ARCHIVE ARTICLES

• September 15, 2001 - FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, AMERICA, SPREAD OUT!
• September 14, 2001 - WOULD THE CONFEDERACY HAVE BACKED THE UNITED STATES IN THIS WAR?
• September 14, 2001 - BUREAUCRATS VERSUS ZEALOTS
• September 14, 2001 - ALL OUR "ALLIES " LOVE US - -FOR THE MOMENT
• September 13, 2001 - A MAN WITH A MEMORY LOOKS AT THE "AMERICA FIRST" MOVEMENT
• September 13, 2001 - MY ARAB SYMPATHIES
• September 12, 2001 - WHAT MAY HAPPEN
• September 11, 2001 - AMERICA'S BUREAUCRACIES GET DEADLIER EVERY DAY
• September 11, 2001 - UNTIL WE FACE THE SIMPLE CAUSE, THE SITUATION WILL GET WORSE
• September 11, 2001 - SUPERTERRORISM (originally published November 21, 1998)
• September 11, 2001 - LEFTISTS SHOW US HOW NOT TO DEAL WITH TOMORROW'S TERRORISM (originally published April 1, 2000)

Yesterday I said that the Confederacy would have joined the United States "unreservedly" in retaliating for the New York bombings (A MAN WITH A MEMORY LOOKS AT THE "AMERICA FIRST" MOVEMENT, below). A reader disagrees, with considerable heat.

She says the Confederacy would not have backed the American Empire, which brought this on itself. She may be right.

She is right to be upset if I am wrong, because I have so little excuse. Whitaker Online warned that if America continued to ignore history, if it kept trying to straighten out the Middle East and the Balkans, it was asking for disaster.

My excuse is that I simply cannot tolerate the idea of foreigners attacking American soil and getting away with it. But my own worries about where this may lead, expressed in September 12's WHAT MAY HAPPEN (below) and in the two articles that follow this one, show that my head might disagree with my heart on this.

We are all rooting for America in this war. But most of us feel a very deep pessimism about our chances. I think I have found the reason for that deep dread.

That fear is because, down in our bones, something is remembering recent history.

Our giant military bureaucracy operates fine against other military bureaucracies. It conducted a ground campaign against organized Iraqi forces perfectly. It did mass bombings perfectly. It did fine in World War II in an organized campaign against other organized forces.

Our problem now is that we have old established military and intelligence bureaucracies trying to deal with small, fanatical groups of terrorists.

These terrorists are operating from the midst of their own ethnic kin. They are Arab Moslems based in Arab Moslem country.

This war looks very much like the first war the United States Government ever lost, the one in Vietnam.

In Vietnam we faced an enemy organized into small groups operating almost independently. They faded back into the Vietnamese community and struck when they chose, like terrorists today.

We tried to fight in Vietnam with our giant military bureaucracy and we lost. We used mass bombings and body counts, things that a titanic, centrally organized force could do. But they controlled the ground by night, as terrorists do, and in the end our nerve and our national patience couldn't hold.

If we don't attack the bureaucracy problem, we are in deep, deep trouble (See September 11, 2001 - AMERICA'S BUREAUCRACIES GET DEADLIER EVERY DAY and September 11, 2001 - UNTIL WE FACE THE SIMPLE CAUSE, THE SITUATION WILL GET WORSE).

In Vietnam, our European "allies" -- the ones declaring their undying love for us right now -- turned against us as soon as the first excitement died down (See April 14, 2001 - THE "ALLIES" GAMBIT).

Today we are grateful to the Europeans for their sympathy for American dead in New York and Washington.

We think that sympathy means lasting European support. We are not remembering the last time we actually staged reprisals against an Arab country for its support of terrorists.

You have to go back to Reagan's bombing of Libya to find an example of a military action we took entirely as a response to terrorist acts. We proved that Libya had sponsored bombings that took American lives in Western Europe -- on the very soil of our "allies." So Reagan ordered that country bombed.

Nobody in continental Europe would let our British-based bombers fly in "allied" air space to attack Libya. They had to fly west of Portugal over open ocean and it probably cost American lives.

Europe is a lot like Clinton. When it's just a matter of sympathy, they feel our pain. But they will cheer us on as we get in, and they will desert us as soon as the novelty wears off.

This is VERY serious business.

It is essential for you to read July 29, 2000 - ANOTHER WRITER IS PROUD TO HAVE NO FEELING FOR HIS HOMELAND OR HIS PEOPLE and the following article, MY ARAB SYMPATHIES, before you comment on this article.

If I were a good Wordist (WORDISM, May 15, 1999), I would have a lot of sympathy with those who have attacked America. I have been a good friend to the Arabs for over forty years, and I have sympathized with the evil that has been done to them.

But I am NOT a Wordist. I am a nationalist, and an attack on America is an attack on me, no matter how many grudges I hold against New York and Washington.

The South is my nation, but America is the country I am a part of. A Southern Confederacy would be on the side of the United States without reservation.

Osama Bin Ladin and his like have chosen to declare war on my land, and that, not his philosophy, makes him my enemy.

They could have spent all that money and dedication on telling their side of the story. People like me would have helped them with all our heart. But they chose war.

Many are comparing the attacks on the United States a couple of days ago to Pearl Harbor. Many Americans back then wanted no part of a European war. Roosevelt had promised them he would not get us into that war.

Even after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt tried to get the US to declare war on Germany and Italy. But the Congress declared war only on Japan.

Then, on December 11, 1941, Hitler declared war on US.

So the America Firsters who had previously resisted getting into the war against Germany SINCERELY declared their total support for the war against Germany.

These people included William F. Buckley, SENIOR, a Southerner.

Ever since, liberals and respectable conservatives have denounced America Firsters as traitors and isolationists because they did not WANT to go to war against Hitler. Only those who were for allying us with Stalin before Pearl Harbor are now considered true patriots.

This insane idea runs this way: Everybody insists that we fought Hitler, not because he declared war on our country, but to rid the earth of white people. Even PAT BUCHANAN once said that!!!! See RESPECTABLE CONSERVATIVES KILL THEIR WOUNDED, Sept 26, 1999, reprinted August 11, 2001). So everybody here should have wanted war from the first.

No, America Firsters did not want to rid the earth of white people, and if that makes one a traitor, then count me in.

America Firsters joined in the war with all their heart because Hitler had declared war on their country. Maybe Wordists like Buchanan cannot understand this. But it is the essence of real non-Wordist patriotism that makes me an enemy of anyone who declares war on my homeland, no matter what beliefs they profess.

BUT THIS POINT IS CRUCIAL: As you will see in the next article, I am fully aware of which Arabs are our enemies and which are not. I would no more advocate bombing the innocent now than I would have supported bombing the German-speaking Swiss in 1944.

ANOTHER CRITICAL POINT: TO ME, ISREAL IS JUST ONE MORE FOREIGN COUNTRY. I see anyone who wants to shed my nation's blood for some crackpot Bible theory as blasphemous (See October 21, 2000 - THE HINDUS IN ROMAN PALESTINE).

To a non-Wordist, American loyalty to Israel is as treasonous as any other loyalty to a foreign power. Such foreign loyalty is specifically forbidden in the oath every naturalized citizen must take, and it goes for the native born as well.

When I entered the University of South Carolina in 1957, the media hated two groups of people to the extent that they were not considered human. Those two groups were Southerners and Arabs.

I knew a lot of Palestinian refugees who had been treated worse by Israel, literally, than American law would let you treat a dog.

In fact, Arab students led the charge to get me elected to the Student Senate. You could say I was the only conservative in history to WIN an election because of the support of an ethnic minority (See November 28, 1998 - YOU NEVER WIN WITH THE BLACK VOTE).

I was even considered by some Arabs at USC to be a spokesman for their side. I have always deeply appreciated that kind of trust from any group.

In 1959, one my best buddies in Germany was the German representative of the Arab League.

I have mentioned the Bobby Kennedy episode (that I alone seem to remember) in Whitaker Online before, and I will repeat it here:

A Palestinian refugee living in the United States shot Robert Kennedy. Earlier that same night, as part of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Kennedy debated his opponent Eugene McCarthy in California. The debate was carried on national TV.

As a Southerner and a friend of Palestinian refugees, I was used to vicious insults and bloodthirsty threats against those I sympathized with. But what Kennedy and McCarthy said they planned to do to Arabs that night froze even MY blood.

Remember that both of these men were PEACENIKS in Vietnam. But they were also competing for the Jewish votes and money in the Democratic primary in California. I have never heard more cold-blooded threats against Arabs than I heard from those two peaceniks that night!

For this reason, I doubt that that debate will ever be rerun on television or even reproduced where it is easy to find.

As I listened, I thought how I wold feel if I were a Palestinian. Obviously I don't condone murder, but I understood what had happened to Sirhan Sirhan.

Liberal environmentalists are allowed to understand the Unibomber without condoning his actions. But I am not allowed to understand Sirhan Sirhan without advocating murder, or to side with the America Firsters without being a traitor.

Nonsense.

For once, George W Bush got it right. The attack on America was not murder or terrorism, it was an act of war.

I have been one of those who has understood and spoken for Arab grievances all my life. I am the last person on earth to blame all Arabs for these massacres of Americans. I know the difference, and I know it very well indeed.

But I am not a Wordist. If you attack America, you are my enemy, and no one is more of an enemy of those who have chosen to make war than this old redneck.

1) Because of the attack on America, the United States has a chance to really move into the Middle on the side of Israel.

2) We now have the combination of the Israel lobby and a state of war.

3) With support from everybody, the US goes into the Middle East big time.

4) The US, pushed by the Israeli lobby, fundamentalist "Christians" and Israel-hawk liberals, goes absolutely nuts in the Middle East.

5) As in Vietnam, our "allies" desert us sometime next year.

6) The US goes it alone, getting in deeper and deeper.

7) As the ruin mounts up from loss of oil and -- less important, the deaths of Americans -- an anti-semitic reaction grows.

8) In the 1960s, the media and anti-war advocates became more and more openly pro-Communist. As our economic collapse grows and real anti-semitism grows in the US, swastikas begin to go on the streets.

9) People like me begin to scream "naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews," because by now it's a real threat. But leftists have screamed that "wolf" too often in the past.

10 ) a new Holocaust begins

The CIA ands FBI failed to give any indication that the World Trade Center attack was being planned. So Congress wants to increase the CIA and FBI budgets.

That is our response to everything, and it never works. More money will not improve bad performance.

American security agencies are run by entrenched bureaucrats. It is the nature of that bureaucracy that is the problem.

But nobody dares face the problem with our security bureaucracy because it is the same problem we have with others who run the country. If we faced it in intelligence, we might see other things clearly as well.

If we faced the truth about the CIA and the FBI, our other failing bureaucracies would be in serious trouble. Instead of pumping more and more money into Government tuition grants, we might have to realize that our universities are just entrenched bureaucracies, where academic bureaucrats hold all the teaching and administrative jobs. No intellectual need apply.

Our welfare bureaucracy, in fact our entire titanic education-welfare establishment, would be under attack.

And bureaucrats with stars on their shoulders in the Pentagon might lose some of their blind conservative worshippers.

Those who run our political bureaucracy might be questioned.

Worst of all, media bureaucrats might even be questioned.

But bureaucrats needn't panic. Nobody is going to let any of that happen until things get truly desperate.

When the KGB briefly opened its files right after the fall of the Soviet Union, those who looked at them were shocked to discover the enormous extent of Soviet penetration into the US Government since the 1930s. It was worse than even McCarthy had thought!

Naturally the liberal media bureaucracy minimized this news. Respectable conservatives, who are chosen by the same bureaucracy, hardly mentioned it either.

Nobody spent many resources looking at those files while they were open. Neither the big media nor the US intelligence community really wanted to open that can of worms. So when the KGB closed its files, it was clear that only a tiny percentage of their American operations had been uncovered.

For the KGB and other enemy agencies, a static bureaucracy like that in America's CIA and FBI is a sitting target. Over a period of seventy years, it took little talent to penetrate it wherever one wanted to. They got one Communist sympathizer in, and he got others in.

Any entrenched bureaucracy will be as riddled with informers as an unguarded computer is with viruses. These security failures are easily explained. But it is an explanation no paid security expert would dare make public.

So our security bureaucracy is not only inefficient. It also is open to infiltration.

And please take note: these are only two of the MANY obvious realities that those who work for our security bureaucracy must overlook if they want to keep their jobs.

No security professional, in or out of the government, is going to point out this obvious fundamental problem. If he did, he would never get paid to do anything in that area again.

No bureaucracy, be it security or media or education or military, is going to fund a serious critic.

This is not a plot. It's just the obvious result of letting bureaucracy go its own way.

We must stop promoting and listening to people because they have degrees or years in office or the right crowd approves of them. That is why they are allowed, even encouraged, to fail.

Only a complete intellectual revolt against all entrenched bureaucracies, a root-and-branch house cleaning, can deal with the real problems America faces.

Make them give us real solutions or get rid of them. Until we do that, things will get worse.

There it hangs, the threat of superterrorism.

You can find out how to make a suitcase-size atomic bomb on the Internet. Russia probably has hundreds of times as much plutonium missing as is needed.  Disease and poisoning of water supplies are constantly mentioned as cheaper, less complicated means of superterrorism.

There is no reason liberals or moderates or respectable conservatives would look at this threat. The minute superterrorism appears, the entire, narrow world of liberalism collapses.

As you will see below, the first thing that will disappear as soon as superterrorism appears will be the liberal concept of a society planned on rules set down by social experts.

Liberals don't like to think about superterrorism, so moderates and respectable conservatives ignore it.

Someone once said that facing execution concentrates one's attention wonderfully.

Atomic devices will concentrate our attention wonderfully.

As I mentioned at the Redshirt meeting, the first atomic terrorist explosion will cause instant decentralization. Suddenly, when anybody could carry an atomic device into a community, all this multiracial, multicultural nonsense will evaporate.

Today, liberalism forces us to make heroes of anybody who has a grudge against American society or white people or, in the case of fanatical environmentalism, even mankind itself.

To the liberals, all the other terrorists are just right-wing extremists, but the Unibomber was a semihero. Suddenly, it will no longer be fashionable to treat guilt-sellers as colleagues. The Unibomber will be the man of this future, though compared to his nuclear successors, this leftist radical was a piker. The guy who got his arms blasted off by the Unibomber got his attention concentrated abruptly.

He wrote a book about it, and in that book he no longer shows the usual businessman's tolerance for environmental radicals.

If political resentment leads people to use atomic terrorism, and you say you feel America really belongs to the Indians, I do not want you within a mile of me.

Literally.

Every liberal and respectable conservative will declare that superterrorism will be end of civilization. Not long ago, that might have been the case. But today, the same thing that makes secession so efficient will preserve civilization after superterrorism, probably without too much of a bump. Industry is no longer concentrated the way it once was. We no longer need the sort of huge cities that superterrorists can threaten as the center of our civilization. We can easily spread out and defend our production facilities.

How will we unite without the United States Army to force all of us to be part of a single Union?

We will do what we should have done in the first place. Communities will make voluntary agreements for trade and mutual protection, as the Confederacy will make with the United States and other countries. Such agreements could easily be more efficient than our present bureaucratic tangle of interstate regulations.

Can civilization survive without the Federal Courts to regulate every facet of our social life? I believe so.

Technology moves very fast. Those of us who are older carry around time capsules in our bodies. Most of us still have some of the old silver fillings in our mouths. And on our arm, all of us from my generation have a piece of yesterday -- a smallpox vaccination scar.

Everybody had to have them. As late as the 1970s, you had to prove you had had a fairly recent smallpox vaccination in order to travel into many countries. Now the only living smallpox viruses left are in a handful of laboratories.

Smallpox does not exist outside of a few laboratories. The World Health Organization has recommended that even those disease stocks be destroyed. Smallpox is probably the only disease that human effort has so far destroyed completely all over the world. But Europe got rid of leprosy almost as completely centuries ago.

You know all those movies you see where evil superstitious Europeans are forcing innocent lepers to live in their own places? This is usually presented as the old fashioned ignorant approach to such diseases.

But in the real world, it worked. Leprosy was made to disappear from Europe by isolating it. The reason WHO says the remaining smallpox virus should be destroyed is because of its potential use in biological warfare.

We are facing a large number of threats of this sort. We are trying to prevent nuclear proliferation, bacteriological warfare, and other types of mass terrorism. The only real answer is to take advantage of our advancing technology to spread the threatened population out. As I explained on March 6, 1999, in "How Tomorrow's Confederacy Will Deal With Tomorrow's Reality" the real solution to this is to use our technology to SPREAD OUT.

The ruling leftist policy is the exact opposite of this rational policy. We are told that the solution to our problem is to force Serbians into living as closely as possible to Albanians, blacks and whites must be mixed together in prescribed percentages for racial balance, and the like.

None of this is necessary for the PROFESSED liberal aims. Through computer technology and simple travel, we will in any case have more CULTURAL INTERACTION between different groups than we have ever had before. We don't have to be jammed together physically to have cultural interaction.

Like everything else liberals propose, forcing groups together won't work. Once again, we must do the opposite of what liberals propose. In a world where a single extremist can destroy a city, we will have to spread out, not integrate.

I have watched liberals for decades, and this is typical. Every day it becomes more possible for terrorists to kill everybody in a confined area. The liberal solution to this is to jam as many potentially hostile groups as closely together as possible.

Can you imagine that leftists would recommend anything else?

Home | Current Articles | Article Archive | About Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links | Privacy Policy

Home

Current Articles

Article Archive

Whitaker's World View

World View Archives

About Bob Whitaker

Contact Bob

Links

Privacy Policy