THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

Bigotry is defined as wanting to harm other people on the basis of characteristics like their race or national origins.

On December 8, 1941, the Congress of the United States adopted one of the most bigoted statements in human history. It declared war on Japan. Under international law that declaration meant that every American became a mortal enemy, individually, of every person in the Empire of Japan.

If you forget a minor incident that occurred at Pearl Harbor in December 7, 1941, the only explanation for the American Congress' action was pure racial and national bigotry and nothing else.

Franz Boas spent his life teaching - at public expense - that white gentiles were the common enemies of Jews and all other minorities. As another Jewish gentleman, Noel Ignatiev, who teaches at Harvard, put it, "The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists."

You can state this as honestly as Ignatiev does, or you can say, "I'm Jewish, so of course I'm against racism." Since being against racism now means that every white majority country must become "multiracial and multicultural," either way you say it is pure genocide.

That is a more vicious declaration of hatred than the attack on Pearl Harbor was.

Am I anti-semitic? If a semite considers the very existence of my race to be anti-semitic, you 're

damned right I am as anti THAT semite as it is humanly possible to be.

I have repeated this fact many times, and it fits right here.

"Should Old Acquaintance Be Forgot?" I don't know about acquaintances, but every "inevitable" and "unchangeable reality" of last month has been forgotten for the last three weeks.

No professional Sovietologist could even imagine the total collapse of the Soviet Empire. Yes, I know you heard from somebody that somebody predicted it, but I hear that from everybody else. It didn't happen.

AT ALL.

It's like those identical twin tests that show that many identical twins are very different. They don't exist, but otherwise truthful people would say they saw them.

I remember when private transportation was going to be in helicopters instead of cars. And every year, for decades, those who predicted the future were always WRONG, LAUGHABLY wrong, TRAGICALLY wrong.

That seems to be the one "historical inevitable" that nobody but me has ever noticed.

I recently got one of the emails that makes this whole effort worthwhile. A reader criticized my idea that maybe the color of the skin is in fact very important when it comes to why races perform the way they do. I wrote her back my usual "Forget it" reply which is my response to the usual letter of this kind.

I cannot count how many letters of this kind I have received, but not like this one. All the others were from people regurgitating the same old cliches we have all read a thousand times.

But this young lady let me know in no uncertain terms she had read what I said. She really let me have it.

Lord, I LOVE that! I am so desperately sick of reading the same old predigested crap, and it is such a relief to have someone show they have actually read what I said and thought about it.

You see, this young lady actually wanted to know the exact point that I was making. Others who say that really just want to shriek about the fact that I am committing heresy. They want to repeat the same old cliches. I did her an injustice and boy did she let me know it.

So here is my reply to this e-mailer who has made Old Bob very, very proud

"Thanks again, X, for your patience and attention. I am going to try this with you. So far, saying this to other people has been like trying to push toothpaste back into a tube, trying to get attention to the very simple statement I am making."

"Many years ago, I was reading a critique of Rousseau's idea of The Noble Savage. The writer agreed that the eskimos and the people who live in 'that land beyond argument,' the freezing lands of Tierra del Fuego, are indeed inoffensive, non-aggressive people. The same is true of the bushmen who live in the horrible environment of the Kalahari Desert in Africa."

"But, said the writer, this is not because being primitive and away from population centers makes you nice. On the contrary, it is because you are unaggressive that you have to live in such an awful place

'"He concluded that 'Nonassertive, peaceful people tend to live at unfashionable addresses.'"

"So it isn't that living in depopulated places makes you inoffensive. You live in such places BECAUSE you are inoffensive."

"Darwin said that when he first read Malthus, he immediately thought of the theory of survival of the fittest. In the same way, I thought this simple, sensible observation about adaptation versus dominance may be the key to the vexing problem of race."

"There are two general ways to survive. One is to dominate and the other is to adapt. Our mammalian ancestors lived beside the dinosaurs, and they did so by being tiny, quiet, mouselike creatures who came out at night. When the dinosaurs went extinct, we came out and dominated the world."

"If I were a Martian coming to earth, I would notice that the humans with the pink skin were dominant. I would wonder why the ones with the pink skins were dominant. If I read that there are two general types of survival, one of adaptation and one of dominance, I would say, "Well, the other two big races here have adaptations. One has sickle cells which protect it from malaria and a black skin, the other has epicanthric eyefolds and horned skin, both of them protection from extreme cold. So the pink ones dominate and the other two adapted."

"Like any good theorist, I would THEN -- AFTER taking the reality I see into account -- seek to modify or contradict this all-too-obvious idea. But to a human, this simplistic explanation of the world is hideously insulting, degrading, and above all simplistic."

"But is it true?"

"This is a separate question from justifying the survival of any race, and it is a mere theory of mine. Here is where I run into trouble. I have taken a look at reality first, and ask whether things are not simply as they appear."

"I guess that, unlike me, other folks are human and therefore go ballistic at the very simplistic approach to a Great Question that I am suggesting."

"So the canned replies roll out

'I know many nonwhites. Some of my best friends are not white. There are a lot of BRILLIANT nonwhites. The most brilliant person I ever met was a Negro gentleman.'

"And so on ad nauseum."

"And then there is my favorite: the person I am talking to is shaking, red-faced, wants to kill me, and shouts, 'YOU ARE JUST BEING EMOTIONAL!!!!!!'"

"Then, sort of like Amen ends a prayer, there is the final tag line, "HITLER was an evil, evil man!"

"So I just sit here waiting quietly for someone to deal with a point I made -- not a complete theology, just a point I made. "

"I am still waiting."

The Reverend Moon used to be on TV regularly performing a thousand marriages at a time.

Did you ever wonder why, thought those mass weddings were regularly shown briefly, there was never a single CLOSEUP of any of the partners?

Because they were almost all interracial. It was, after all, the Universalist Church.

All cults, all Wordist institutions have this as an ideal. They want to have a new generation whose ONLY common bond is THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE CULT.

All Wordist institutions have this common goal, but few can push it as openly as Moon did, since their people still retain SOME sanity and SOME feelings from outside the cult.

But a when a respectable conservative says he doesn't care where you were born, you're an AMERICAN if you subscribe to his creed, he MEANS it.