THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

PLEASE GET BACK ON MESSAGE | 2012-12-02

In reply to Dick Whitman's plea for a philanthropist to finance BUGS, Undercover Lover makes some solid, basic BUGS pointes:

"I think this is a bad idea.

Organizations are Organisms.

A soon as they come into existence, they want to eat, grow and reproduce. Eventually that is all

they do.

There will be politicians making organizations and groups like this everywhere. We already have David

Duke and Jared Taylor as examples. The problem is they are not on message.

We are not about getting more people to be members of our group. We are about spreading a message.

Admittedly, I would like to get paid for this but I think the best thing is for our group to remain unpaid. Have it remain a purely voluntary type organization. We seem to be doing pretty good right now anyways."

Now let us concentrate on what this discussion has to offer us rather than its merits. The probability that some philanthropist would offer money and not just take over is not worth discussion.

The point is that the institutions I discuss are not some capitalized Institution with Evil Jews behind it. BUGS is already an institution. The point is we have to watch it to keep it from going in the inevitable direction of all institutions.

Any two people working together is an institution. As UL says, the instant it exists, an institution begins to have its own imperatives.

At the Tennessee Conference, I am sure David thought I was being terribly unsophisticated. He has the figures to prove that his institution does infinitely better, certainly way out of my league, with its billions of hits and millions of dollars or whatever.

He and Jared are perfectly correct that white genocide is a hard sell, meaning an unprofitable sell. That is an institution's bottom line.

And once you depend on money out there in the real world where everybody else is fighting for money, other goals cease to exist. I see no reason for institutions to exist for their own sake.

Counting up our money is not the only thing that gets in the way as one institutionalizes.

Victory can get in the way. Or rather the PURSUIT of victory gets in the way. More and more BUGS thought is wasted on whether we are WINNING.

No matter how it is expressed, that is the Torchlight Parade Syndrome. We need to concentrate ENTIRELY on where our message is being directly or indirectly quoted and how to increase THAT quotient.

I am seeing more and more comments that consist of Stormfront stuff. My constant warnings about institutionalizing are being ignored.

ANNOTATED MANTRA | 2008-08-28

I just spent ten minutes for the comment that inspired this. Someone pointed out that Shank lost interest as I repeated ALL of the Mantra.

Others have mentioned this. But I didn't want to touch the Mantra until you became USED to USING it. You aren ow aware that "making a pioint" and GETTING IT ACROSS are two entirely different things.

The length of the thing, IN PRACTICE, is to stop somebody cold and make them see what you are saying. One sentence can't do that. There has to be a delay or the conversation will go on from the point before yours.

Now let's go into the Mantra to see if we can't 1) Hit home and 2) Shorten it CREATIVELY.

AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

( This IS the Mantra in short form. Maybe now that we have this, the long form can be cut back.)

"It is said that there is this RACE problem. They say 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 as crowded as 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."

(How would it be if we cut it off here?)

"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."

http://whitakeronline.org

http://www.nationalsalvation.net/

THE FINAL SOLUTION | 1999-02-20

The United States has a racial policy in force. It is a policy that is aimed at a final solution to what is referred to as "the RACIAL problem."

Everybody knows that the word "race" here actually means "white," though I am the only person who EVER points that out.

This so-called solution to something called a "race" problem involves something called "multiracialism." But this so-called multiracialism is aimed only at WHITE majority countries. It is aimed at Australia, New Zealand, Europe, the United States, and Canada -oh, and Iceland, too.

It is aimed ONLY at white majority countries.

It is aimed at ALL white majority counties.

White majority countries constitute what is called "the race problem." Solving the "race" problem is a euphemism for solving the WHITE problem. As one New Left leader put it in a burst of honesty in the 1960s: "The white race is the cancer of history." For once, the Love Generation spoke plain English.

If all efforts at promoting the immigration of other races and integrating them were ONLY aimed at Africa, white liberals and respectable conservatives would scream bloody murder.

Likewise with Asia.

Any liberal and any Jack Kemp or George Bush, upon hearing about a large white population anywhere, is going to ask what they are doing about becoming multiracial.

Respectable conservatives and liberals agree that the white problem must be solved.

As long as I am the only person pointing this out, I think we can stop pounding our chests and talking about how we brave souls are going to found and maintain a nation.

DEFEATISM IS THE ONLY ENEMY | 2008-07-16

I have said before that as a teenager I read the official West Point history of Warfare. War Through the Ages, a number of times. It was a thousand pages long. It emphasized EXACTLY the point that the Greatest Generation ignored.

You see, the self-styled Greatest Generation wanted to show how TOUGH they were. To be frank, I have known a lot of people who fought on about every side and on every front in World War II, and every single non-American said Americans were the worst troops in it, save maybe the Italians.

Those who adopted War Through the Ages back then were not trying to prove how tough they were. They were pros and knew it.

War Through the Ages emphasized REAL morale. That is, the book described each battle in detail, but it had one theme: having the biggest army is the same as having good propaganda. Alexander the Great was routinely outnumbered umpteen to one AND THE ARMY THAT BROKE AND RAN BEOFRE HIM STILL OUTNUMBERED HIM UMPTEEN TO ONE.

Also, War Through the Ages did NOT say the members of the giant armies that broke and ran on so many battles were made up of wimps or novices. That is Greatest Generation crap.

So how did Alexander and Robert E. Lee and Napoleon get superior forces to fall apart in front of them?

There were about as many of the enemy when they ran away as when the battle began. There was ONE difference and one difference ONLY. The army that ran was CONVINCED IT HAD LOST.

That was ALL.

That is why "Power comes from the barrel of a gun!!!" is such a silly statement. In many a battle, the losing side came and ran with more gun barrels.

The ONLY job of the enemy, with or without guns, is to convince us we are defeated. Those who try to convince us we are defeated, by any means, anywhere, is the enemy.