Archive for July 25th, 2006
You will never hear a liberal or a respectable conservative admit that the old liberals were
just plain WRONG. That is why respectable conservatism has embraced neoconservatism.
Neoconservatism says that liberals were never just plain wrong. Neoconservatism says that
those of us who warned where liberalism was heading before 1970 were wrong.
Neoconservatism says that liberalism was perfectly right until on or about January 1, 1970.
On that date, leftism suddenly went nuts. National Review today says that the founders of
National Review were wrong and evil when, in 1955, they founded that publication on the idea
that leftism would lead stright to all the disasters we have today. National Review insists
that it is all for every liberal program until 1970.
On the other hand, if you look at the intellectual basis of liberalism in the 1950s, it is
laughable. They insisted that anone who hinted that the average IQ or even the running
speed of different races was innately different was anaziwhowantedtokillsixmillionjews.
They would FIRE any professor who insisted on the importance of genes. They made it law
that anyone who said animals had the kind of discrimination that capitalist society has
produced was a Hitlerite.
And that was just one of their absurdities. Today we know that every social animals has a
rigid caste structure.
So how can liberals/respectable cosnervatives/neoconservatives insist they were right?
First, by strategic forgetfulness. No one at National Review will admit that liberals said
what they said back then.
Second, there is code for saying they were just plain wrong. Now that all the crap about
how there was no such thing as heredity is known by everybody not only to be crap, but to be
OBVIOUS crap, they use the code term, “Does not exist.” So today, instead of admitting they
were just plain WRONG that there was, practically speaking, no such thing as heredity and
everything was environment, liberals/respectable conservatives/neoconservaties/libertarians
all agree that there is no such thing as heredity and environment.
So they used to say that environment was everything. But now that that is obvious nonsense,
they say they were never WRONG, it was just simplistic. You see, there is now no such thing
as heredity or environment.
On race, it is pretty obvious that different races run at different speeds. Ask whites in
the Boston Marathon if they think they can beat East Africans. Well, since that argument
was ridiculous from the get-go, they say there is no such thing as race.
Just as the code term for anti-white is “anti-racist” the code term for “We were ridicuous”
is “Us real Intellectuals know that whatever it is we were wrong about never existed.”
“NOt Spam. Not Spam.
I wasn’t going to comment on this but I changed my mind.
You said, “wordism is loyalty to a BOOK, to WORDS.” That’s your definition. I’m willing to accept it. In fact, I think it’s your creation. I don’t fool with anybody’s creation. That’s personal.
This piece caused me to think about the Big Book. Now you know what the Big Book is so we can sort of make it personal this time. When I first came into the Fellowship in this part of the country almost nobody referred to the Big Book. The group was small. One old-timer mentioned the Big Book and I inquired about it. I gobbled it up and soon we were having what is called Big Book Studies. After a time I chaired many of these meetings. Soon the house was packed. They came from all around. It was a wonderful experience. I came to find that nationwide and even worldwide there were many people who were “loyal” to the Big Book, specifically, the words in the Big Book. Without this they might never have made it. They will testify to that. If this is wordism it’s working for a whole lot of people. I’ve seen lives change for the better as a result of this loyalty to the Big Book and the words which express ideas that have changed their lives. It’s not the only book but it’s the book I’m talking about at the moment.
I’m not trying to promote anything one way or another. I’m just telling what I know to be a fact. ”
If I do electrical work, I USE a book. My loyalty to my race is unshaken.
Those who wrote the big book made it very clear it was not a religion. If you use the book as I did because it works, you are not a Wordist. But if you WORHIP the big book and say, “My loyalty is to other drunks. Anyone who happens to be black is therefore fine to marry my daughter,” you ARE a Wordist, and a lot of people do that.
You are halfway there, though. Your entire dialogue here is telling us to give up fighting for our race, but you would never say such a thing when you are trying to save drunks. In fact, you or I would consider it a moral violation to urge people to give up on drunks as hopeless, but you have no effort to spare for your race.
Wordism is a transfer of LOYALTY, not using some book that works in a particular case.