THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

archives
articles

SO HOW DO WE GET THE MINORITY VOTES WE WILL NEED MORE AND MORE IN THE FUTURE? | 2002-11-09

We buy them.

Right now we are buying minority votes anyway. We are buying those votes for the liberals.

We give liberals enormous amounts of power and money so the "intellectuals" can pursue those programs they sell the young morons in class. Liberals let some of that money trickle down to their slave minorities in the form of direct welfare, food stamps, and for housing that slaves in the Old South would have found very familiar, rats and all.

Harlem is essentially a Democratic slave quarter.

We could buy those same votes a hell of a lot cheaper if we did it by giving the money directly to minorities who vote our way.

In the first place, we don't have to buy ALL the minorities. Liberals have to have them ALL to balance off the ever more overwhelming white vote against liberalism. In the second place, liberals and minorities are competing for the same money. Liberal programs and college professors and liberal activists all live from the same tax trough that minorities get money from. Liberals are first at the trough and let some trickle down to their slave minorities.

Minorities all vote liberal because liberals are the only ones bidding MONEY for their votes. But we could save a lot of money by outbidding the liberals and not having to pay them and live by their rules. We would save money by buying minorities directly even if we had to outbid the left for ALL minority votes.

But if we keep our base, we need only a minority of the minorities. We could eventually have THEM competing for OUR favor.

Until we get in on the bidding, we will continue paying for liberals to buy minority votes, plus even more money we pay the liberals.

This means we must do exactly what the left and the respectables accuse us of doing. They denounce it because they know it will work

First of all, it means we say out loud we are trying to save the people liberals hate, and we use the true word HATE. We are for white survival, we are for America first, we are the outright enemies of criminals, and so forth.

And we openly say that, since nonwhites always vote for liberal hate, we want to buy OUR SHARE of that vote. We don't want to pay liberals the majority of the money so they can buy the whole minority vote at our expense. We won't buy the WHOLE minority vote. Unlike liberals, we can have lots of money and we can have minorities competing WITH EACH OTHER to be the ones who get our cash.

In the long run, it will be better for American minorities, too, but we should make our contempt visible and say that they will never figure that out on their own. We must stop acting as if it were okay for minorities to be stupid slaves to liberals. That open contempt will make more minorities act more rationally than conservative pandering has.

It couldn't do worse.

HISTORY: THAT REVOLUTION AND THIS REVOLUTION | nationalsalvation.net

Whenever you read the news or history, always remember the question, "Why was this information produced?"

One major factor in what is used to explain big happenings is that people demand big causes. So when Kennedy became the first president in sixty years to be assassinated, it was not just the pro-Cuban bias in the press that caused all that denial.

What happened was simply that a pro-Communist basket case had been allowed back into the US and he shot the president. That is a hell of a way to take all the wind out of a potentially Great Event.

Defeatists in our ranks do not want the Mantra to work for a reason of which they are not aware:

It's not exciting. They want the degeneration of the whole world to be the result of something really huge and mysterious.

This rule applies to much of history. In 1775 all thirteen colonies threw out their Royal Governors. For all the nonsense about the dominance of Tories in some colonies, you don't have to be a statistician to know that 13 out of 13 is seldom coincidental.

The end result was made inevitable when all those farmers showed up to bushwhack the British soldiers as they went back to Boston.

During the entire war, the British held the cities, which you can do with an army, but the only other land they commanded was the ground they stood on. And they could not afford to occupy the cities forever.

When the Brits took Charleston in 1780, historians say the Revolution appeared lost. But the countryside rose against them, bushwhacking them.

There were lots of Tories in South Carolina. Those who say that America is a Land of Immigrants don't like to note that the only person at the Battle of King's Mountain who had not been born in America was the defeated commander Ferguson.

But historians want to talk about the French Alliance, about General Washington and all the rest. Who would want to read the reality that the people who kicked out every Royal Governor just had to keep the British bleeding money until they decided to go home?

Compared to The International Genius Conspiracy, the Mantra has little excitement and is just a lot of work. Those who are in this fight for fun and emotional outlet will never be sold on it.

HOW DO WE SQUARE OUR AMERICAN IDEALS WITH REALITY? | 2002-03-23

We don't.

If you have adopted some dumbass insanity and called it an "ideal," you dump it.

But when somebody says "Race doesn't matter" or "All men are created equal," you are supposed to say, "Yes, Master" and lynch anybody who objects. These are "ideals" to which reality and even survival must yield.

Maybe real crises will finally make us face the fact that this is insane. If it doesn't, there is no limit to how much we will have to pay for this insanity.

If our so-called Ideals prohibit rational discrimination, it is time to toss them out.

For in the real world, as Robert Heinlein pointed out

"The penalty for stupidity has always been death."

WHY FASHIONABLE EUROPEAN OPINION IS FORMED BY NASTY LITTLE PEOPLE | 2004-05-31

It is hard for a person who can take criticism to become really nasty or really mean. It is the people who cannot imagine that they are anything but wonderful who get really small and nasty.

If you can look at yourself from the outside there is a limit to how bad you can get. If you assume you are practically perfect in every way there is no limit to how bad you can get.

At the turn of the twentieth century Europeans thought they were wonderful as their sophisticated brilliance led them into World War I.

Europeans in the 1930s thought they were sophisticated and wonderful as their continent divided between Communists and Fascists.

Western Europeans insisted they were brilliant after World War II, when a third of them voted for the silliest kind of democratic socialism, a third of them voted Stalinist and the other third became Catholic theocrats.

In the run-up to the Iraq War, Europeans once again insisted they were being brilliant.

European opinion opposed the Iraq War because they said Americans were awful and low and ignorant and selfish. They said, as usual, that Europeans were True Intellectuals and True Sophisticates and that Western Europeans were the only people who were capable of Generosity and True Compassion.

In other words, Europe went back to the same old crap. But this time some Americans actually noticed how silly they were.