THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT FEELINGS ALL THE TIME? | 2003-02-22

America's leadership is made up almost entirely of sociopaths

A sociopath is a person who is incapable of any genuine empathy with other people or any feelings of guilt. It sounds extreme, so we assume that genuine sociopaths are rare.

Recent studies have shown that genuine sociopaths are actually very common. There are between three million and ten million sociopaths in the United States alone.

Most sociopaths don't know that they are sociopaths. They spend their entire lives faking empathy and guilt and all the rest, and since they don't know what the real thing feels like, they think they genuinely feel empathy and guilt.

The result is that it is very hard for most people to feel all the empathy and guilt that the ruling sociopaths tell them they should feel. A sociopath honestly believes that his attitudes are just right all the time.

In a multicultural society the sociopath is king. Real people, people who are not sociopaths, have a lot of gut feelings and prejudices. In a multiculture you are not allowed to have gut feelings or "prejudices". Only a true sociopath can rise to the top in a multiculture.

So on a talk show, when a liberal sociopath tells a conservative sociopath that he is anti-war the conservative has no problem with that. The conservative is playing Patriot and the liberal is playing Peace Prophet, and it never occurs to either one of them that the "discussion" they a having is insane.

WOUNDEDNIEZCHE: PRACTICAL SUGGESTION | 2008-08-31

I like it and will give it a go.

One small suggestion:

Repeat: This is happening to ALL white countries and ONLY white countries.

– woundednietzsche

good suggestion!

I added it.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

The words immigration, tolerance, and especially assimilation are being used to promote a program of genocide against the white race.

Everybody says the final solution to the RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to bring in the third world and "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."

This is not about culture, this is about RACE.

Repeat: "ALL white countries and ONLY white countries.

Anti-racist has become a code word for anti-white.

Repeat, all this immigration and intermarriage is for "EVERY white country and ONLY white countries"

TIRESOME | 2006-09-03

So here I am at the American Free Press meeting, described so cruelly and accurately by Al Parker (see comments). I don't know what this younger generation is coming to. You won't find me or Joe being cruelly accurate.

Anyway meand Kelso drove up here all the way in the middle of Ernesto, which the weather bureau called a storm or a hurricane, but Ernesto is just one more pain-in-the-ass illegal alien to me.

So I attended NONE of the speeches, for reasons I am not allowed to talk about until someone stops dribbling around.

DC is my second home town, so I went out the first night and had a thrilling incident which involved the police -- my own record is still as clean as a whistle -- so I can't talk about THAT.

I spent an adrenelin-soaked week in the middle of intrigues I can't talk about.

If you are young, I hope this gives a tone of mystery and intrigue. But by the time you reach my age with a whole LIFE you have to talk about while walking on eggshells,, being told ONE MORE TIME that it's all hush-hush until Somebody Calls Somebody makes you nauseous.

I hereby fearlessly predict that those calls will NEVER take place.

Half my LIFE has been waiting on calls that never took place and documents that were never declassified and all the rest of it.

KING KONG | 2005-12-19

Until Film Industry professional or Peter or Mark or somebody else gets back to me, I am reduced to discussing sex.

This is embarrassing.

It is true that people have told me that they enjoy it when I discuss politics or sex. It is true that they are interested in the depth of my knowledge on both subjects.

But their enjoyment of the depth of my familarity with sex is somewhat less flattering than their reaction to my knowledge of politics.

In the former case, I dislike their tendency to giggle at me.

People take my knowledge of politics seriously, and it makes me happy that they

enjoy what I say about that subject.

People enjoy my attempts to discuss sex, too. But the giggles ruin the fun.

So you see what I am reduced to when you don't promptly provide me with the input I ask you for.

Because you have no provided me with the input I need on politics, I must discuss sex.

So here it is:

The latest remake of King Kong did not do as well at the box office as the two former versions.

I have mentioned before, both here and in my radio program, the fact that when I was entering my teens, every single advertisement for a horror movie showed a beautiful woman being the victim of a monster or a vampire or an evil man.

The same generation that would have fought anyone who attacked a real woman obviously had fantasies of lovely women being grabbed by monsters. One of the big hits of my youth was called The Woman Eater, a title which lacks a certain sublety but makes my point.

I was talking about this with a woman whose profession had been organizing Sunday Schools in large churches. Her reaction included none of the astonished horror she would be expected to show. She calmly pointed out to me that the audience for the movie King Kong was half female.

Actually, fandom for King Kong was well over fifty percent female. That movie was the ultimate rape fantasy, the lovely tiny blond woman that the fifty-foot gorilla was fixated on.

The first King Kong came out in 1931. It was box office smash.

Valentino was the smash before that.

Shortly before 1931 Rudolf Valentino had been the object of female worship for films like "The Sheik," where he played an Arab who kidnapped a white woman.

The white woman screamed all the way through the film while the female audience pretended to be horrified at her plight. Actually they felt jealous of her every inch of the way.

Men's fantasies tend to be aggressive, as in the case of The Woman Eater and dozens of other horror films.

A lot of women seem to have rape fantasies, of which King Kong is the ultimate.

The fact is that men and women are different. A statement that Politically Incorrent would get me a prison sentence in Europe, but I can get away with it here.

No woman would admit to the fact that she LIKED Valentino's rape fantasy in the Sheik. They talked about how "romantic" he was and what a great actor he was.

It was a little hard to say what a great romantic actor King Kong was so no one discussed the sexual fantasy involved.

In the 1950s no man would admit that he was attracted by The Woman Eater type movie. All those ads were aimed at somebody ELSE, you see.

No woman would say she was jealous of the women who were the objects of the Sheik's or King Kong's somewhat aggressive actions.

Is everybody telling it like it is?

Politics has made me a bit cynical. Could it be that somebody might not be telling the exact truth?

This leads me back to the lack of success of the latest King Kong Movie. The 1931 version and the relatively recent versions were box office smashes. This new one was not really a bomb, but it didn't live up to expectations.

I have a theory as to why that is.

My thesis is that the ultimate rape fantasy is not as fascinating to women today because real rape by real gorillas is no longer a matter of exciting fiction.

In the old days women were surrounded by white guys who wouldn't make a move. They were not only safe, they were BORINGLY safe.

Now women don't go out on the streets alone at night. Now women are in physical danger as a matter of course.

Rape is no longer a fantasy. Being attacked by a large male of a different kind is the reality every white woman faces.

This could have taken a lot of the charm out of the latest verion of King Kong.