THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

WORDISM: SUPERFICIALITY GOES DEEP | nationalsalvation.net

"Don't pay attention to the externals." They keep telling us.

Let me tell you a story.

In Mary Stuart's story of Merlin, he and his servant meet a beautiful girl at a convent gate. The servant, being merely a servant and not an intellectual, says, "Damn the parents who would lock a beautiful girl like that up in a cloister."

From the Church's point of view, the more beautiful the girl, the kinder she is, the smarter she is, the finer human sacrifice she makes of herself. The Church is monomaniacal about HER sacrifice. The Church has never given a nanosecond's attention to the sacrifice FUTURE generations are being forced to make.

You see, since that girl was locked up in a convent, thousands of that girl's potential descendants would like to have been bore beautiful and smarter than they were and will be. For the Church, MORALITY begins at conception.

Which means that Jesus had no message for us at all, right? When he got here, we weren't conceived yet.

In my youth, before Roe versus Wade, there was an unspoken alliance between the Catholic Church and the political left.

Today that sounds stunning.

We are speaking of the Catholic hierarchy and official Catholic Opinion back then. The Catholic Church took the lead in integration in the South. The Catholic Church had always said that race makes no difference.

The only thing that was important to the Church was Doctrine.

Words, not race.

Which was exactly what liberals said. To a liberal as to a Catholic the words of Marx or Arthur Schlesinger was what mattered. Race, like all inborn characteristics, was unimportant.

Liberals and the Catholic Church were in absolute agreement that what was in your genes was superficial. What you believed at the moment was all that mattered.

On campus in those days things were WORSE than they are today. Anybody who said that ANYTHING was hereditary was immediately accused of Hitlerism.

I always knew that a smart woman would have smart children. A beautiful woman, unless her genes are randomly thrown into sudden unnatural combinations, will have beautiful children. As I have said before, the best beer and the best Cola, if mixed, taste like hell.

The ultimate heresy on my part is that a kind woman will tend to have kind children.

Liberals in the 1960s could stand it if I stuck to beauty, and they would forgive me if I said that intelligence was inherited, thought that was Hitlerism.

But kindness?

The bread-and-butter of liberalism is that they can solve "The Circle of Violence." People who abuse their children are the offspring of parents who abuse their children. This is the "Circle of Violence." By ending the violence in one generation, liberals can end the violence in all generations.

So liberals and the Church hierarchy agree: If Sister Mary of Chastity or Miz Free of the Lesbian Women's Lib Movement stop one generation from beating their children, the "Circle of Violence" will end, and the result will be eternal.

I think that the kindness genes from Sister Mary or Miz Free will cease to exist, but the next generation will have children abused as before.

Identical twin studies, which have been suspended, show that identical twins adopted into totally different environments not only commit crimes, they commit THE SAME CRIMES AT THE SAME TIME.

Which is why you haven't seen an identical twin test in a long, long time.

Back to the little story above.

Everybody reading the story can read. They know that genes are nothing. They know that that servant who was cursing the parents who would persuade a beautiful girl to lock herself into sterility was just being True Idealists.

After all, as we all know, the servant was letting his loins do the talking.

But in my opinion, the loins are a LOT smarter than any group of Intellectuals or the Churchmen they happen to agree with absolutely.

One anti let his pious mask slip and told me I was silly to oppose the end of the white race because it would happen a long, long time from now. The simple fact is that nobody CARES what will happen to future generations. But our LOINS care.

Our PREJUDICES care.

Those loins and those prejudices are the wisdom of a million years of evolution. By comparison, the Words of a professor or a Pope are the babblings of the moment.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? | 2006-06-24

If you will read the piece below on Revisionism, you will see that you should never read

anything as if it is true.

But it is not wholey untrue, either.

You should read everything produced by the mass media, historical, current, and futuristic, as if it were an infomercial.

And please keep in mind that, as usual, much of what I am about to say SOUNDS like a joke.

But the reason it sounds funny is because it is so TRUE, not because it is false. So on to which history to believe and which not to believe.

On an infomercial, if the person talking says he has a little dog named Scottie, you can be

reasonably sure that, if he does have a dog, its name is Scottie. If he is just telling a

side story that doesnot ERQUIRE that he have a dog,but can be about anything else, you may

be reasonably sure he actually has a dog.

In other words, in an infomercial, the further you get away from the PRODUCT, the more you

can believe what is being said. By hte same token, when reading history or social

commentary or futurology, the further you get from the PRODUCT, which is how the present

intellectual fashion wants to have been or to be or going to be, the more you can believe

what they say.

So if a history book says George Washington was born in February of 1732 instead of June of

1732, there is no reason to doubt it. But if it says he only survived because an old

black slave woman who was later thrown to the wolves came up with a brilliant cure for the

illness he was dying from as an infant and murumurred to herself, "It takes a village to

save a child" in her native Manica language, you can be be pretty sure it's not true.

All history, all news, and all futurology are infomercials. You know what the Product is.

IF A PARTY CAN HAVE A MINORITY BASE, WHY CAN'T THE OTHER PARTY HAVE A WHITE BASE? | 2000-08-05

There was a ritzy meeting of moderate Republicans down in Florida.

Gov. John G. Rowland of Connecticut told the group that the party platform ought to change because it is offensive to women, teachers, unions, homosexuals, and immigrants. "I will report to you that the good news is that the rich people and the business people still like us," said Rowland. "But that's about it."

Actually, Republicans get less women and more men. So they don't lose "women." Women are in the majority, so if Rowland were right, Republicans would never win a single election.

The Republicans certainly don't turn off union members. In a typical election year, Republicans get forty percent of the union vote in direct defiance of union leaders.

Presumably, then, what moderates are talking about is not union PEOPLE, but union MONEY. Unions are the only institution in America that can take money by force and use it in politics any way they want to. Media, moderates and McCain want to keep it that way.

So we are left with what the media and moderate line really is: "Republicans can't win if they don't appeal to women's libbers, teachers, homosexuals and immigrants." Rowland leaves one out of the groups in the standard formula: "Minorities."

Rowland's conclusion is even more revealing: "the rich people and the business people still like us." This is what liberals, moderates, and respectable conservatives always say: If you are not a minority, a homosexual, or an immigrant, you are a rich white man. This might give you a hint as to why moderates, who religiously follow this liberal line about voters, so seldom seem to win.

This moderate-media line is so insane that we need to repeat it, because no respectable conservative ever will. They imply, and often state, that anyone who is not women's libber, homosexual or minority is a rich white male. I challenge you to listen closely and not realize that that is what they are saying!

The media and the moderates completely leave out the group Reagan and Gingrich actually won with. These were the Wallace-Reagan Democrats, those who are increasingly unhappy about where this minority-immigrant-homosexual line is taking the country.

Yet the same media announced in 1994 that it was "the angry white males" who took both Houses of Congress away from the Democrats.

They said that because the line is that an angry white male is really anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. Anything they don't like always ends up being called Nazi.

The base of the Republican Party is white. The Democrats are a coalition of minorities. According to the line of all moderates and all the media, the latter is easier to hold together. Meanwhile, back in reality, as the minorities grow, their competition grows.

Only one thing keeps the Democrats from being a permanent and shrinking minority, and that is Republican strategy.

Democratic strategy is to give more and more of what the "haves" have to the "have nots." And remember, to them a "have" is anybody who is not a women's libber, a homosexual, or a leftist in a minority group!

But there is a definite limit to how long one can win elections and buy minorities with white money. As minorities grow, their competition for "rich white money" grows, and only so many fleas can live on one dog.

The decades-long Republicans pursuit of the "Negro vote" is hopeless. Blacks have spent their political history in lock step. They will vote as their leaders tell them, and the liberals own their leaders outright. But other minorities are not so uniform.

For example, the same media that says Hispanics only vote for Democrats also insisted during the Gonzalez flap that the huge Cuban-American vote in Florida could be ignored because it was lost to the Democrats anyway.

The media-moderate argument is that minorities will never vote for a party whose base is white racially and Western European culturally. They then argue that the white population WILL vote for a party based on a minority coalition. In the meantime, the white majority gets more Republican when Republicans go for them, and minorities are learning that competing for dominance with other minorities causes serious problems.

The tendency of moderates and the media to use the word "Hispanic" and the word "immigrant" interchangeably represents the kind of real-world problem they have. To liberals, these two groups are the same.

To Americans with Hispanic names, there is lot of difference. Very few real American Hispanics want to trade in their American standard of living for an open border. But in Mediaspeak, anyone with a Spanish name who wants to restrict immigration at all is "a rich white man."

The deciding factor, strange as it seems, may be the truth: liberal programs don't WORK, rightist programs WORK. A party which is devoted to that proposition, rather than to following the polls and the fads, may be the one that wins in the long run.

SEEKING TALENT TAKES MORAL COURAGE | 2007-06-08

It is important never to let your dislike for an enemy blind you to what he can TEACH you. An old North Carolina joke has one man saying to another:

"You're ugly, your feet stink, and you don't love Jesus."

To outsiders this is a funny demonstration of a hick. But if you are a Southerner, you see the wisdom in it. Like other Southerners — and Brits — North Carolinians think nothing is as funny as making fun of themselves. Actually, it's a form of egotism.

I like to make fun of ME as a redneck, and that is pure egotism. I think the Yankee naiveté that I have exploited all my life is funny. Others think it is ridiculous for me to play the ignorant bumpkin, but ***I*** enjoy it because it reminds me of so many instances where Yankees fell for a more subtle version of it.

What is behind this "You're ugly, your feet stink, and you don't love Jesus?" It is a very profound insight: if you decide that EVERYTHING about your enemy is weak and ugly and bad, you are a damned fool. But that is a trap many people, especially the ones who think they are Knowledge Personified, fall into all the time.

Your average North Carolinian, raised on Porch Talk, knows that. Your average Harvard grad has no idea of it.

I despise Alexander Hamilton. But I admire the man. He did in fact get his power by being George Washington's staff man. But unlike Eisenhower, who never was near combat, Hamilton did get into the war and was a hero when he did. In fact his big break with Washington came because Washington needed him at headquarters and Hamilton wanted to get back to fighting.

You see, this Lesser Generation, who fought the Revolution before the Greatest Generation, had plenty of men on both sides who wanted to FIGHT. The Greatest Generation whines about how it got SHOT AT, poor babies, and how "We fought a WAR for those benefits." Washington was SWAMPED with young men like Lafayette and Hamilton who DEMANDED to stop scribbling and get out there and get ripped to pieces by shrapnel.

THEY were not the Greatest Generation, you see. I despise Hamilton. But the Masturbation Generation could not come up to his kneecap.

Below, with my usual subtlety, I shouted,

A MANAGER WHO DOES NOT SEEK OUT PEOPLE WHO ARE SMARTER THAN HE IS IS A FAILURE.

That is what leaves me in absolute awe of George Washington. George Washington was, to put it plainly, not all that bright. But you have to have a real grasp of American history to appreciate this man's MORAL courage. At his first Cabinet meetings, this slow reader had Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin. In all of history no one was ever able to summon three greater minds than this. Each of them could have had your average Harvard genius for lunch.

TRY, just TRY, to imagine any media or academic bureaucrat today, with an IQ forty points above Washington's, appointing and ordering around a set of intellectual giants like THAT.

I am very smart, but I am old and tired. I am officially disabled. So I can either seek worshippers of my guruship or I can do what Washington did. Washington was one in a million. I want to be one in a million.

I'm a FANATIC. All that matters to me is that somebody grab the flag that is worthy to carry it.

And if that doesn't flatter your soul, you don't have one.