Archive for September, 2018

We Don’t Lie

By Bob Whitaker – Originally posted January, 2006

These are the days of our innocence.

Young couples long for the time when they have money and security. Then, after they have raised their children and are financially secure, they become bored, and long for the days when life was exciting and they had to lean on each other for their only security.

“Revolutions eat their children.” Right now we are telling the truth, and that is our only job.

But the establishment that we consider so great will vanish, like the Czardom or the Weimar Republic, and it will be a fight to establish the future.

Fighting Evil, facing the Big Lie, is a battle that has left me in a state beyond exhaustion. But I had few moral choices to make. When I crossed Communist deadlines, it was no challenge for me to see that this was pure evil.

It is no intellectual challenge for me to fight those who are simply anti-white. But soon the Faithful Colored Companions who are a wholly owned subsidiary of the left will get, as we used say, “uppity.”

There will be no place in that world for the leftists who speak for non-whites or conservatives who keep them in power by being the perfect Respectable Opposition.

There will only be room for those of us who speak for whites and the ever-diminishing number of whites who are deeply disappointed that their Faithful Colored Companions no longer listen to them.

Then will come a time of brutal decisions. No longer will the argument be over whether to betray our race.

That is an easy moral decision.

The fight will be over HOW to fight for the interests of our own people. It will be vicious fight. Brother will battle brother.

When that time comes, we will long for the days of our innocence.


No Comments

Genetic Morality is THE Theme of the 21st Century

By Bob Whitaker 

Marxists and social scientists in general consider genetics to be the ultimate enemy. When it comes to nature versus nurture, the simple fact is that social science IS nurture.

The whole concept of “rule by the intellectuals” is based on the idea that the ideal society will be realized when we have true communism or the right education or sociology or psychology or diversity applied throughout the world.

The problem with this is NOT that it is intellectually incorrect. The problem is that it’s SILLY.

And you cannot deal with something that is silly as if it were a real point of view.

There is absolutely nothing new about this situation. A glaring example of this exact situation may be found in the top medical experts of the year 1800.

What has happened to all the University Medical professors who insisted on Galen’s Humor Theory and said that bleeding was the cure to most diseases?

What has happened to the entire Established Church clergy in London that denounced Jenner’s vaccinations against smallpox as Violations of the Law of Jehovah?

Did we come to some kind of William Buckley/respectable conservative accommodation with them which showed respect for their point of view, so that we now treat medicine as part Humor Theory and part germ theory?

That would be insane.

The university doctors had to face the fact that they were teaching murderous rot. The preachers had to face the fact that introducing cow disease into a human being was the right thing to do.

There was NO compromise. Due respect was not given to their “point of view.”

None. In this century, genetic morality is not going to be ***A*** question. Genetic morality is going to be ***THE*** question.

People will have the choice of giving their children better genes with no quotes around the word better, or they are going to produce children who will curse them in their graves.

If any of us were making the choice for ourselves, everyone of us has genetic traits he would like to be improved. Everybody would like the congenital conditions we have suffered, in my case depression, taken out. We would all like to be smarter and better looking.

That is what I would do for ME if I had to make the choice.

But if there is one thing that Father Flannerty and all the other churchmen agree with sociology professor GoldBottom about it is that this “improvement” in the genes of our descendants is the very essence of Evil.

It is, always, Hitlerism.

So, according to all our established religions, The Golden Rule applies to environment but not to heredity.

The science of genetics is advancing. Soon science will produce a stark choice between the Golden Rule and acting like heredity isn’t there, which is the doctrine of both the old and the new established religions.

So all the moralists will be pounding their Old Testaments and their Papal Encyclicals and their sociology textbooks and screaming that True Morality means producing “natural” offspring.

And as this comes about, most people, including most of the readers of this blog, will think it’s something new.

If one has any historical perspective at all, there is nothing new about it.

In 1790 most SURVIVING people were walking around with smallpox scars, including George Washington. George Washington’s highly qualified physicians bled him to death in 1799 by taking QUARTS of blood out of him to cure his pneumonia.

In fact, even many of the smallpox survivors were not walking around with their scars. Many had been made feeble-minded and had to stay at home. Many were so horribly scarred that they did not walk abroad.

So Jenner found that if you put some cowpox into a person he would be immune to smallpox.

Every pulpit in London resounded with a unanimous denunciation of Jenner’s vaccination. It was a violation of the Law of Jehovah to put a cow disease into the sacred veins of a human being. The human body was “The Temple of God.”

Smallpox, shouted the established religion of that day, was better than cowpox. Smallpox, they declared unanimously and shamelessly, was Nature’s Way.

In exactly the same way our established religions will scream that I have no right to take depression out of my children’s genes. They will shout that depression is better than violating the sacred genes nature gives us randomly.

Having lived with depression, I know that damned well isn’t so. And I would take the tiny rash of cowpox any day over a bout with smallpox.

If I don’t want to live with depression, the Golden Rule tells me my children don’t want to live with depression.

And you have no right to foist dumb people on my descendants, people who will be naked and need clothing and hungry people who will need feeding. You feed them and clothe them by making them genetically capable of doing that for themselves.

Genetic morality is the Golden Rule.

After two thousand years of ignoring and violating genetic reality, Western Civilization is about to run into it head-on.


No Comments

The Real America Contains No Americans

By Bob Whitaker 

A couple of years after I started talking and writing about Wordism, National Review started talking about The Propositional State.

National Review asked the question, “Is the United States, unlike other countries, not a people but a set of ideas?”

In other words, is America a Wordist country?

Naturally they never used the term “Wordist.” That would trace it right back to me.

This is what a “propositional state” means:

Other countries like France or Germany are made up of Germans and Frenchmen. In America people like me, whose families have been here for four centuries, are incidental. We are permitted to live here so long as we subscribe to whatever principles are currently the definition of “America.”

No Americans before the group that calls itself The Greatest Generation would have stood for an insult like that.

According to the people who wrote the Constitution, America was “We the people of the United States … and OUR posterity.”

According to National Review, nothing could more unAmerican than the Preamble to the United States Constitution.

In fact, to say that America consist of “We the people … and OUR posterity” is the very essence of treason to our Propositional State.


1 Comment

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