THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

BASICS: STAYIN' ALIVE | nationalsalvation.net

Joe Rorke

Well, glad to see you finally fess up about Paul Craig Roberts being the "Craig Roberts" you were referring to along with Pat Buchanan in that piece of some time ago that you wrote, Bob.

I didn't want to have to badger you about it but I did want to be sure of the person you were referring to in that piece. I like what Paul Craig Roberts is doing. I don't see William Rusher or George Will or Cal Thomas or a whole pack of what you call "respectable conservatives" doing what Mr. Roberts is doing.

It takes guts and brains to do what he is doing. If we don't hold this un-flushed toilet bowl of a country together I don't see how in the world we can do anything else worth doing.

Comment by Joe Rorke

ME:

Rusher and Will and Thomas are making a very good living at what they do.

When I ask commenters to cut and paste Bob's Mantra, I get the response that they "have lives," they have to make a living, they have to raise their kids, and they can't spare time for this last priority.

Yet all those same commenters are very upset that Rusher and Will and Cal Thomas and the rest of them are not risking THEIR livelihoods by getting out there and taking dangerous stands.

Pat Buchanan was the top-paid columnist in America before he got out there. Craig Roberts edited the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

But they forsook on the priorities I keep getting lectured on here.

Will and the rest are doing exactly what commenters are so proud of doing: they had their living to make first. They have LIVES, you see.

RESPECTABLE CONSERVATIVES LINE UP AGAINST FLAG | 2000-04-08

Liberals have fired most of their ammunition against the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina State House. Now they're calling in their reliable second team: respectable conservatives. William Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW has been demanding the flag come down since it got its latest editor, Richard Lowry. Since he took over, NR has stopped capitalizing the word "Southern."

NR's latest effort was a screaming piece called "Rebels Yell," which caused at least one Charlestonian to write them saying he was canceling his subscription.

In other words, NATIONAL REVIEW has given up its pretense of being a spokesman for the American right nation-wide. It has always been a theocratic, east coast magazine making a few gestures to others. NR has simply given up the gestures.

David Broder, the token semi-conservative writer for the Washington Post, has come out with an article demanding that the flag come down. Like McCain, his comment on Bob Jones ending its policy against interracial dating was a kick in the teeth. Funny how people who back down get no respect.

In other words, we have the usual formula: liberals have screamed their lungs out on the flag issue, so their second team has volunteered to earn its "respectable" credentials again. Stabbing other conservatives in the back is the main job of respectable conservatives.

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: WHITES REALIZE THEY ARE A THREATENED MINORITY | 2000-01-01

I had difficulty deciding what to write for the millennium WOL, because I write every piece for the new century. The reason I write here is because I am a veteran of over four decades of real political warfare, and the war, not yesterday's battle, is my area of expertise.

The issue that will be the most important in the future is invariably the one today's establishment is most desperate to avoid talking about. Today, that issue is race.

For a short time during the integration battle in the 1950s, liberals kept saying that we had to integrate because whites were outnumbered. They pointed out that colored children were being born in ratios of at least five to one to whites throughout the world. That line of argument stopped abruptly. Liberals suddenly realized that if they kept it up, some whites might realize the real position they were in in the world.

Though few people are aware of it, this is the effect the shrinking of the world through technology is having on a lot of people. Most people are more tolerant racially, but at the same time the idea that whites have a right to feel threatened is growing.

In the long run, a victorious political strategy is one that takes what everybody knows is true and sticks to it, letting the other side discredit itself. The ruling establishment, such as that which enforces Political Correctness today, can always be counted on to rely more and more on brute power and intimidation. That is what destroys it.

One aspect of the leadership that wins in the Western world will be that it will simply talk rationally about race, as about everything else.

I have no trouble discussing white fears with real, flesh-and-blood members of minority groups. In the future, whites with normal concerns will want to be represented, and, once they are, it will become part of the routine political landscape.

I don't think you can imagine how it would cripple leftism if we were to simply make the point that white concerns are real and legitimate, and leave it at that. Right now, every conservative allows liberals to make them prove that they have no racial thoughts whatsoever. In short, they let the other side subject everybody to a Thought Crime accusation from the word "Go."

I have spent four decades as an expert on political warfare.

I tell you the right is doomed if they do not deal with this Thought Crime business. As long as the left has this "racism" weapon UNCHALLENGED in their hands, the right can only retreat.

WHEN PREACHERS AND PROFESSORS AGREE ON SOMETHING, BEWARE! | 2002-01-26

It is essential that we understand the enormous similarity between the year 2000 and the year 1800.

The year 1800 introduced a century when medicine marched a hundred times farther in a single century than it had in all of previous history. In 1800, university authorities in medicine were untied against this revolution. They were defending bleeding quarts of blood from sick people as the main treatment for disease and fighting the idea that doctors need to wash their hands, along with everything else that might save lives.

In 1800 as now, the preachers and professors were on the same side. Preachers were fighting vaccinations against smallpox. In fact, I do not know of a single medical advance in the entire period from 1800 to 1900 that preachers did not use the Bible to oppose.

The same is true today, and once against the whole thing is so obviously absurd only a respectable conservative would fail to notice it.

Just a few years back all the professors were pushing moral relevance. There were no absolute rules, they said.

But then came cloning and the biological revolution. Instantly they invented a field call "Ethics." Suddenly they have PhD's who were concentrating on moral relevance yesterday and who are now "biological ethicists." And exactly as in1800, academics are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the preachers against the coming revolution.