Archive for category How Things Work

Thoughts On Wordism

Robert Whitaker, Philosopher In their book “What Is Philosophy?”, French authors Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari state that “philosophy is the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts.” If this is so, than we can count Bob Whitaker as a philosopher, for he came up with the concept of wordism. Simply put, wordism is loyalty to a set of words. It is contrasted with nationalism, loyalty to a people.

“A person who believes that men should be united according to their nation — their common race and culture — is a nationalist. One who believes that men are only united by words should therefore be called a ‘wordist.’” ~Robert Whitaker

There are also people with no loyalty. We call them sociopaths.

Wordism is Everywhere For any moral question, any conflict, really anything going on in the world, we can understand it better by looking at it through this wordism-nationalism dichotomy. Things previously inexplicable or contradictory start to make sense.

Religious Wordism A god can be tribal or it can be universal. A religion which worships a universal God is a wordist religion. A religion which worships a tribal God is a tribal religion. Here we see the concept of Religious Wordism. In a tribal religion, our God is for us, your god is for you. It wouldn’t make any sense for you to worship our tribal god, unless you were one of the few outsiders let into our tribe. So the only people eligible for membership in this religion are members of the tribe. Most of the time we’re at peace, but from time to time we’ll go to war to see whose god is more powerful.

For a universal religion, however, every warm body on the planet is eligible to be a member. You simply have to BELIEVE (or claim you believe) the right set of words, as interpreted by the acknowledged priest class. Religious leaders of universal religions like Sun Myung Moon encouraged interracial marriage so that the only thing binding the spouses together was the religion. The official policy of the Catholic Church in South America for centuries was “Assimilation” or interbreeding. Universal religions are in constant conflict with anyone who doesn’t believe.

Political Wordism A country or political entity can be based on a a set of words, or it can be based on a people. Those are the ONLY two things a country can be based upon. Thus we have the concept of Political Wordism. In a country based on a people, only those people are eligible to be citizens. Treason is defined as disloyalty to the people. America was founded as a white homeland for “ourselves and our posterity.”

In a country based on a set of words, everyone on the planet is eligible to be a a citizen as long as they BELIEVE the right set of words. Treason is defined as disloyalty to the words. Therefore, a wordist country cannot have free speech because it cannot allow any serious questioning of the words it is based upon. Additionally, it cannot be a real democracy, because what if the people vote for something contrary to the words? We see in Europe, where all countries and the European Union are now all based on a set of Values and Principals -that is, they are based on WORDS, not the people who actually live in those countries- when the people vote in a way the elites dislike, it is characterized as “undemocratic.” Heresy is outlawed as “hate speech.” Every wordist country needs a permanent inquisition to silence any heresy to the words it is based upon.

We see political wordism and religious wordism are quite similar. Since the Religion of Political Correctness is also the de facto established religion of most white countries, that makes them theocracies or religious tyrannies. So is there any reason to make a distinction between political wordism and religious wordism? I think there is. In political wordism, the beliefs are enshrined into law and form the basis of the nation. In religious wordism, the beliefs are those of the group which adheres to the religion. Also, we can imagine a situation where the nation itself is not a wordist nation, but some, most or all of the people follow some form of religious wordism.

The Wordist Mindset The wordist mindset is the attitude that the only thing a person should be or can be loyal to is a set of words. It’s just a matter of WHICH words you are loyal to. They either aren’t even aware of the notion that you can be loyal to a people or they regard any such loyalty as illegitimate if not evil. If we look at the questions Christina Cliff asked us, they all just assumed that you could only be loyal to a set of words. She was trying to find out which words we were loyal to. She asked three times what our “ideology“ was. This is a person who can’t even conceive of being loyal to anything other than a set of words.

The real dichotomy today is not religion vs. atheism or Christianity vs. Islam or globalism vs nationalism. If you step back and look at the big picture, the most basic dichotomy is wordism vs racial nationalism. And wordism and nationalism are incompatible. If you try to combine them, you will eventually run into a contradiction. If there is a conflict between the two, one of them has to come first. You cannot serve two masters.

The Wordist Class The group that makes it’s living by producing words can be looked at as the wordist class. These are the lawyers, professors, politicians, journalists, writers, and bureaucrats that make up our current ruling class. But, just as not everyone in the military thinks they should stage a coup and take power, not everyone in the wordist class is a wordist in the sense that they are not loyal to a set of words, or they do not think the country should be based on a set of words. The members of the wordist class who do promote wordism I call the modern priest class. They are distinct from the priest class of Christianity or any official religion. Calling them a priest class highlights how they are associated with the Religion of Political Correctness and also ties them back to historical priest classes who managed to gain the top position in their civilization’s power structure. These are the people who rule us. They rule through their command of words and their ability to create and disseminate propaganda. They put their propaganda -weaponized terms, talking points and narratives- in textbooks, lectures, news broadcasts, television shows and movies. In it’s more benign form, a wordist might rule through persuasion and rhetoric. In it’s tyrannical form, it rules through moral browbeating and psychological warfare aimed at demoralizing the population. This is the situation we are in today.

“Lawyers, bureaucrats, and academics, these are the people who rule us. All of these people produce only one thing: Words. For those words they expect lots of money and ALL the power. These people constitute a vast and almost unimaginably powerful lobby dedicated to the importance of words over everything else. The only purpose of government, from their point of view, is to give them money and power.” ~Robert Whitaker

Besides white genocide, the great moral issue of our time is reining in this wordist priest class. The warrior class and productive class are reined in by the non-aggression principal which forces them to contribute to the common good. Now it’s time for something like the non-subversion principal. All of these people in the wordist class have vital functions to perform in a harmonious society. Journalists are supposed to keep an eye on politicians, judges, CEO’s, and each other and bring to light abuses of power. Priests are supposed to teach you morality. Lawyers are supposed to help administer justice. Professors are supposed to teach people and teach them how to think. But they’re not doing any of those things. Instead, they’re using their talents to give their class ever more power and money at the expense of society. They are sucking dry all of our moral and social capital.

Now let’s look at wordists themselves. I see two basic types of wordists:

  1. True believers, and
  2. Opportunists -those who support a particular wordism for various reasons but don’t really believe it, for example:
    1. Nationalists posing as wordists to further their racial interests,
    2. Mestizos or brown Muslims marching against “racism”,
    3. People who administer wordism for money or social standing, bureaucrats, imams, journalists, professors.

Not everyone who pushes wordism is a true believer.

Wordists Have to Be Intolerant A nationalist member of Tribe A does not consider a member of Tribe B to be EVIL for not being loyal to tribe A. This is expected. In fact, if a member of tribe B were to announce his first loyalty to Tribe A, that person would be viewed with suspicion. No one trusts a traitor. But a wordist thinks that when everybody on the planet with a pulse BELIEVES his favorite Universal Truth, everything will be perfect. Therefore anyone who doesn’t believe is preventing this utopia from coming about. So they tend to regard heretics as EVIL. The only people who can be tolerant of members not of their group are nationalists.

“Every wordist says that his philosophy will unite all mankind into one huge, loving community. But in the real world, different kinds of wordists are every bit as divided as nationalists are, and infinitely more vicious. Communism is a form of wordism. Communism is supposed to unite all mankind into a single, loving unit. The Communist form of wordism has killed over a hundred million people this century.

“All wordists claim they love everybody and that their words unite everybody.

“Then they proceed to kill real people by the millions, all in the name of their words.

“Every wordist claims that his particular words will unite all mankind. The religious wars that slaughtered millions of Europeans in the sixteenth century were fought between fanatics who believed the words of Protestantism united all men and the fanatics who insisted the words of Catholicism united all men.

“If you represent the Only True Faith, you cannot tolerate the very existence of other opinions.” ~Robert Whitaker

Whether to be a wordist or a nationalist is a choice. But, unlike a nationalist who is born into a tribe, a wordist must choose which wordism to believe and be loyal to. So why would you choose a particular wordism? You would choose it because you think it is better than the thousands of other Universal Truths which have been concocted. A nationalist may or may not think his tribe is better. But a wordist MUST believe his words are better, or he would choose another set of words to believe.

You could counter that people are born into a wordism which has been adopted by society as a whole, and they are inculcated into it’s values from birth and just go along with it. But adopting a particular wordism is still a choice, even if you kick that choice up to a broad societal level. The decision of whether to believe a particular wordism is still an individual choice.

When Wordists Take Over Wordists do their greatest damage when they take the top position in the social hierarchy. India began its slide when the Brahmin class took over the top position in the caste system from the warrior class. When Zoroastrianism was an Aryans only faith, Persia was able to hold its own over the greatest military machine of the time, the Roman Legion. After the priests took over, they were overrun by bands of desert Arab bandits. The last head priest of Zoroastrianism was a mulatto.

This may explain why Christian wordism never caused Europe to brown out. The Christian priest class never took the top position in the social hierarchy in Europe from the aristocracy. However, Christianity did inculcate slave morality in the masses. This set the stage for the modern priest class, the wordist class, to take power first in Russia in 1917 then in America about 1930. The wordists now occupy the top position in the social hierarchy in all of Anglosphere and Western Europe and they are doing their best to brown out all the lands they control while waging a cold war against all the white lands they are not fully in control of yet. There’s a laughable notion that corporations are in power and white genocide is all about profit. Corporations and politicians have to bow down to their leftist masters. Corporations do what’s bad for white people whether it makes them money or not.

Why Talk About Wordism? Basic research is always good. But we see many pro-whites who spend all their time engaging in activities which have no chance of helping to get pro-whites in power. With them, it’s one Outrage of the Day after another which they impotently whine about, one after the other. They never engage in the propaganda war. Just giving a name to a phenomenon begins to give you power over it. We can use wordism in a number of ways to discredit anti-whitism and demolish their belief in their moral superiority:

  1. Wordists claim to be above provincialism, You can point out that, since there are thousands of Universal Truths, they are at least as provincial as nationalists.
  2. Wordists claim to be for peace. You can point out that they have far more blood on their hands than nationalists.
  3. You worry about what we might do to maintain an ethnostate. What about what you do to maintain your wordist state?
  4. We’re obsessed with purity of blood? You’re obsessed with purity of thought.

How can you be loyal to words? Good question! Words can’t be loyal to you. This highlights a basic absurdity of wordism. Loyalty is a moral choice. Maybe believe is a better term. But wordists treat words exactly like nationalists treat their own kind. Maybe they’re just irrational. You could say they’re loyal to their fellow wordists.

Don’t nationalists use words? What about the Constitution? Isn’t that a bunch of words? And all the laws are words. Nationalists use laws. Aren’t you wordists, too? No, because we are not LOYAL to the words. Words are tools. I use a hammer, but I’m not LOYAL to it.

The implications of Bob’s concept of wordism are enormous and many are yet to be worked out. Wordism is one of the tools we can use to crush anti-whitism.



Only White Contributions Are Unique

By Bob Whitaker – originally Posted March 3rd, 2010 –

Someone once defined Leftism as “A constant screaming about how everyone should be above average.”

That is an insane attitude, but it is a very RATIONAL attitude, in the economic sense. Half of he population will always be below average and you will always have a clientele if you rant about it.

Attacks on whites always concentrate on what whites have, not what third worlders don’t have that we do. Yes, starvation happens nowhere. Starvation only happens where we are blocked from getting at it. But it will be a cold day in Hell before an anti-white takes notice of this.

But a CAUTION. When we use the Mantra anti-whites’ only counter is condemning whites. PLEASE don’t argue that. With the reality I just mentioned. PLEASE always hit them with “So you are justifying genocide.”

We don’t have time or space to get into IQ scores, crime rates, or what the white man has actually done.


Someday we will have time to give the information we are aching to give out, BUT THAT TIME IS NOT NOW.

I think this subject may interest you, but it will be far worse than useless if it SIDETRACKS you.

The term “subsistence farming” gives me cold chills. If you actually see that someone is depending on his naked crops out in the field to give him enough food to survive on, it is different from a textbook term. Books always tell us how peasants resisted the new farming techniques, and historians dismiss it as superstition and ignorance.

Of course peasants were resistant. They were TOLD these new methods would produce more food, they may even have believed it, but no one seems to realize why they didn’t want to take the CHANCE. It was not an economic risk, it was life and death, watching their families starve to death because they had risked everything on a promise.

Subsistence farming is HORRIBLE. No wonder priests who promise to make the crops good this year by a sacrifice or praying to Saint Whoever got power and money for it. They were the only intellectuals the peasant had. They were usually caring and believed what they said. How was a peasant to know the experts in scientific agriculture were indifferent?

The fact is that a wise peasant would not have believed a ten thousand year succession of well-meaning experts. How would they know that this particular set had a point? Can you imagine how terrified they were even when this was tried on even a few acres, realizing that if this set of priests made it work, they would be forced to abandon methods that had fed their families since time out of mind?

This is not what historians write about or read about. They think only in The Big Picture, who against Progress and how those who were for Progress were the good guys. Their information is produced for each other and for well-fed students who think that subsistence is a credit card at the grocery.

That’s not fair but it makes my point.

In the real world, no Indian would go back to his forefathers’ world, and they had it good. Indians had thousands of acres for each of them. But they also died young. Almost everyone had pain they lived with that we would not tolerate.

But the rest of our third world had lives that were, in plain English, horrible. They starved routinely. That was the poor guy. Rich ones lost their teeth, for a start. Every single Pharaoh suffered from a malnutrition that would be intolerable today in Nicaragua.

Multiculture is big business, but what offends multiculturalists is that not one single culture the West went into has the slightest interest in dumping all that has come in and go back to their ”kinder and simpler” life.

White people had diseases, slavery, no respect for the native culture. But so does everybody else.

Not one single sin of the white man was unique to us. But the white IS unique in what it did FOR the world.

But please read this AGAIN:

When we use the Mantra anti-whites’ only counter is condemning whites. PLEASE don’t argue that. With the reality I just mentioned. PLEASE always hit them with “So you are justifying genocide.” We don’t have time or space to get into IQ scores, crime rates, or what the white man has actually done.


Someday we will have time to give the information we are aching to give out, BUT THAT TIME IS NOT NOW.

I think this subject may interest you, but it will be far worse than useless if it SIDETRACKS you.


No Comments

Genetic Morality

By Bob Whitaker

Has there ever been a book with this title?

According to all the “moral” teachers, there is no such thing as genetic morality.

There is a lot of disagreement on how much human life is influenced by our genes. Right after World War II, the dream world of social science was science. That is, all human life was entirely a product of environment.

Hitler was for heredity, so the World War II generation went to colleges that taught that the future was entirely a product of education, sociology, political science, historical determinism, in other words the social sciences.

I pointed this out in detail in my first book in my own name. (A Plague on Both Your Houses)

Environment IS social science. Leaving heredity and environment to social scientists is exactly like leaving the price of steel up to the Steel Trust. So the Weakest Generation, fresh from obedience training, was trained that heredity was nothing.

To every church that I am aware of, the term “genetic morality” is an oxymoron. If you are intelligent, you should spend your time on theology, not on having or raising children.

Children are a byproduct. You are not responsible for helping better people pass their GENES on, genes future generations will desperately need.

The first rule of post-World War II thinking is that there is no moral dimension whatsoever to genetics.

The discussion begins and ends with “some Hitlerites would say one should have BETTER children, WHATEVER “BETTER” Means.”

This is supposed to get rid of the whole argument and get us back to social programs and adopting the third world into the United States.

But when it comes to social science, there is never the slightest doubt as to what “better” means.

Look at the person who tells you, “Looks don’t matter.” How much do their clothes cost? Are they only wearing a minimum regardless of fashion or how the clothes look? I had a woman once tell me looks don’t matter but she had to end the conversation because she had an appointment at the beauty salon.

You see, the social scientist HAS to know what is “better” or he will not be able to make a living teaching students how they can achieve that “better” by putting money into social programs.

I am sure the lady who is running the beauty salon will tell you that looks don’t matter. I am sure the high-end clothing store owners are putting money into programs based on the premise that there is no such thing as “better” looking children.

Bill O’Reilly demands that test scores and not race should be the determinant of who gets into school. But, since his degree is in education, he will also tell you that no child is innately smarter than any other child.

He SAYS that!

It isn’t true.

I am not speaking of theory here. I am speaking of MORALITY.

My morality is still Odinist. That which is not true is evil.

So Bob has a genetic morality.

That is why I object so strongly to the word “aristocracy” as used today. Aristocracy means rule by the best. It has nothing to do with naciocracy, which is rule by birth.

Even social scientists now have to admit that heredity is important. Anything that is important to humanity has a MORAL dimension.

We are perfectly willing to restrict any human freedom to improve human beings by ENVIRONMENTAL means.

Except for libertarians. They just say they have no responsibility for anything.

I do not respect what passes for morality today because it has one blind eye. Everyone except extreme libertarians agree that businessmen do not have the right to do anything they want to to increase profits and they are perfectly willing to back the restrictions that are needed by force.

But anyone who is too irresponsible or unintelligent to keep down their number of children has a right to dump them on the rest of us. If countries can’t control their population, they have every right to dump them into vacant space left by white people.

But the critical point is NOT that this is not RIGHT. The point here is one no conservative and very few others have the guts to make.

The critical point is that this is IMMORAL.

No one dares to face down the screaming priest or preacher with this IMMORALITY.

If you do not have a genetic morality, you are an immoral person.

You can whip yourself in a Trappist Monastery or hold revivals or hold a professorship in Ethics at Harvard University. But you are an immoral person if you do not have a clear-cut GENETIC morality.

On Judgment Day, I doubt seriously whether you will only be asked about your morality on one aspect of life and never questioned on the other.

The hungry will have to be fed in future generations. The naked will have to be clothed in the future. Only a genetically healthy society can do that. You can sacrifice and whip your skin off in this generation, but it won’t do the future any good.

All they will have is their genes.

There are only two excuses for ignoring a genetic morality:

1) The future won’t happen, or

2) Genes really don’t matter.

I don’t think ANYBODY believes either of those things except those who expect Judgment Day in the near future.

But the environmentalists, whose whole program is based on the future, have no genetic morality at all.

This is not just wrong. It is immoral.

All the churches disagree. But they will not avoid being judged on the Golden Rule.

You can go to Hell straight through the church door.

All the philosophies and pretenses at Ethics in the world and all the incantations of “HITLER!” cannot protect you from your moral obligation in this world or in the next.


No Comments

Cronkite and McCain, Moles

By Bob Whitaker

In the 1980 election, a lot of hard-leftists in the Democratic Party didn’t want to elect the first Southerner on their ticket since 1844. That was not bigotry like being against Obama. Liberal Republicans didn’t want Reagan. So John Anderson ran on his own far-left ticket.

Walter Cronkite offered to be his vice-presidential candidate. Near the end of his career, Cronkite even told journalism classes about what conservative stories he specifically suppressed. That was the end, which you won’t hear mentioned, of his time as “The Most Trusted Man in America.”

Before that, Cronkite’s image was that of the Middle American.

In the intelligence business, as you know, such people are called “moles.” They are traitors, but they are more despicable than open traitors. A Cronkite or a McCain is far more useful to the enemy than a Ted Kennedy. While Kennedy stands openly for the left, a McCain does not back leftists except when the vote is close.

And that, of course, is the only time it really matters. McCain ran on an anti-gun control platform and voted against Kennedy-type gun issues when it was clear they stood no chance. But when a move against guns stood a chance, he was always there with liberals.

On every other liberal issue, McCain always tipped the balance by being “reasonable.” He ran on his being tortured in Vietnam, but he was generally recognized as being the best friend Vietnam had in Congress.

In South Carolina, the most effective anti-gun lobby is called The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). Like the rest of SLED, its anti-gun lobbying is paid for by the state. They delayed concealed carry laws so that SC, though one of the most pro-gun electorates in America, was one of the last to pass one.

Then SLED demanded every restriction on CCW it could find. CCW permit holders have far fewer rights than with the permits SLED and other law enforcement used to give to their buddies.

SLED manages its mole status because South Carolinians are turned off by open gun ban advocates, but worship costumes. We have the highest percentage of veterans of all the states, and we grovel before Law and Order. So SLED, in its police costumes, is the perfect anti-gun lobby.

We are all aware of the role respectable conservative moles play in making liberalism advance, and without them liberalism would not SURVIVE.

But the Stormfront types don’t look at the moles. They have pictures of Jews in yarmulkes. I have pointed out that the Jews who hate us LEAST are the Orthodox ones. The ones whose Judaism has become nothing but hate are the totally Reformed ones.

Our worst enemies are the ones like McCain, who wore a costume and sold us out where it counted.


No Comments

It’s All One World View

Bob Whitaker has created a pro-white world view that is consistent and comprehensive. It centers around loyalty to one’s own kind. I’m pro-white; you’re anti-white. Each term, talking point, or narrative we come up with to use in the propaganda war is a snippet of that overall world view. One of Bob’s greatest philosophical achievements is the discovery and naming of wordism (loyalty to a set of words) and its contrast to nationalism (loyalty to a people).

The anti-whites have created an anti-white world view. Everything they do and say is crafted to demoralize white people and get them to accept their own genocide and to justify that genocide. But they can’t be honest about their intent. They hate white people and want to get rid of them, but they can’t admit it openly. They’re trying to couch an immoral act in moral terms. So their world view is not logically consistent on the surface. They have to go back and forth between race doesn’t exist (and all it’s variants) and whites are uniquely evil. Everything they say is a lie, an obfuscation, a euphemism, a code word for something else. Underneath the surface facade, they are consistent in their anti-whitism.