THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

WHITE WOMEN, WHITE MEN AND "MOOT" | 2008-06-08

Men either want endless uncritical praise or they don't want to admit they need any backup at all.

SysOps and Shari will have to judge what I am about to say.

Women know how to back each other up. They know how to ask for moral backup. They also know how to tear each other apart to an extent that leaves men in awe.

Women know how ask each other for moral support when they need it. If I were a good feminist, I could just apply what women take for granted to men.

I can't do that. God knows I don't know any more about women than any other straight male, but I do know they are DIFFERENT.

So I can't just take what applies to women and transfer it to men.

A straight male is handicapped by his hormones from thinking like women, whereas a real homosexual can understand every nuance of a new hairdo at the level of empathy.

If your job is analyzing PEOPLE, this obvious statement, that women know how to ask for moral backup and men don't, cannot stop at just being a statement. It is a reality you must ANALYZE.

Men do not know how to ask for moral backup. Men either want endless uncritical praise or they don't want to admit they need any backup at all.

Look at how often I would give Shari a hard time for brilliantly getting to the nub of things and then APOLOGIZING for it.

I make a great analyzer of people in general, but I am a male. I FINALLY realized that Shari wasn't apologizing, she was asking for moral backup. That is not something an old bull like me will easily pick up.

Shari had the same problem I always did. Reality is so simple one feels a bit odd having to state it. Above all you get a lot of doubts when you are the ONLY one to state it. Shari was stating these doubts in a feminine way. She was saying, "It CAN'T be this simple."

Her "apology" said, "CAN IT?"

Like a male, I missed her call for moral backup and criticized her "apology." I do not think this caused Shari any real problem. This tolerance is imprinted in Shari's genetic inheritance. Females have been raising male babies for millions of years. The ones who killed the brat for acting the way I did not pass on their genes.

We men try to make everybody think we don't need any backup. I try to act like that and then bitched when you don't comment on what you agree with.

Men either want endless uncritical praise or they don't want to admit they need any backup at all. If we get uncritical praise it makes us the Alpha male, a perfectly legitimate ambition for us. But if we don't seek Alpha, we can't admit we need any moral backup because we're afraid it will make us look queer.

In short, the same blind spot I had with Shari is the blind spot I had with myself.

Men and women are DIFFERENT. A woman will tell you what she needs reassurance about. Moral backup to a WHITE male is new to the world and it is complicated.

It's easy to reassure an alpha male in a gorilla troop or a colored country or a Wordist institution.

Just grovel.

I am two steps removed from a woman's natural ability to ask for moral backup. I am male AND I am something unique to evolution: I am WHITE.

It's easy to reassure an alpha male in a gorilla troop or a colored country or a Wordist institution.

Just grovel.

Orientals have a much more sophisticated way of groveling. They sit around the Great Philosopher, take notes, and regurgitate what he says and expand on each precious word. The Great Philosopher thinks his best disciples are the Ultimate Intellectuals.

The Oriental student has replaced Einstein as the picture of the epitome of brilliance. Did you know that many, many Oriental students think this is FUNNY? They do what they always did, they do what they figure the Great Intellectual wants and they give it to him. To them, IQ tests are just another philosopher's puzzle and they handle it according and ace it.

Then they wonder what the gaijin are raving about.

It doesn't matter whether the Great Teacher in an Oriental society is a Chinese Great Philosopher or a Marxist or a professor of physics from the West. They can take what he gives them and go with it.

But only so far.

Nothing is more alien to gorillas, colored societies, and even Oriental society than the fundamental institution of Aryan society, the Moot. A moot is, among other things, a call for moral backup by Aryan males. It means that even the leader is out on a limb. The Aryan male is accustomed to making NEW decisions and wanting to be sure he is right.

The Aryan leader's concept of moral backup is INPUT. This is a brand new concept in all the history of men and animals. In a Wordist society, where the word "moot" simply means that someone in a judge's robes or a king's robes or a priest's robes has NOT YET handed down the Final Truth, the real meaning of the word "moot" is utterly alien.

BUGS AND FUND RAISING | 2011-10-18

Since I have paid for BUGS entirely out of my own pocket, I have a chance to do what an old man does best: Preach about my own self-sacrifice and how others do this stuff for filthy old money.

Unfortunately I remember clearly that I sold my political talents and expertise to get my present money and income, so I can't preach at you.

In fact, nothing would please me more than thousands of people making a good living working for our cause.

Oddly enough, there was a very honest system of money-making in Washington when I was there.

Richard Viguerie was one of my colleagues, and he was a multi-multi-millionaire fund raiser. But he not only didn't ma ke a secret of it, he told everybody how to do it all the time in speeches. They just couldn't do it as well as he could.

Viguerie was one my writers for the New Right Papers Neither he nor I would realize what a compliment he paid me when one of his staff wrote his article and sent it to me for inclusion in a book to be put out by the world's third largest publisher.

I don't know if he saw it. I called him to check out some changes I had made. He said, "Is it what you need?"

I said yes, but I was checking out changes I had made.

His reply was, "Bob, just DO it!"

I was senior staff. John Ashbrook usually did not see what I wrote in his name until someone commented on it. Richard Viguerie wasn't going to sit around worrying about my ruining him.

But "Just DO it, Bob, gives you an idea of the responsibility I was supposed to take for granted.

Yes, I am bragging.

On fund raising, the best article in my New Right Papers was that of Paul Weyrich. It is worth reading, and it is available through your public library if you want it.

One point Weyrich made was that ALL finances must not only be public property, but it must be up front. It was IN the press kit at any of a group's news conferences.

The trick here is that one can have a financial dream come true and put it out there in public to be seen. Many a person I knew routinely had an organization he ran that could support him for the rest of his life in comfort.

And anybody who wanted the figures could have them. He committed himself to do honest work for the organization and the organization guaranteed him solid financial security.

Any of us would, I think, consider this the lap of luxury. PLUS most of these guys had regular day jobs on the Hill or elsewhere, on top of that.

Where fund-raising is handled openly and intelligently it is not a problem.

Even if they are out to get you, fund-raising is not a problem, because they are going to get you anyway on something.

Genseric and I have been talking in comments about the possibility of our giving money to a candidate to put the full Mantra into one of his campaign ads. That is as secret as any talk about fund raising will ever get here.

I hope to Heaven you GET financial security by fighting for our side.

Just keep it out in the open.

And put it in your press kit.

BEING WRONG CAN BE GREAT | 2006-05-01

I put this in the antis thread on Stormfront:

I wrote that I had read hundreds od anti comments and had never seen one of them admit that they learned anything here.

I got a raft of replies from antis who said that they had not only learned things here, they had SAID so.

More iprtant I got a correction from a comrade who said he knew of one anti who had converted to our side here.

I told the truth, which you can trust me for, when I said I had not READ any anti who said he had learned something here.

But the conclusion I drew from that was, happily, WRONG.

So I apologize to those who HAVE learned something here, especially the ones with the guts to admit it.

One reason I am able to make such bold statements is because I have tested them out many, many times.

The ones I repeat are the ones I have have never been WRONG about.

Which means I have been wrong a LOT.

And seldom have I regretted it.

In fact, I have developed being wrong into a technique you might find useful

In my life on Capitol Hill, in the media, as a presidential appointee and author and all that other good stuff, one big opportunity I have had repeatedly was to meet the very top authorities in many fields.

But I soon found that one seldom got anything out of meeting them that you couldn't get out of reading what they had already written. Authorities in a field are very careful people.

So all most people got out of talking to a top expert was being able to say, "I met Doctor so-and-so HIMSELF."

Here is a person who knows everything going on in his field including stuff you need to know, but you can't get it out of him by polite discussion.

So what I would do would be to make the very statement that infuriated him most. I would take aside he couldn't STAND.

Suddenly each expert would hit me with everything he had. He would tell me about the most recent research that made my statement stupid. He wold tell me inside stories about people like me and the incrdibly dumb conclusions they had come to.

I am a professional interrogator. I would sit there and listen to every word he said and get just what I wanted out of it. The expert was giving this moron hell.

Said moron was hearing the inside story from an insider.

If you want to be right, you have to be very, very used to being wrong.

NEEDED ADDITIONS | 2008-08-02

We get very interesting citations from input to sites like Chronicles of Culture, but we get no url to refer to or, more often, a general url that takes us to a debate with forty or fifty entries. I don't know about others, but I cannot tell which of this huge number of entries is being referred to, so it is of no use to me.

One person referred to a Helsinki Convention as a reason for denying an immigrant visa to a white South African, but no explanation of what that citation from some Helsinki Convention IS. If you want something more than sympathy, you have to tell us what it SAYS.