THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

AIR DEFENSE FOR ISRAEL, BUT NOT THE US | 2000-09-09

This week, American Patriot missiles were put on alert for a possible Iraqi missile attack on Israel. There is a lot of debate about the effectiveness of Patriot missiles. But Israel's defense is more important than any question of cost, so they are deployed.

Meanwhile there is a huge debate about the United States deploying a missile defense.

Russia and the usual Communist states are attacking the idea. So America liberals are attacking it. So our NATO "allies" are attacking our deployment of such a weapon.

During the Cold War, this same parade would attack any effective new weapons deployment by the United States. The neutron bomb was a classic case of this alliance preventing a weapon that was distinctly favorable to the United States against the USSR.

The Strategic Defense Initiative - renamed "Star Wars" by Teddy Kennedy - was the idea that finally broke the Soviet Union's will. Their technology and economy simply could not match such a US system. So Gobachev called on his liberals and his - sorry, I mean our - NATO "allies." But Reagan wouldn't yield.

But no one objects to our protecting Israel, its seacoast, its land borders, and its air.

The only two places in the world where the First World has a border directly on the Third World is at the Rio Grande and on the Israeli border. American Democrats are dominated by liberals, and they look forward to plenty of third world minorities coming into the US and voting for the left. The Republican presidential candidate is fanatically in favor of erasing that border completely to bring in cheap labor.

Bush is for the missile defense, of course, but only because conservatives are kneejerk supporters of anything in a uniform.

Meanwhile, both parties are absolutely committed to the protection of Israel's border. And both parties would cheerfully kill to protect Israel from air attack. Nobody in NATO has breathed a word against that.

We spend billions each year to protect Israel's ground borders, while our own are as open as the government can get away with. These are policies Bush will not merely preserve, but advance.

And Israel's air missile defense is sacred to the United States, unlike our own.

I am against almost all military expenditures right now. Neither Bush nor Gore will do anything with American forces except push the liberal agenda. I tend to favor a missile defense, because it protects the United States, which is, to me, what the US armed forces are all about.

My mild support becomes stronger when I see the Communists and our "allies" - and, of course, the liberals -- line up against it. These are the same people who always lined up against any military systems the Soviet Union didn't want, precisely because they later proved to be effective.

IJAS II | 2012-12-28

The right assumed their opponents had won it all in 2012.

As I said in "It Just Ain't So I," it is hard to overstate how tiny we are compared to those in power.

But when I got into politics, the USSR was so permanent that even conservative science fiction writers included them in the future on a par with the West.

I remember when the left used the language of power and confidence. I know exactly what it sounds like when the other side is comfortable in power. They use those WORDS now, but they radiate fear, even terror.

Old science fiction has network TV in the far future. Astronauts are using clipboards. If you ever think you have a solid grip on the future, read some old science fiction and you will be cured.

Establishment thinkers really don't do much thinking. Exactly like paycheck conservatives, they write to order. It doesn't matter if they are dead wrong. If they say what pleases their readers and book buyers, the wildest absurdity goes into the Silence.

No Sovietologist lost his job over the fact that, without any warning, his subject disappeared from the face of the earth without his having a hint of it.

They're Russianologists or Slavologists now, promoted and paid well to tell people all about the future of POST-Soviet countries. They never say it but everybody knows it. Once again, an expert is a person who made the crisis he is called in to solve.

Nobody ever discusses what happened to the USSR.

At all.

It is in the Silence.

But the fact that it is in the Silence does not mean that the establishment has forgotten it. In fact, the collapse of what they really believed was The Future injured the psychology of the left badly. No one will ever mention that economists, Intelligence and the CIA all agreed almost unanimously that the USSR was catching up with the United States in per capita income.

The "Centrally Planned Economy" was the future, and only hicks and anti-intellectuals disagreed.

It is almost impossible to explain how the paycheck left was shocked by the end of the Inevitable Future.

They were shocked when the Clintons lost just as abruptly as the USSR had when blacks tossed them out for a REAL black. There are many, many examples like this, but it takes too much explaining because you, too, keep thinking about The Latest Thing rather than the catastrophe which is going right into the Silence.

It is not comfortable when your overwhelming power rests on concepts where you know It Just Ain't So.

In fact, the paycheck left is exactly like the paycheck right. The existence of their establishment became more and more dependent upon the "Both Sides" myth. The Election of 2012 gives them feelings much like those when the Inevitable Future simply disappeared.

Suddenly the screaming minorities have taken over. They did it in the NAME of the paycheck left. But how would you like to be rich man or a white newsman who has always assumed he represented the tame minorities against the right?

The paycheck left is as scared as the paycheck right.

IJAS III will give you some history to explain that nameless fear

USING THE SOLUTION TO FORGET THE PROBLEM | 2011-02-27

The Da Vinci Code really caught Christians off guard because all of them, not just Catholics, had assumed that Jesus was a virgin. In fact the Church became more of a fanatical anti-sex organization than it was anti-sin.

In fact, the worst sins were almost ignored in a total fanaticism over not having sex.

Then, suddenly, someone actually brought to public discussion the question of why a young Jew in 20 AD would be fanatically against marriage and children.

It was bit of a surprise when I was watching a documentary on the history of the idea of Hell and quoted a Zoroastrian on the subject in the fourth century. The Zoroastrians had been talking about Hell since centuries before the Battle of Marathon. The Zoroastrians were burning down the Greek temples for being "pagan" when the Jews were supposed to be in Persia.

Like the fact that "Noah's" Flood was in the Gilgamesh Saga, this sort of thing really shakes up the official theological version of history.

So what is the basis of this problem for the churches? It is simply that they got so wrapped up in tying every word of the Old Testament to St. Paul's Christianity with its thoroughly sophisticated, Zoroastrian ideas that they got their history not only wrong, but wrong to the point where they ended up making a new institution that had very little to do with Christ OR Moses.

We are not theologians here. Our interest is in the HISTORY here. We have an exact parallel.

We begin by trying to defend our racial existence. Then we find that Jews are doing their thing for their crowd, and, as is usual among humans, Jews end up being our enemies. Everybody who borders on anybody else is a Traditional Enemy, France of Germany, Germany of Russia, Turks and Greeks.

From our point of view, this is an observation, Jews border on everybody and are rooted in a hatred of everybody, and everybody who borders on them, European or Islamic, tends toward a fanatical, and logical, anti-Semitism.

Then come the institutions built on top of this reality. Inevitably every white group that was originally aimed at our survival becomes as obsessed with Jews as the institution that claimed Christ became obsessed with spaying or neutering any intelligent man or woman it could recruit.

When I quote Christ to a Christian it is just not the same as Religion, where you quote an obscure Hebrew prophet in the Old Testament.

I am not even surprised to find groups that once were pro-white arguing that we all have to assimilate for a common front against the JEWS.

Or the Communists.

Or the Masons.

Or Crime.

Or the Environment.

In the first century the intellectual environment, especially that of the intellectual St. Paul, was as permeated with the popularity of degenerate Zoroastrianism as the world of Karl Marx was permeated by Hegel's Dialectic. Today, someone studying Marx really doesn't understand this fashion he is writing about.

Studying Marx without knowing about Hegel is very much like studying the self-styled Christian institutions without knowing that, even when the Roman Empire was ten percent Hellenic Jews, the largest monotheistic religion on earth was that of the Magis.

So the Christian institution became obsessed with something those who read the Da Vinci Code don't even know existed, the anti-life policy of the degenerate Zoroastrianism that, in its healthy phase, had been limited to Aryans and had a mulatto at its head when it was crushed by Islam.

The major point of a pro-Aryan religion became hostility to life itself.

Those who turn our movement into an OBSESSION with religion or anti-Semitism are not doing something new.

MY RELIGION IS CHRISTIAN OR I DON'T HAVE ONE | 2004-10-21

It bothers some of my non-religious readers that I call myself a Christian.

In actual fact, I have very little faith. Most people don't. If that were not the case, Jesus would not have talked about faith the size of a mustard seed.

But if you ask me my religious faith, such as it is, it is Christian. If it is not wholly Christian, it is nothing.

My religious conviction is summed up by the great Christian writer, C.S. Lewis:

"Either Jesus is God, or He was a madman."