THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

"No one can convince a person of our loyalties if he has no loyalties".

This is a statement that needs to get elevated in the whole program to dovetail with a transformation of the real underpinnings of our lives, the household level, life support, real income stuff, fundamental to any society.

BW said, "I don't do economics any more", a very important statement.

After long years of hard effort, I finally figured out government finance. That gave me a window on the economic abuses rife in our society and their role in Political Correctness, hence my hatred of public employee unions of any stripe and of those multitudinous "sleight of hand" organizations that don't call themselves unions but are unions.

They are organized crime rackets pretending to be "the law". Congress is an organized crime racket as are the state legislatures. Our courts, review boards, and commissions at every level, no matter what the subject matter jurisdiction, are organized crime rackets.

It is damn hard to get it all figured out. Thinking you can educate others by getting them to discuss economics is like thinking you can create journeyman level chess players by discussing chess. Can't be done. That is why BW doesn't do economics anymore.

But you can't get from A to B in life without hoeing rows and doing yeoman stuff, it can't be wished into existence, it must nurtured through long effort, step by step. It takes vision to do that and that's why this "what you are loyal to stuff" matters. Discipline matters and discipline and loyalty are related things.

What we all share in common is that we live in a society where the levels of economic and spiritual abuses are balls-to-the-wall out of control.

I mean the abuses we all suffer under the present regime are extreme, unimaginably extreme. It is hard for anyone who has been blessed with even with even a smidgen of wholesomeness to maintain his or her sanity in this god-awful hell in which we live. I struggle everyday simply to maintain some sense of proportionality and to keep my thinking from becoming too distorted owing to all the assaults I suffer and can't avoid.

The lowest sorts of characters, meaning those with no character at all, animals really, set the standards in our society.

Let me say it again: Humans that have degenerated into beasts set the standards in our society. It is the rival gangs throwing feces at each other in our jails who are setting our standards. That is the way Political Correctness and our judges and police want it. Corporate America likes it that way also.

These are the rules of official popular culture in our society:

Vulgarity is not only permitted, it is mandatory. It is particularly recommended if it assaults the innocence of children and damages and prevents their development. Nothing is allowed, unless it is demeaning and offends human dignity. Dereliction and self-betrayal are required. The operative concept is the distinction between "may" and "must". It is not, "you may be a derelict". Rather, it is "you must be a derelict", as in "required" and "no choice".

We are really in something worse than in the state of slaves. It isn't that we are slaves, exactly. But the assaults of Political Correctness upon us have turned us into something lower than slaves, nonetheless. Your getting it if you can comprehend that it is possible to be reduced to something much lower than a slave, for there have been many slaves with admirable personal characters in history, and there have been slave societies that weren't that bad, morally speaking, if you look at it with your "Asian" spectacles on.

What Political Correctness does to us is much worse.

American society today is simply awful, balls-to-the-wall dreadful, and it does not deserve to exist.

But that is not stating it right. It is an abomination that we must, as a matter of rescuing our very humanity, abolish.

It is in that abolition that the white race may find a ray of hope in rescuing itself.

Alright, here's my long rant. I am in a hurry, so I don't have time to cut it down like I should. Sorry.

I think Bob's post on sociopaths is very important.

Most people feel uneasy around sociopaths, but sociopaths don't quite know, because they do not know what emotions really are.

What we here are fighting is sociopaths. White genociders are sociopaths. Since this is the rule of the day, the weak copy them, so that even people who are not technically sociopaths behave just like them.

The reason that genociders are sociopaths is that they have no loyalties. They are looking out for number one intently and they have no feelings for others.

Bob in this post seems to be talking mostly about expert sociopaths (who are rare). You can figure them out in that their behavior is too perfect, which is a bit tricky. They are never down because they have no emotions (but rage).

I have spent time with sociopaths, too. I know they were sociopaths because they told me upfront. Sociopaths have no anxieties, so they will tell you things others would be embarrassed about.

Here are some patterns I have spotted among the less expert sociopaths:

* Sociopaths are basically robots. They have no emotions. They cannot feel. So, the first clue that possibly someone may be a sociopath is that they are stiff and robotic. This is the one thing I have seen in common with every sociopath. Even the expert sociopath will be too perfect in his performance of aping emotion, which will make him seem mechanical.

* Learn to differentiate the above from accountants, engineers, and librarians who can seem stiff, but are otherwise ordinary, if quiet, people.

* You will note that there is something generically "wrong" with the sociopath, but you won't know exactly what.

* Their behavior is often a little off, but they think they are the cock of the walk.

* Especially in acting situations, such as reading something aloud, or mimicking somebody else, they may do a poor job of it, but they will behave as if they are doing a better job of acting than anyone else in the world ever has.

* If you watch carefully, you will note that they are tracking you and others. They are watching your mannerisms and intonations. It's kind of like the way a partially deaf person watches your mouth and mouths your words as you speak.

* The sociopath puts less attention on what you are saying because he believes you are inferior and so WHAT you say is unimportant. He spends much attention on HOW you say it, since emotions are foreign to him; he is trying to figure out something that makes no sense to him at all -- emotions.

* If you keep watching him closely, you can catch them reenacting what you or others did or said. This is not a compliment. They are practicing. Since they do not have emotions, they have to learn how to act by aping others.

* They will make fun of real displays of emotions, such as spontaneous laughter and especially expressions of love. They have no idea how it feels to feel, and they suspect they are missing something. They notice that people seem to like being loved a lot, so sociopaths really envy that and will make fun of expressions of love -- and loyalty.

* Since they want what everyone else seems to have -- love -- they will try to get it by being sexually promiscuous and perverted. They might even brag about their exploits. Often they let things drop without realizing it (they have no anxiety holding them back). For example they may say someone did something to them, but you realize it was probably the other way around.

* The reason you will notice something "wrong" with the unexpert sociopaths is that they are bad actors, but are unaware of it. Good acting takes a special awareness of one's emotions. Sociopaths have none, except for rage. They are acting all the time, so in their minds they think they are fooling everybody; they think they are the best actors in the world. But since they do not know what it is to feel, it is hard for them to tell that most people actually find them weird and ugly.

* Less expert sociopaths play the pity card, like Gollum. They realize they come across as "off," so they will get you to feel sorry for them, help them out, do things for them. But when they show their true cocky side to you, you know that they have already done something to you behind your back, and the ax will soon fall on your neck.

* Sociopaths in odd ways are rigid conformists -- like robots. The reason is that none of their behavior is their own; it is copied. They copy what they see the majority of people doing. If you do something they think differs from that convention, they will try to humiliate you, because they are sure you got it wrong.

* The above even applies to the experts such as Ted Bundy. I bet that if you spent all day every day with him, he would have given you the creeps. But his good performances would have been sensationally good, and the inconsistency with his creepy behavior would alert your radar. But since sociopaths like to control people, but do not actually like them, there would have been very few people that they spent a lot of time with who have seen the creepy behavior. And anyone who spends a lot of time with a sociopath will ALWAYS find himself on the short end -- robbed, maimed, or falsely accused of terrible crimes.

* Bundy was done in by his own weakness. Sociopaths are perfectly self-centered, and believe that they are gods. However, people mistake this for confidence, which they find charismatic. This gets the sociopath through a lot of scrapes that they handled ineptly (bungled because they did not have any emotions to read the situation). People overlook the obvious bungling when they are fall for what they think is charisma. But when Bundy was arrested by the right men who kept control, this overconfidence led right away to Bundy doing himself him. But Bundy didn't know, since he had no anxiety to alert him, and he was used to getting his way.

* Parents and school teachers spend much time with sociopaths, so they figure them out. But they think they can change them by showering on them love. This works for others. But loving a sociopath never works, because a sociopath cannot feel love. He just thinks you are giving him a free ticket to do what he wants. And you will.

That's why sending the sociopath love has the opposite effect. And trying to reform him will only teach him how to play the con better. Teach him how to act and he will be better at harming people.

It's better to egg him on so that his behavior will become more outrageous. This is easy to do, since the sociopath believes he is god and feeds off of acclaim. He will think you are a friend. But spend no time with him. A "friend" to him is a patsy.

The other thing to do if you can is completely thwart him so that he will fly in a rage publicly.

But be careful of that. Remember that when the sociopath Joseph Smith was angry, he had people murdered and had a few towns burned down to the ground.

This is the beast, the white genocider. Even people who were not born sociopaths but adopt the PC religion will act just like sociopath: they will have no loyalties. Ours is a psychopathic society.

Mt: 24;12 " And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold." "Ours is a psychopathic society." I have always thought that there are REASONS for depression, it's not just a medical condition to be treated with some drugs,and everything is fine again.

in reply to Dave:

you wrote:

<blockquote cite="">"No one can convince a person of our loyalties if he has no loyalties".

This is a statement that needs to get elevated in the whole program to dovetail with a transformation of the real underpinnings of our lives, the household level, life support, real income stuff, fundamental to any society.

BW said, "I don't do economics any more", a very important statement.

After long years of hard effort, I finally figured out government finance. That gave me a window on the economic abuses rife in our society and their role in Political Correctness, hence my hatred of public employee unions of any stripe and of those multitudinous "sleight of hand" organizations that don't call themselves unions but are unions.</blockquote>

in reply:

Yet, the very foundation of social loyalty begins with the Family, in and of itself, and then, the Family, as a microcosm of the Race, and finally, the Race, as a microcosm of the Family.

Removed from this creation of the Spirit, Wordism fills the subsequent power vacuum beautifully, especially if Wordism is a process manipulated by sociopaths. Speaking of sociopathology, particularly at the Institutional level...

you wrote:

<blockquote cite="">They are organized crime rackets pretending to be "the law". Congress is an organized crime racket as are the state legislatures. Our courts, review boards, and commissions at every level, no matter what the subject matter jurisdiction, are organized crime rackets.

It is damn hard to get it all figured out. Thinking you can educate others by getting them to discuss economics is like thinking you can create journeyman level chess players by discussing chess. Can't be done. That is why BW doesn't do economics anymore.</blockquote>

in reply:

Trying to "educate others" is, essentially, trying to be rational with the irrational.

All too often, they resent you, because your comments and analysis simply serve to remind them of the horrific traps in which they find themselves, and see themselves as permanently trapped in.

So, YOU get blamed, for trying to lead someone out of the Platonic Cave formed to trap them, BY their Racial Enemies.

I have discovered my greatest success at opposite ends of the social spectrum - uneducated hillbillies (my nephews), and some really smart guys I used to work with - managers and engineers who solved complex problems.

Everyone in the middle seems to be living in the fear of the rabbit for the carnivore, which it seems trying to come into the burrow, and has decided the best answer is to remain completely still, soft, quiet, and afraid...

you wrote:

<blockquote cite="">But you can't get from A to B in life without hoeing rows and doing yeoman stuff, it can't be wished into existence, it must nurtured through long effort, step by step. It takes vision to do that and that's why this "what you are loyal to stuff" matters. Discipline matters and discipline and loyalty are related things.

What we all share in common is that we live in a society where the levels of economic and spiritual abuses are balls-to-the-wall out of control.

I mean the abuses we all suffer under the present regime are extreme, unimaginably extreme. It is hard for anyone who has been blessed with even with even a smidgen of wholesomeness to maintain his or her sanity in this god-awful hell in which we live. I struggle everyday simply to maintain some sense of proportionality and to keep my thinking from becoming too distorted owing to all the assaults I suffer and can't avoid.

The lowest sorts of characters, meaning those with no character at all, animals really, set the standards in our society.</blockquote>

in reply:

I think this is what happens if the Initiation called the Mid-Life Crisis - actually, a Mid-Life Opportunity - is met, and passed.

You do have a horrific feeling of Aloneness, for a season, until you identify ALL issues in terms of Race: First, Foremost, Forever.

Then, you realize most of what you identified with was using you, to no good end.

And your thinking shifts from the natural self-pity of "I have been a Fool," to a mature decision to serve the best long-term interests of the Race, to the exclusion of the matters of Form.

After all, if the matters of Form work, as matters of Substance, against our Families, and our Race, then haven't we been horribly used?

And, after we realize this, and we remain with the status quo, aren't the consequences then our fault, as we go from Victim to de facto Co-Conspirator?

I watch the Lamestream Media from time to time, as I am in public places where I must listen to it, and watch it, and it is like watching the reporting from the world's largest, best-orchestrated Potemkin Village. Note, for instance, the ease with which Ron Paul has been "disappeared" from ALL reporting. He has been replaced with the latest on Britney Spears, which seems to be about the level at which most people are operating. At least they can claim to understand Britney Spears...

you wrote:

<blockquote cite="">Let me say it again: Humans that have degenerated into beasts set the standards in our society. It is the rival gangs throwing feces at each other in our jails who are setting our standards. That is the way Political Correctness and our judges and police want it. Corporate America likes it that way also.

These are the rules of official popular culture in our society:

Vulgarity is not only permitted, it is mandatory. It is particularly recommended if it assaults the innocence of children and damages and prevents their development. Nothing is allowed, unless it is demeaning and offends human dignity. Dereliction and self-betrayal are required. The operative concept is the distinction between "may" and "must". It is not, "you may be a derelict". Rather, it is "you must be a derelict", as in "required" and "no choice".</blockquote>

in reply:

The Children of the Sixties decided to commit the functional equivalent of suicide, by remaing in their self-obsessed little worlds, manifesting their hatred of American - (White RACIAL) - Greatness at all times, in all places.

Damn if it doesn't look like they have succeeded, and are trying to take the whole country down for good.

There are times I feel "Atlas Shrugged" just nailed so many issues, even as our own infrastructure literally falls apart around us...

As we become the Perverse, we worship the Perverse...

you wrote:

<blockquote cite="">We are really in something worse than in the state of slaves. It isn't that we are slaves, exactly. But the assaults of Political Correctness upon us have turned us into something lower than slaves, nonetheless. Your getting it if you can comprehend that it is possible to be reduced to something much lower than a slave, for there have been many slaves with admirable personal characters in history, and there have been slave societies that weren't that bad, morally speaking, if you look at it with your "Asian" spectacles on.</blockquote>

in reply:

This is a topic Savitri Devi dealt with, in "The Lightning and the Sun."

Remember the freeing of the slaves following the Civil War, when the freed people became sharecroppers, and were bound to the land more tightly than the slave ever was, while having to rely on their own devices for the basic necessities.

Slaves, as numerous economic analyses of slavery have discussed, were actually better off; Master had to supply them, and support them. That, in part, is why Seward said slavery had less than fifty years to go, under the best of circumstances.

Popular Sovereignty, and the Homestead Acts, did more to undermine slavery as a viable institution than all the Abolitionists ever did; sharecropping just turned the nominally "free men" into indentured servants to the bankers, and the new plantation owners, in perpetuity.

you wrote:

<blockquote cite="">What Political Correctness does to us is much worse.

American society today is simply awful, balls-to-the-wall dreadful, and it does not deserve to exist.

But that is not stating it right. It is an abomination that we must, as a matter of rescuing our very humanity, abolish.

It is in that abolition that the white race may find a ray of hope in rescuing itself.</blockquote>

in reply:

American society, as we knew it, is "Gone With The Wind."

Rebuilding a new, better America, from scratch, on the other side of What Is To Come, will be the challenge, and work, of lifetimes in which the Meritocratic Aristocracy MUST be intentionally developed, over generations.

THAT, in part, is what I am trying to do, by having a high school graduate who can not read without moving his lips to form the words, read what I consider to be the Foundational Works of the New Order, starting with Harold Covington's "A Distant Thunder."

It all starts with a Positive Theory of Race: First, Foremost, Forever.

Thanks for this excellent discussion of sociopaths, Bob. I have some thoughts:

Sociopaths do have emotions, which you sometimes seem to deny, it's just that they lack others. They cannot connect to others, but they are motivated to exploit them. I think I've read something about their brain scans being different. Now I can certainly imagine exploiting others, but I just cannot imagine without wanting intimate contact with others, friendship with men and women, and a sexual intimacy with women, though it is best to have that sort of intimacy with only one other woman. She becomes your mirror. It would shatter your sense of unity of self to have more than one mirror.

What you say about sociopaths behaving just too correctly also goes, I must add, for those well-bred upper-class types who are just standoffish. To me, their refusal to go below the superficial constitutes rudeness. Just how intimate one should be with others, and how intimate they with you, is a hard question. A lot of people moan about how others will discuss the most intimate details of their lives on cellphones in public places. I know that those who overhear this conversation will have completely forgotten every detail in five minutes. I do get irritated when I ask a perfectly reasonable question, only act insulted and get told "I happen to be a very private person." Anyhow, the demand for privacy has gone way down. When was the last time you saw and enclosed phone booth? And people will post all sorts of stuff about themselves on the Web just to get a $5 discount coupon. This is not so surprising, since there was very little privacy in the Old Stone Age, when most of our attitudes were set. I can't say when and where privacy became important. It may be just a historical blip.

There will be a high degree of sociopaths among those in our movement, for the simple reason that marginal movements attract marginal people. You and I remember total jerks (like Curtis) who were treated with actual respect, more than he could get anywhere else. But, we've also had the pleasure of knowing some of the most intelligent and courageous people anywhere. I mean the combination. Any top university contains more intelligent people than we get to know. (I don't think the man who was probably our top thinker, Sam Francis, would have been all that successful in academia.) And any mountain climbing club has more courageous people. I mean the combination. I shan't name the sociopaths among us that you and I have known. I'm too poor a judge of character. But we both have known a great many downright fools.

I sympathize with Dave's woes about just how bad our reign of political correctness has become, but I can't see how the whole rotten thing can we wished away. It took a long time to develop. It will take a long time to go away. Patience and persistence is what is required, not to scrap an irredeemable present (you've read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer), but to understand how it came to be. It is *our* doing, not those of various enemies. How did they become enemies? Step by step. And not all are sociopaths whose existence requites a second Creation. (I've been thinking a lot about other kinds of Creationists these days. Liberals use Darwin but only to bash Christians and whatever else stands in the road of perfect planning. After man evolved, no more evolution. A species that cannot evolve is not a product of evolution. It is a second act of Creation.)

Now as far a loyalty goes, I agree not to trust anyone who brags about not having it. The fact is, and this may surprise you, honor is only 11th among the 16 Basic Desires that Steven Reiss isolated. One of Whitaker's Three Laws is "everything varies." (Another was "everything reduces to a fine white powder." I forget the third.)

Reiss has an important theory here. He used factor analysis to cluster human desires into what turned out to be 16 categories. Here they go. I ranked them in my personal order. (Do these seem right to you about me, Bob?)

STEVEN REISS' 16 BASIC DESIRES

1. Curiosity. The desire to explore and learn. End: knowledge, truth.

2. Romance. The desire for love and sex. Includes a desire for aesthetic experiences. End: beauty, sex.

3. Independence. The desire for self-reliance. End: freedom, ego integrity.

4. Saving. Includes the desire to collect things as well as to accumulate wealth. End: collection, property.

5. Order. The desire for organization and for a

predictable environment. End: cleanliness, stability, organization.

6. Family. The desire to raise one's own children. Does not include the desire to raise other people's children. End: children.

7. Idealism. The desire to improve society. Includes a desire for social justice. End: fairness, justice.

8. Exercise. The desire to move one's muscles. End: fitness.

9. Acceptance. The desire for inclusion. Includes reaction to criticism and rejection. End: positive self-image, self-worth.

10. Social Contact. The desire for companionship. Includes the desire for fun and pleasure. End: friendship, fun.

11. Honor. The desire to be loyal to one's parents and heritage. End: morality, character, loyalty.

12. Power. The desire for influence including mastery, leadership, and dominance. End: achievement, competence, mastery.

13. Vengeance. The desire to get even. Includes the joy of competition. End: winning, aggression.

14. Status. The desire for social standing. Includes a desire for attention. End: wealth, titles, attention, awards.

15. Tranquility. The desire for emotional calm, to be free of anxiety, fear, and pain. End: relaxation, safety.

16. Eating. The desire to consume food. End: food, dining, hunting.

Source: Steven Reiss, _Who am I?: the 16 basic desires that motivate our actions and define our personalities. NY: Penguin Putnam: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putman, 2000. I have changed his exact wordings in a few places, based upon the fuller descriptions in his book and upon his other writings, and have ranked them by the strengths,

I think, of my own desires. The ends given in the table are taken directly from page 31.

(The way this clustering works is to calculate what sorts of questions tend to be answered the same way and to group them. Those who want vengeance tend to be competitive people. Those who want romance tend to want sex and to cherish things of beauty. This gets interesting. Reiss looked for a 17th independent factor for spirituality, but found instead that certain religions gratify certain desires more than others. Roman Catholicism gratifies a desire for order, while Protestantism a desire for independence. My take is that religion got going only in the Bronze Age and that there have not been enough time for a new basic desire to have evolved. What has changed is that, as populations moved about, the vector of the average innate strengths of the basic desires shifted. A liberal would insist that it is impossible for this vector to have changed, simply because there hasn't been enough time for a 17th dimension to have emerged.

Now this is of the greatest importance, not for you and I to note that liberals use bad reasoning but that this reasoning has a certain plausibility. What makes us different is not that we are a new kind of Man but that the societies that we have evolved have emergent properties that others have not. If we have more curious people than those in the rest of the world (curiousity is *my* no. 1) then our society is more likely to have developed the *institution* of science. As you and I walk down the street we see individuals, some more curious than others, and we may even notice that the most curious are nearly always White. What we can't see, walking down the street, is the *collective* result of this.

And again, our society has changed so much that it is not on its surface ridiculous to think that the rest of the world is just a few centuries or a few thousand years behind us.

I have a few more like this, and I once rattled them off at a secret meeting of those in our movement. A couple of those present thanked me for them, but I have never seen them repeated. It involves far less mental effort to be a Creationist and say all our problems come from our enemies who came out of nowhere.

I despair, sometimes.

WE ARE LIVING IN THE WORLD MADISON GRANT WARNED US AGAINST.

So I have been flirting with "transhumanism," a bad name for a movement devoted to using technology to upgrade the human condition. Most of the folks there are good little AntiRacists, and they may well be correct that racism gets such a bad press that they had better denounce it. (Only a few of them see this as a way of conspiculously kicking Hitler out the front door while sneaking sneaking Dr. Goebbels in through the servant's entrance.) In fact, they worry themselves all over the place that technologically improved people might actually be "superior."

I cannot change this situation. "Racists, fascists, and monarchists" are forbidden on their forums. I have managed not to have been labeled a "racist," even though I have yet to make a ritualistic AntiRacist statement. Which suggests to me that AntiRacism is fast falling, for the same reason Communism did: neither delivered the goods. Why, last year I went into Revolution Books (9W19 in Manhattan), with proud signs declaring they were "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and asked to see their books on central economic planning. "We don't have any."

My loyalty. We discussed a few years ago what we would do if the Chinese were to forge ahead with eugenics and leave us, and the horrible political situation Dave want to sweep away but can't, in the dust. Would our loyalties transfer to the upcoming Chinese? Just because they hadn't become Whites in the past doesn't mean they can't in the future. Both leapfrogging and backsliding happen a lot in evolution. (Remind me to hunt for concrete examples.) Now this would involve major, major rethinking about what "White" means, and maybe if I were to jump on the Chinese ship, I'm basically a disloyal sociopath looking for a rationalization.

I think not. From all I know about sociopaths, this would not be true. Sociopaths don't try to come up with excuses for themselves, however hard they try to find ones that will convince others. Let me close by saying that, however this may be, most of the AntiRacists are just those who, to get along go along. (Remember primates have big brains, since those who had the brains to engage in social cooperation with other primates left more descendants. "Evolution" did not have a goal in mind to produce White science.) Others are the oversocialized, those who took the polite hypocrisies of their society too seriously. A few are serious sociopaths, but not many. I'd bet that, because marginal movements attract marginal people (no, our movement should be mainstream but it isn't now), I daresay there are proportionately more sociopaths among us as among them.

Anyhow, you might reconsider the loyalty business, since loyalty is only 11th of my 16 Basic Desires and yet I've been involved in our movement, in one way or another, since we met in 1966. (Others here: that's not a typo.)