Search? Click Here
New to BUGS? Read Me
Join the BUGS Team by posting with us in the Working Thread

Robert W. Whitaker Archive Site

We have been working to form a legacy site for Robert W. Whitaker. A site that contains ALL of Bob’s work. A collection of all his articles and audios (which we are transcribing to articles to make searching them easier). The most important function of this site is the search function. Being able to search ALL of Bob’s work via specific key words is imperative, and with this new site, we have been able to achieve that.

The new archive site is robertwwhitaker.net. For BUGSers this site will be a priceless tool for searching Bob’s thoughts on subjects. The site will also have 4 new articles automatically routating daily, so be sure to check it regularly to see articles you may have never read before.

So far we have loaded the old nationalsalvation.net site and the original whitakeronline blog. We are presently working on getting BUGS up there too.

To build this new site, maintain his other sites, hosting, security and build costs, so far we are at $2,000. I have set up a GoFundMe account to help off set some of these costs. If you are able to contribute some dollars to keeping Bob’s legacy alive, it would be greatly appreciated. Here is the link to the GoFundMe – gf.me/u/wi4kik

About Robert W. Whitaker

Bob Whitaker  has been a college professor, international aviation negotiator, Capitol Hill staffer, Reagan Administration appointee, and writer for the Voice of America. He has written numerous articles and three books in his own name. He is perhaps best known for being the creator of The Mantra, a strategy to fight White Genocide. Robert resides now in Columbia, South Carolina.

Robert Whitaker was born in 1941. He entered the University of South Carolina at age sixteen and was a Political Science instructor at the age of nineteen. He then received a scholarship to study for a PhD in economics at the University of Virginia. Two of his eight graduate instructors there later won Nobel Prizes in Economics.

Both future Nobel Laureates left the University of Virginia while Robert was there. Robert’s second reader for his dissertation, James Buchanan, was “forced to leave” when a new dean took over who had vowed to “clean out that nest of right-wingers in the Economics Department.”

Robert was a professor of economics but was unable to complete his PhD because his field of specialization, Public Choice (the field in which the two graduate professors later won Nobel Prizes) was disliked after the faculty had been purged.

Robert then became involved in political activism and intelligence work.

Robert worked with William Rusher, publisher of National Review, in turning the so-called “Wallace Democrats” into “Reagan Democrats.” This was a move that respectable conservatives opposed vigorously. Robert’s 1976 book, A Plague on Both Your Houses, attacking both the liberal establishment and the watered-down Republican opposition, was a milestone in this campaign.

Robert worked on Capitol Hill from 1977 to 1982. During that period, two of his most personally gratifying accomplishments enjoyed today by all of us were saving the Hubble Telescopes and preventing the Internal Revenue Service from imposing racial quotas on private schools.

Despite his criticism of Ronald Reagan in A Plague on Both Your Houses, Robert was a Reagan appointee in charge of all civilian security clearances and federal staffing.

In 1982 Robert conceived and produced an anthology for St. Martin’s Press, The New Right Papers. It explained the strategy that led to Reagan’s 1980 victory by the people, including Robert himself, who made it a reality while conservatives dithered.

Robert left official Federal service in 1985. His third book, Why Johnny Can’t Think: America’s Professor-Priesthood goes into much more than just academia.

 

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments

The Practical Wisdom of Robert Whitaker

This piece is written by Dave. It was an email from him regarding the importance of the archive site we are building of Bob’s work. I asked his permission to share this on BUGS, as it is great insight. Thanks, Dave! (More on the new archive site soon.)

I will tell you why I think Robert Whitaker’s writings are important.

First, some digression:

I am unique in that I come from a family were everybody marries late. I am no exception. For example, I am 67 years old, I married for the first time in my mid-fifties, and I now have a five year old child.

My whole family has been like that for generations. My paternal grandfather was born in 1883 and I knew him well into my teens. He died in the late 1960s in a world he could not recognize. My maternal grandfather, born in 1890, grew up in Virginia among aging Confederate Civil War veterans who he came to know well.

My grandfather told me when I was a child: “You cannot understand American history if you do not understand that the wrong side won the Civil War.”

You see, he had the actual face-to-face first person testimony of the Confederate veterans who fought the Civil War, so he knew what the Civil War was really about. It was an assault of European Imperialism on the American people. The Confederate veterans of the Civil War clearly understood it as such. The Union veterans, in contrast, were victims of
the propaganda of European Imperialism (sound familiar?).

This brings us to the unique importance of Robert Whitaker. Robert Whitaker understood that the memory that constitutes real history only lasts for three generations, and this is because the influence of face-to-face first person testimony only lasts three generations. Death erases accurate memory beyond three generations because you can only interface with three generations (normally) within one lifetime and therefore you only get three generations of first person testimony told face-to-face.

It is death that gives propaganda its opportunity. You see, the Civil War was real to my grandfather, even though he wasn’t born until 1890, because he had access to the face-to-face first person testimony of those that actually fought it.

I am in a similar position regarding WWI and WWII. Even though I was not born until the 1950’s because my grandfather, who I knew well, was in WWI and because my father, who I knew well, was in WWII, those wars are real to me. This is the influence of face-to-face first person testimony. Because of this, I know things that students of written histories (propaganda histories) cannot know.

For example, my father was in the front line British and American assault forces that stopped the German and Dutch advance on Antwerp on News Years Day in 1945 (the last high causality WWI style battle that British and Americans were ever in). They then carried out the recapture of the Ardennes, penetrated the Siegfried Line, took the Rhineland, and ended up in warehouses on the Elbe River in May of 1945 awaiting the conclusion of the Battle of Berlin.

If you said to my father, “The British and American allies won the War in Europe,” my father would have rolled his eyes. Those British and American soldiers that actually carried out the conclusion of World War II in Belgium and West Germany knew that the actual outcome was a defeat, not a victory. It is pure propaganda that the British and American
allies “won the War in Europe.” The soldiers that actually fought that war knew it was not true. Leaving half of Germany and all of Central
Europe in the hands of the Communists was not a victory, it was a defeat, and that is how THOSE SOLDIERS perceived it.

You will hardly ever hear that told in any written history (propaganda history) of WWII.

Robert Whitaker clearly understood the difference between real history and myth. He was unique in this. He understood the role of face-to-face first person testimony and how and why real history dies within a three generation time frame. He understood clearly HOW propaganda finds its opportunity.

And this brings us to Robert Whitaker’s other great insight, and that is the role of slogans in politics. I never understood big league politics until I began to study Robert Whitaker. I never understood that big league politics is really about slogans and that there is nothing more important than finding effective and durable slogans. Effective slogans put paid to fake history. Robert Whitaker taught me that if you want to defeat fake history, (fake history being an artifact of the role of death in human life), you must find effective slogans.

That insight is pure genius. Robert Whitaker was a genius, a practical genius, and that is WHY it is important to preserve Robert Whitaker’s writings.

Dave

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Comments

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Written By Bob Whitaker. Originally posted 17th September 2012 – https://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2012/09/17/first-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution/

“… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

There is not just a right to free speech. There is a right to hold meetings, ESPECIALLY meetings of people who are called “extremists.”

Approved people have no reason to NEED such a right to be specified.

I hear a lot about free speech from the big media, but nobody mentions the right to peaceably assemble.

This is in the Constitution because the people who wrote it were themselves threatened by death for meeting for “extremist” purposes.

It does NOT say “the right to assemble for a politically correct purpose.”

The usual way of forbidding our meetings, especially on campus, is by saying that, while police will protect anyone ELSE from being harassed, “they cannot protect people from violence” if the meetings are about heretical or extreme purposes. So our meetings are routinely forbidden because THOSE WHO ARE NOT MEETING PEACEABLY will cause trouble. So the right to peaceably assemble is thrown out because thugs won’t like the meetings.

Considering they, the Founding Fathers, put in the First Amendment because they themselves had been extremists and were threatened with thug violence, the idea that a group loses its right to free speech and assembly because THE OTHER SIDE might get violent with them would have been just what British authorities USED up to 1775.

When the Founding Fathers were talking “Treason” in 1775, someone who said it was OK to ban their meetings because they might cause riots — which they did — would not be looked upon as sane by the people who wrote the First Amendment.

Allowing heretical views and extremist views AND THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE despite thugs was PRECISELY the reason for the First Amendment.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments

Whether intermarriage is being forced….

The below was written by Sunlit I. in a recent thread and I think this dicsussion is worth futhering on here….

Wuntz Moore raised an important question by starting this thread:
“Does the Mantra express opposition to intermarriage per se, and should we?”
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/does-the-mantra-express-opposition-to-intermarriage-per-se-and-should-we/

WmWhite reminded the readers of that thread about this previous one:
“Anti-Whites Insist That Integration Must Be Enforced Everywhere Because Whites Don’t Want It”
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2013/01/29/anti-whites-insist-that-integration-must-be-enforced-everywhere-because-whites-dont-want-it/#comments

And I have been thinking about it ever since… Has anyone ever paid attention to these articles?
(I am not sure, I could have missed someone else talking about them.)

White people prefer white people on dating apps — but that could be changed, study says
https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article219361075.html

Dating applications can allow users to fall into their own racial biases while searching for a partner, a new study says.

But in their study, researchers from schools like Cornell University say the “sexual racism” that plagues apps like Grindr, Tinder and Bumble can be stamped out with a few simple changes. The end goal, the study says, is to promote more diverse pairings on the dating sites.

Another article about it:

Redesign dating apps to lessen racial bias, study recommends
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/09/redesign-dating-apps-lessen-racial-bias-study-recommends

Mobile dating apps that allow users to filter their searches by race – or rely on algorithms that pair up people of the same race – reinforce racial divisions and biases, according to a new paper by Cornell researchers.

As more and more relationships begin online, dating and hookup apps should discourage discrimination by offering users categories other than race and ethnicity to describe themselves, posting inclusive community messages, and writing algorithms that don’t discriminate, the authors said.

“A random bar in North Dakota with 10 customers a day is subject to more civil rights directives than a platform that has 9 million people visiting every day,” Hutson said. “That’s an imbalance that doesn’t make sense.”

Still, the authors said, courts and legislatures have shown reluctance to get involved in intimate relationships, and it’s unlikely these apps will be regulated anytime soon.

So there IS a desire to regulate intimate relationships? Those wishing to do it just cannot achieve it yet?

The so called study itself:

Debiasing Desire: Addressing Bias & Discrimination onIntimate Platforms
http://www.karen-levy.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Debiasing_Desire_published.pdf

We consider bias and discriminationin the context of popular online dating and hookup platforms in the United States, which we call intimate platforms.

While individual intimate preferences are generally regarded as private matters that ought to be free from outside assessment and influence, systematic patterns in such preferences — and the structures that promote and preserve these patterns — hold serious implications for social equality. As others have shown, the intimate sphere has historically been a crucial locus of state control, as well as a key determinant of social and economic welfare [5,31,38].

It even seems to be aimed at white women:

At the extreme, preference in potential partners might very well rest on racial animus and overt prejudice — a belief that those of a different race are unworthy of affection or respect. Or, an individual might limit intimate encounters to others that belong to her own race, on the belief that her race is categorically superior to others. Such preferences might be rightly described as sexual racism in the sense that they reflect generally racist attitudes as expressed in choice of romantic partners.

So, is the Beefcake’s comment (“Saying that intermarriage isn’t being forced is trying to conceal the fact that the conditions which lead to it ARE being FORCED.” http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2013/01/29/anti-whites-insist-that-integration-must-be-enforced-everywhere-because-whites-dont-want-it/#comments) stil enough? Or do anti-whites actually openly want to control more?

In my opinion anti-whites do openly want to control what they themselves call the intimate sphere, and at least some of them are already trying to find a way to do it, because in the future, where whites become a minority in their own countries (and have harder time meeting each other in real life), having control over those dating applications can prove to be of growing importance.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

22 Comments

Soviet Free Speech

Written by Bob Whitaker July 11th, 2014http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2014/07/11/soviet-free-speech/

The definition of freedom normally given is “the right to do anything that does not abridge the rights of others.”

According to this definition, there was not a single slave in the United States in 1850. Black slaves were free to do anything that did not abridge the rights of their masters.

Using that definition, free speech only allows you to say anything that doesn’t offend anybody.

The Soviet Constitution of 1936, issued by history’s greatest lover of freedom, Joseph Stalin, contained an absolute right to freedom of speech.

Solzhenitsyn wrote The Gulag Archipelago about his nightmare years in Soviet Death Camps. He was sent to the Gulag for writing private letters that were critical of Stalin. It was one of tens of millions of cases where Soviet Freedom of Speech had an exception.

Those letters expressed Solzhenitsyn’s hatred of Stalin.

And, in the USSR then as in the US now, “Hate is not free speech.”

In America, one example of this Hate would be for a white man to say he wouldn’t want his daughter to marry a black man. Solzhenitsyn’s letters to a friend about Stalin made it pretty clear that the Soviet Leader would not be his ideal husband for any daughter he had.

During the 1960s Mommy Professors’ boys running around in hippie uniforms wanted to have something to call a Free Speech Movement. Their problem was finding something to say that anyone world dare object to. Not only was everything they said ALLOWED in the media and on campus, it was the ONLY thing allowed in the media and on campus.

So they started fearlessly yelling obscenities to each other on campus and calling themselves champions of free speech.

No one objected, but the  media announced that their shouting obscenities was courageous and daring, like everything else they did.

The purpose of freedom of speech was never the right to scream obscenities. Since the 1700s, the purpose of free speech in America was to EXPRESS AN OPINION.

In fact, freedom of speech DOES allow you to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

But only if, your honest opinion is that there IS a fire in a crowded theater.

In Britain, where Soviet Free Speech rules, “The Truth is no defense” for heresy.

Way back in 1734 America established that telling the truth as you see it IS the ultimate legal defense for free speech.

John Peter Zenger was a German American printer in New York City.

In late 1733, Zenger began printing The New York Weekly Journal to voice  opinions critical of the colonial governor, William Cosby.

In November 1734, Zenger was arrested for libel by the sheriff on the orders of Cosby.

Zenger was acquitted in a landmark case where the jury ruled that the truth is an absolute defense against libel.

Two generations later “The truth IS a defense” was overwhelmingly reasserted in the 1798 congressional election. That election destroyed George Washington’s Federalist Party forever largely because that Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Alien and Sedition Acts reasserted the British and Stalinist assertions that “truth is not a defense.”

What Zenger said was true but Governor Cosby didn’t like it. The American jury said that was just too bad.

Soviet and now British “free speech” outlaw honest opinions and factual statements with slogans like “Hate is not Free Speech” and “Heresy is not free speech.”

That way lies enslavement.

Free speech means the right to state the facts and ANY honest opinion.

Audio Bob

Soviet Free Speech Part 1

Audio Bob Conversation – 1

Audio Conversations Bob – 2

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments