Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

A White Future is Coming: an interview with Bob Whitaker

by Kevin Alfred Strom

Amer­i­can Dis­si­dent Voic­es Broad­cast of July 3, 2004

Bob Whitak­er is a man who, despite work­ing at a high lev­el with­in the Wash­ing­ton estab­lish­ment, has always remained faith­ful to his race and nation. He is also a man with a fas­ci­nat­ing and hope­ful vision of a White future. Join with Mr. Strom as he explores the ideas and insights of this fas­ci­nat­ing writer, wit, and thinker.

Today we’re proud to wel­come to the Amer­i­can Dis­si­dent Voic­es micro­phones Mr. Bob Whitak­er, a dis­tin­guished author, jour­nal­ist, and wit, whose writ­ings reg­u­lar­ly appear in Nation­al Van­guard print mag­a­zine. His lat­est book is Why John­ny Can’t Think, and it’s avail­able from Bob’s own Web site, Whitakeronline.org. Recent­ly, Mr. Whitak­er shared the podi­um with me at David Duke’s Euro­pean Amer­i­can Con­fer­ence in New Orleans. Wel­come to the pro­gram, Bob.

Bob Whitak­er: Thank you, sir.

KAS: When we intro­duced you for the first time to our read­ers in Nation­al Van­guard, we gave a cap­sule biog­ra­phy of you as fol­lows:

“Mr. Whitak­er was born and raised in South Car­oli­na, and attend­ed the Uni­ver­si­ty of South Car­oli­na and the Uni­ver­si­ty of Vir­ginia Grad­u­ate School. He has been a col­lege pro­fes­sor, an inter­na­tion­al avi­a­tion nego­tia­tor, a Capi­tol Hill senior staffer, a Rea­gan Admin­is­tra­tion appointee, and a writer for the Voice of Amer­i­ca.”

So you’re a Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion appointee — what’s the sto­ry behind that?

BW: I was Spe­cial Assis­tant to the Direc­tor of the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, in charge of secu­ri­ty clear­ances, staffing, and that sort of thing.

KAS: Why is some­one with such excel­lent estab­lish­ment cre­den­tials defend­ing the White race, as you do in your work, with­out apol­o­gy or regret? Isn’t that some­thing that sim­ply “isn’t done” these days by any­one who wants to retain his posi­tion in pri­vate or pub­lic life?

BW: Well, I did it. And they cleared me at the high­est pos­si­ble lev­els, so if you do it right, you can do it. And I’m good at it.

KAS: What is it in your back­ground that has caused you to stick to that posi­tion, to remain true?

BW: Well, I’m a wild­ly overe­d­u­cat­ed red­neck from Pon­ti­ac, South Car­oli­na. I’m loy­al to my own peo­ple. That’s the way I was raised. And that’s the way I am. And I’ve always said I’ll always pro­tect my race, and the South, and the things that I come from. That’s sort of basic.

KAS: What do you say to some­one who asks you ‘Why should we pro­tect our race?’

BW: The present pol­i­cy is mas­sive immi­gra­tion of the Third World into White coun­tries — all White coun­tries. And only White coun­tries. That’s called geno­cide.

KAS: I notice you were a col­lege pro­fes­sor, Bob. May I ask what was your field of exper­tise; what were you teach­ing?

BW: Eco­nom­ics. Two of my pro­fes­sors in grad­u­ate school went on to win Nobel prizes.

KAS: Very good. Even as a for­mer col­lege pro­fes­sor, your most recent book, Why John­ny Can’t Think, is very crit­i­cal of the aca­d­e­m­ic estab­lish­ment. What made you decide to crit­i­cize your own for­mer col­leagues?

BW: Well, I did that from the word go. I was crit­i­cal when I was there.

To start with, when I was six­teen I entered col­lege, and by then I’d already read med­ical his­to­ry. And I read about the great med­ical doc­tors who bled George Wash­ing­ton to death, based on a crazy the­o­ry. All social sci­ence is prim­i­tive, and all prim­i­tive fields do stu­pid things. Social sci­en­tists will admit their field is prim­i­tive. What they don’t admit is that the rec­om­men­da­tions of doc­tors of phi­los­o­phy or doc­tors of med­i­cine, at the ear­ly stages, are always absurd. So what we have is a set of dis­as­ters that social sci­ence pro­fes­sors have pushed — like ‘crim­i­nals are basi­cal­ly nice guys’ — and all of these lib­er­al poli­cies have been ter­ri­ble fail­ures and all of them came from social sci­ence depart­ments.

Through the years pro­fes­sors have taught these peo­ple left­ism, which boils down to the sim­ple idea that pro­fes­sors should rule the world. This is rather sim­ple, but if you will go over lib­er­al ideas they boil down to all this crit­i­cism of busi­ness­men and mil­i­tary men and all that, leav­ing the idea that the “intel­lec­tu­als” (mean­ing peo­ple like the pro­fes­sors) should rule the world.

Acad­e­mia is a total­ly inbred group of peo­ple. All a pro­fes­sor does for a liv­ing is sign a piece of paper that says you took a course. Every­thing else a pro­fes­sor does is pleas­ing oth­er pro­fes­sors. A pro­fes­sor gets his PhD by pleas­ing pro­fes­sors. He gets his job by pleas­ing pro­fes­sors. He gets pub­lished by pleas­ing pro­fes­sors. And he gets tenure by a vote of the fac­ul­ty. So essen­tial­ly what you have here is a total­ly inbred group of peo­ple. And when you have that in any bureau­cra­cy they just go nuts.

KAS: Is it from the ‘pro­fes­sor class’ that we get the ideas that the sur­vival of the Euro­pean race is some­how ‘evil’; and that strange­ly illog­i­cal corol­lary that ‘race does not exist’?

BW: Yes. I go into that in some detail in the book. If you talk about nur­ture and nature — nur­ture is social sci­ence: soci­ol­o­gy, psy­chol­o­gy, edu­ca­tion. All these things con­sti­tute nur­ture. And so the pro­fes­sors teach that there’s no such thing as nature, as hered­i­ty. Now these days, since we’ve made so many advances in genet­ics, they can’t actu­al­ly say, as they did when I was young, that there’s sim­ply no such thing as hered­i­ty. But they now say, ‘Well, there is hered­i­ty,’ but you will nev­er hear one sin­gle word about hered­i­ty in any social sci­ence class­room in this coun­try. First they’ll say there is hered­i­ty and envi­ron­ment, then they’ll com­plete­ly ignore hered­i­ty.

KAS: Our col­lege stu­dents, then, are being mise­d­u­cat­ed. What would your advice be to par­ents of a young man or young woman who’s about to go into col­lege?

BW: Read the book. It was writ­ten over a peri­od of two years specif­i­cal­ly to pre­pare home school­ers, pri­vate school­ers, and any­body else — and their par­ents — to laugh at pro­fes­sors. The strat­e­gy is laugh­ter. If you ever watch a lib­er­al on TV, he might make a state­ment like ‘crim­i­nals are basi­cal­ly nice peo­ple,’ and the con­ser­v­a­tive sits there stone-faced and says some­thing like ‘You know, you’re a won­der­ful per­son but I think you might be mis­tak­en.’ But what the lib­er­al is say­ing is some­thing ridicu­lous.

KAS: What does Bob Whitak­er say?

BW: I laugh at them. I make fun of them. My book is short, and it is fun­ny. It’s my third book under my own name — I’ve done a lot of ghost­ing. And the pur­pose of the book is pre­cise­ly what you said: to pre­pare some­one to lead the laugh­ter in the dor­mi­to­ry about how stu­pid the pro­fes­sors are and how sil­ly what they’re say­ing is.

KAS: It sounds like it could be rev­o­lu­tion­ary if enough peo­ple read it.

BW: It would be if I could get it to pri­vate school­ers and home school­ers. And there’s anoth­er huge con­stituen­cy. I have them all around me; I talk to them all the time. There are tens of mil­lions of young peo­ple who are try­ing to pay off their col­lege debts. They know that they wast­ed four years jump­ing through a use­less hoop called col­lege edu­ca­tion. They are now bur­dened with hav­ing to pay mon­ey — not to build any­thing up, to buy a house, or to raise their fam­i­ly — but to pay the pro­fes­sors that the gov­ern­ment required them to spend time with. They are ticked off. And we could reach them.

KAS: Can lis­ten­ers get a copy of the book, as I’ve sug­gest­ed, from WhitakerOnline.org?

BW: It’s com­ing out in mass pro­duc­tion. If you want to get 100 copies, you can get them for $200 includ­ing ship­ping at first — we’re try­ing to get the thing out. My last book was for St. Mar­t­in’s Press, which is the third biggest pub­lish­er in the world. It was used as a text­book in pri­vate schools. And this book, if it became a text­book in pri­vate schools, could destroy the lib­er­al pro­fes­sor­ship. Now I am not call­ing for
dis­cus­sion — I’m call­ing for rev­o­lu­tion here. I think that these peo­ple should be fired.

What we have here in Polit­i­cal Cor­rect­ness is a reli­gion. When reli­gious lead­ers sit down with the gov­ern­ment and try to get mon­ey for pri­vate schools or reli­gious schools, you start off with the idea that the present uni­ver­si­ties are not teach­ing a reli­gion but the reli­gious lead­ers are. But the fact is Polit­i­cal Cor­rect­ness is a reli­gion — I don’t say it’s like a reli­gion. What we have is a reli­gion being taught in pub­lic uni­ver­si­ties at pub­lic expense, exact­ly as if the pub­lic schools were teach­ing Islam­ic reli­gion.

KAS: So how can peo­ple take advan­tage of this bulk offer you men­tioned?

BW: The Web site is ReadBob.com.

KAS: That’s dif­fer­ent from your main Web site, then.

BW: For orders, the best one is ReadBob.com. I have a great lit­tle team of vol­un­teers, bril­liant young peo­ple, who are han­dling it for me. I also have a bril­liant young Web­mas­ter, all of whom are doing the work free.

What hap­pened orig­i­nal­ly was, since I had already pub­lished so many books, as I say two of them under my own name, a pub­lish­er accept­ed the book. A month lat­er they con­tact­ed me and said that not only were they back­ing out of the con­tract, they were destroy­ing all cor­re­spon­dence relat­ing to it.

KAS: What do you think the rea­son was for that?

BW: Because it laughs at all the wrong peo­ple, includ­ing the peo­ple who con­trol text­book buy­ing. It attacks lib­er­als, left­ists, con­ser­v­a­tives — ‘respectable’ con­ser­v­a­tives, neo­con­ser­v­a­tives... all the groups that buy books.

KAS: You’re not a ‘respectable’ con­ser­v­a­tive, are you, Bob?

BW: Well, a ‘respectable’ con­ser­v­a­tive is the kind of nitwit that we have speak­ing on the media. In order to become a ‘respectable’ con­ser­v­a­tive, you have to get that word ‘respectable’ from the lib­er­als.

KAS: They’re the con­fer­rers of ‘respectabil­i­ty’?

BW: Yes. The minute some­one steps out of line, he is denounced as a ‘racist,’ a ‘nut,’ or what­ev­er. If he laughs at a lib­er­al, he no longer is invit­ed back. Joe Sobran did the fore­word for Why John­ny Can’t Think: Amer­i­ca’s Pro­fes­sor Priest­hood. And Joe Sobran said that any­one who gives left­ists the horse­laugh they deserve does not get invit­ed back. That’s the way you become a ‘respectable’ con­ser­v­a­tive: You don’t hit them where it hurts. Because they’ll get you if you do.

KAS: Bob, both you and I are vet­er­ans of polit­i­cal debate wars on the Inter­net. One of the most mem­o­rable ideas I’ve ever come across online was your expla­na­tion of the mul­tira­cial­ist posi­tion on the “race prob­lem.” And that expla­na­tion of yours suc­ceed­ed in silenc­ing some of the nas­ti­est crit­ics and most malev­o­lent adver­saries I’ve ever seen in my life. Basi­cal­ly you said that the mul­tira­cial­ists call it the “race prob­lem” — bit what they real­ly mean is some­thing else. Can you expand on that for us?

BW: They use the words the race prob­lem but this race prob­lem only exists in White coun­tries. The “race prob­lem” does not exist in Asia. The “race prob­lem” does not exist in Africa. The “race prob­lem” is a code word for the White prob­lem.

And when lib­er­als and ‘respectable’ con­ser­v­a­tives relax, they say that the solu­tion to the “race prob­lem” is mis­ce­gena­tion. They don’t mean mis­ce­gena­tion in Japan. They don’t mean mis­ce­gena­tion in Ugan­da. We all know they’re talk­ing about the solu­tion to the “White prob­lem.”

KAS: And that’s the geno­cide of White peo­ple.

BW: That’s called geno­cide. And that’s all that there is to it. It’s straight geno­cide. And that is in the book too, in some detail.

KAS: Thank you for your courage. After telling me that that’s in the book in some detail, I’m not sur­prised that it was reject­ed.

You recent­ly wrote on the Inter­net that you attend­ed a fam­i­ly reunion, and you noticed that some of the same things hap­pen­ing in the fam­i­ly and in the con­ser­v­a­tive Bible Belt South in gen­er­al are also hap­pen­ing in con­ser­v­a­tive polit­i­cal groups. Specif­i­cal­ly you said — and it’s some­thing I’ve noticed, too — that the anti-White left could not get too far in the Old South, but that anti-White, pro-racemix­ing preach­ers are every­where in that part of the coun­try. And they can make inroads there. They can use the cachet of the ‘old time reli­gion’ to pro­mote that geno­cide you were talk­ing about.

BW: That’s the same thing. They want to be pro­nounced ‘respectable.’ So, like Sen­a­tor McCain, the way that they get that admi­ra­tion — or at least tol­er­a­tion — from the lib­er­als is by get­ting their brown­ie points by push­ing Third World adop­tions. The left, and the right (every­body has to agree on this), say the White race has to go. That’s rule one. That’s called ‘anti-racism.’

I was up in Hen­der­son­ville, North Car­oli­na. This is an area that’s very hard for the mul­tira­cial­ists to pen­e­trate. It’s all White, and it more or less stays all White. So the “Chris­tians” have set up a head­quar­ters there in Hen­der­son­ville, and a lot of oth­er places — I’ve seen Pat Robert­son push­ing it on his pro­gram — to get these Third World chil­dren into White fam­i­lies. And this is an area where the lib­er­als can’t pen­e­trate.

KAS: But the mul­tira­cial­ist preach­ers cer­tain­ly can.

BW: That gets them some brown­ie points with the lib­er­als. That gets them ‘respectabil­i­ty.’

KAS: And it’s pret­ty obvi­ous — with who con­trols the media — that preach­ers who preach against mis­ce­gena­tion are not going to get major prime time pro­gram slots on tele­vi­sion...

BW: No way. And I’ll tell you — they’re like sharks. The ‘respectable’ con­ser­v­a­tives are very pro­tec­tive of their ‘respectabil­i­ty.’ And if the lib­er­als point out some­body and say ‘That guy is not respectable,’ the peo­ple who will lead the lynch mob will be the ‘respectable’ con­ser­v­a­tives.

KAS: In some of your columns, you’ve talked about the new pri­vate space explo­ration ini­tia­tives, and you said that only the gov­ern­ment can now stop space explo­ration. What did you mean by that?

BW: If there’s gold out there in space, a lot of peo­ple are going to start doing it. But the big com­pa­nies would like to have it for them­selves. And what they will do — and this is why so many big com­pa­nies are lib­er­al — is start scream­ing that ‘this is dan­ger­ous for the astro­naut,’ we need to apply lots and lots of rules. Then they’ll start talk­ing about space­craft com­ing back down and endan­ger­ing peo­ple. And even­tu­al­ly, if you get enough rules, only a large cor­po­ra­tion can han­dle it. Only a large cor­po­ra­tion has the lawyers to han­dle it.

KAS: That’s right. The big chem­i­cal com­pa­nies love the EPA because it keeps the small guys out.

BW: Exact­ly. And they all love ‘Affir­ma­tive Action’ rules — the more com­pli­cat­ed, the bet­ter.

KAS: Indeed. If we do col­o­nize oth­er worlds, if this is unstop­pable, are we going to be stu­pid enough to bring mul­tira­cial­ism and all the prob­lems it entails with us to the stars? Per­son­al­ly, I think any soci­ety stu­pid enough to do such a thing isn’t going to make it to the stars any­way.

BW: Car­leton Coon, a lead­ing anthro­pol­o­gist, tes­ti­fied when they were talk­ing about col­o­niz­ing space. He said “Don’t send a Cyprus into space.” On Cyprus, the Turks and the Greeks had been killing each oth­er for a long time. And he said “Don’t send a Cyprus into space.” And that’s more or less the same idea.

I have a view of the future where I think this would fit in. There are going to be a bunch of coun­tries where the lib­er­als and the con­ser­v­a­tives are going to go the way of the Whig par­ty — because, in a coun­try split into huge eth­nic groups as we’re going to become, there real­ly is no room for non-racial pol­i­tics. There’ll be spokes­men for the Mex­i­cans — “His­pan­ics.” There’ll be spokes­men for the Ori­en­tals. There’ll be spokes­men for Blacks. And there’ll be spokes­men for Whites. Now that way, I think we’ll stand a much bet­ter chance of sur­viv­ing, odd­ly enough, because a self-con­scious Whi
te minor­i­ty, like any minor­i­ty in the world, will have to start think­ing in its own terms. We can talk about how we want our own space envi­ron­ments, too. In this way we can start nego­ti­at­ing. Non-racial pol­i­tics is gone. It’s just a mat­ter of time.

KAS: The ‘respectable’ con­ser­v­a­tives are denounc­ing racial pol­i­tics as ‘iden­ti­ty pol­i­tics’ all the time, though...

BW: Sure. The Whig par­ty denounced pol­i­tics on slav­ery. It had a pres­i­dent in the White House in 1853 and in 1856 it did­n’t exist. Things are chang­ing. That’s one rea­son why the con­ser­v­a­tives and lib­er­als are so ter­ri­fied of what they have cre­at­ed here. Whites are going to have to think of them­selves as Whites.

Right now the His­pan­ics and the Blacks are essen­tial­ly Ton­tos to the lib­er­al Lone Ranger — faith­ful col­ored com­pan­ions. They’re get­ting a lit­tle restive about that. As their pow­er grows, they’re going to want their own spokes­men. And the lib­er­als are sim­ply not going to be there any­more. And if the lib­er­als aren’t there, their sort of shad­ow, the con­ser­v­a­tives, won’t be there either.

KAS: You’ve also writ­ten at length about those who are try­ing, through reli­gion or so-called human­ist ethics, to stop cloning and human genet­ic engi­neer­ing. Can those tech­nolo­gies be stopped?

BW: They should­n’t be. I’m a Chris­t­ian, and I believe in ‘do unto oth­ers as you would have them do unto you.’ If I were giv­en a choice of being cre­at­ed in a lab and then destroyed with­out me ever know­ing it, and it stood a mil­lionth of chance of help­ing some­body in a wheel­chair, I’d pay for the oppor­tu­ni­ty.

And sec­ond­ly, we’re going to have a mod­u­lar man by the mid­dle of this cen­tu­ry. In oth­er words, it will be a lot eas­i­er to replace any part of your body than it will be to repair it. Just like most machines. And if these bioethi­cists, as they call them­selves at Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty, or if these soci­ol­o­gists, or if these shriek­ing preach­ers are talk­ing about ‘cross­ing the line’ in remak­ing humans and so forth, the fact is that line is going to be walked all over with­in 30 years. All they can do is slow it down. When Jen­ner came up with vac­ci­na­tion in the late 1700s, every pul­pit in Britain just rung with denun­ci­a­tions of it. They were talk­ing about ‘the body is the tem­ple of the soul,’ ‘you can’t put a bunch of cow dis­ease into human beings, they’re holy’ and all that stuff. And of course thou­sands of peo­ple end­ed up crip­pled or dis­fig­ured for life because they lis­tened to those preach­ers.

KAS: Do you think these tech­nolo­gies hold out any hope for eugen­ics, the sci­en­tif­ic improve­ment of the race?

BW: I think chil­dren will be a mat­ter of design. Take Indi­ans, for exam­ple. They had an adver­tise­ment I heard about in an Indi­an paper, where this girl was Whiten­ing her­self so she could mar­ry a Dutch guy. That was an adver­tise­ment, a com­mer­cial. The Indi­ans descend from the Aryans, the Aryans them­selves. And a lot of them will want chil­dren who are Aryans — real ones. I can see adver­tise­ments: ‘You can have an actu­al Aryan child.’

KAS: So you can see soci­eties that are part-White now ‘Whiten­ing’ them­selves?

BW: Sure.

KAS: What about the Euro­pean nations and White Amer­i­cans? Do you see a future for racial improve­ment?

BW: Once we start think­ing of our­selves as a threat­ened minor­i­ty, all of the old pre­con­cep­tions, all of this crap will be gone. Espe­cial­ly when we get rid of this social sci­ence priest­hood. Uni­ver­si­ties are lib­er­al sem­i­nar­ies. Once we get rid of those, and once we real­ize we are threat­ened and can see it up close, once we real­ize that we have to bar­gain for our­selves — I think all of these atti­tudes are going to change like you would­n’t believe.

KAS: As Amer­i­ca goes down the path of mul­tira­cial­ism and mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism, then, even as more and more non-Whites are being import­ed into or being born into our liv­ing space, you still see hope for racial­ly con­scious Whites and for White sur­vival.

BW: I think it’s the kick in the butt we need. All these peo­ple seem to think that this won­der­ful­ly White Amer­i­ca was pro-White. Now dur­ing my life­time the worst ene­mies the White race had were in New Eng­land (a White enclave), Min­neso­ta (anoth­er White enclave), Swe­den, and Europe in gen­er­al. Places which were White enclaves were anti-White. Those were where the anti-Whites were. Now there are no enclaves any more. And if there are, they’ll be ‘racist’ enclaves.

KAS: Well, I can say you’re cer­tain­ly right as far as this goes: The Whites that sur­vive what’s com­ing are going to be the racial­ly con­scious Whites. They’ll have to be.

Bob, I want to thank you for turn­ing your con­sid­er­able tal­ents to the cause of secur­ing a future for our peo­ple. And I want to thank you again for being a guest on Amer­i­can Dis­si­dent Voic­es.

BW: I thank you. And here is the rest of it.


No comments for “A White Future is Coming: an interview with Bob Whitaker”

Post a comment