and what I have really done is leave in my wake an educated person who I have deeply impressed without stumbling into disciplinary violations of organizational standards (because I forewarned them about the nature of the discourse in advance and disciplinary standards regarding speech cannot be invoked in private conversations outside of formal organizational settings in any event).

We do live in a country where free speech is permitted (outside of formal organizational venues) although there are many bad actors that would like to abolish it.

I notice the response in their hearts. The mouth says one thing and the heart says another.

Life is like that, isn't it?

Racial loyalty does exist, but it is disconcerting to be hit with the Mantra for the Mantra is evidence of the mounting crises the most aware white people know is transpiring and dread.

INCIDENT AT THE AR CONVENTION | 2006-03-05

There was a very, very VERY Jewish-looking couple at the AR convention.

American Renaissance has a more repsectable program, so they endorsed far too much of the neo-con agenda. So David Duke objected and argued with the Jew, who called him a Nazi.

I was not at that meeting.

But I had had a friendly conversation with the two Jews before and after it.

Now David was very worried about the confrontation he had caused. After all, it was Jared Taylor's convention and Sam Dickson was also critical of him.

Contrary to what you might think, David Duke is not noted for being a shy and retiring person. To be perfectly frank, David has caused some controversy in the past.

So here I was in the unique position of trying to reassure David Duke that he had not done wrong in speaking out.

After all these decades in this fight, you must excuse Ole Bob. I have stayed out of the loony bin only by seeing the humor in things.

I was thinking, "In all the world, I am one of the very, very few people who has had to reassure David Duke about starting a ruckus."

I told David that I had talked to the two Jews before and after the meeting and we got along just fine.

Normally David would be suspicious of someone who had a couple of friendly talks with Jews who were obviously there to push their own agenda. But in my case, he just asked, "So what did you talk about?"

Which was a hell of a compliment.

It never occurred to David that I would be doing anything but representing US. Despite all the times he has been sold out by others, he knows damned well where I stand.

David also knows I am a political pro. I can talk to anybody on a frank and friendly basis.

When Dr. Duke asked me how the talks went, I told him I would write down how the conversation went.

So, David, here it is:

At the beginning of the convention, I walked up and started talking to that couple. The man excused himself.

I started talking to the Jewish wife and she went right into her routine. She talked about the guilt of whites in making slaves of blacks. I said, "No white man ever made a slave of a black."

She then jumped in and said she knew, black slaves were sold to us by blacks.

End of round one.

I then repeated Bob's Mantra:

" Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says 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 more crowded than 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."

She agreed. They were there to agree with us and to change our agenda, just as David said.

But now give Ole Bob the privilege of saying the Unsayable. They were there there to warp our agenda.

But they were THERE. They were not outside shrieking insults at a safe distance. For them to be THERE was like George Lincoln Rockwell when he went right into the Black Muslim convention and spoke.

I know the man looked so Jewish he could have starred in a Nazi propaganda film. But he was THERE, and I respect cajones.

After the meeting where David made his objections I met with the Jewish couple again. I didn't know about the confrontation.

I marched up to her and she started talking about the Holocaust. I told her about my e-mail exchanges with Colmes of Hannity and Colmes. I had met Colmes and he corresponded with me, as liberals tend to, briefly.

Colmes is a Jew.

Colmes and Billy Graham Junior had agreed that Mel Gibson had been anti-semitic when he got tired of being called anti-semitic and mentioned that Stalin's starvation of millions of Ukrainian kulaks was as bad as anything Hitler did.

Colmes said to me that this was one more instance of "trivializing the Holocaust."

In what turned out to be my last exchange with Colmes, I asked him what was so trivial about Ukrainians. He did not reply.

That happens to me a lot.

Back to my conversation with the Jewess. I quoted Henry Kissinger: "Any group that has been persecuted for two thousand years is doing something WRONG."

I reminded her that the Jewish attempt to get revenge on white gentiles by flooding white gentile Europe with third worlders had resulted in a growing population in Europe that hates Jews more than Hitler did.

I was not being hostile. I was telling her that Jews were being stupid. I pointed out that the degenerate form of Christianity these days was just self-hatred and Judaism had degenerated into self-pity.

Her husband came up and shook hands with me, firmly and probably sincerely.

I don't know.

That's not my concern.

My attitude towards Jews has nothing to do with World Conspiracies. I do not think we should allow Jews, homosexuals, or anybody else with separate loyalties into our inner councils.

And I told them so.

More than once some minority militants have astonished people by saying something like, "We want to talk to Whitaker. He's a white man."

So maybe the Jew's handshake was genuine. If he ever wants to bargain, maybe he would rather bargain with me.