When you come up with a concept, it will become warped or it will be ignored.

Warped is better.

A commenter pointed out that Wordism is being confused with objectivity. Since he noticed the subtle changes in the use of the word, I decided to discuss it a bit.

Unlike anyone else who gets a concept used by others, I don’t want to dictate what Wordism is. I would have to write a book on he subject to do that, and I will write no more books. So, as I say, I am commenting on it.

My invention of the term Wordism was to provide a direct counterpart to “tribalism,” “racism,” and a hundred other terms used against any kind of loyalty to one’s own kind.
They talk about Hitler and racism and war to say that loyalties to one’s own POPULATION have a lot of bad things in their histories.

No one can think of any bad things that anti-racism or anti-nationalism ever produced because they assume what they call “universalism” has no history. It does, and that history makes Hitler look like a Boy Scout.

Mao Tse-Tung would have laughed out loud at Hitler’s paltry death rate. Pol Pot would be insulted if his personal destruction a third of his country’s entire population would be not put in class by itself. By European standards, though, Stalin did very well and he did plenty of killing in peacetime.

To find such regular, day-to-day torture, Cultural Revolution and Oriental Despotism in Europe you have to go back the Religious Wars.

The key thing about universalism is that it is a plural. There are thousands of them. Mao and Stalin’s Communism and both sides in the religious wars were universalisms. There would be peace when the True Bible became accepted by everybody. There would be peace when he books of Karl Marx, and the CORRECT commentaries on Marx, were accepted by all.

No price is ever too high for a universalism to win World Peace forever. And each group of Believers BELIEVES that. Everybody must believe the Universal Truth, my set of words, for their own good.

And for your own good, there can be no mercy.

The problem is, they have made their labels like racism and nationalism, common currency, while, as usual, we have not given it enough thought to develop our own.

Now I see that Wordism is used to fit into whatever the person doing the writing is down on.

Wordism can be effective if it is only used in the sense I give it here. Every time one says that overspending is Wordism, it hurts the cause that a BUGSer would make that mistake.

They give all the evils of slavery and Nazism the name “racist.” They are losing the word because blacks use it to denounce any spending cut. But it remains useful to them because they don’t dribble it to mean just anything they didn’t like in the past.

Use Wordist for what it is, and for nothing else, especially your pet peeves.

Wordism is a horror. It is the reality of what Wordists accuse racism of being.

And more.

You can’t find many books on the real slaughters for religion. You can’t hear the screams of people dying by fire or by weeks of torture in order to clean their minds out before they are executed, a process Orwell described in 1984. But which was once routine.

Over a billion people were penned in by Communism and the media have no interest in the tens of millions they killed. A hundred million is a reasonable guesstimate. But almost the entire billion people wasted generations under that system, coming out desperately poor after the rest of the world had developed.

I think that is quite enough reality for one word to encompass.

Don’t cheapen it. Use it for the desperately needed truth it is.

I believe it was Carl von Clausewitz who said that “War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means.” Being a militarist, he liked to reduce everything to battle.

But the truth is that there is no difference between war and diplomacy. They are both means to the same end, and one prefers to take the least costly route to ANY end. War is what happens when less costly means give out.

Diplomacy has always been known as the alternative to war. In 1861 the North and South stopped debatint and took up arms.

But I note that our side is becoming very apologetic about this. When they say we are fermenting trouble, no one says that the only way to prevent violence is to put it all on the table. No, we tend to be defensive and talk only about how, technically, they have no right to shut us up because of the first amendment.

In other words, we are back to the time when our spokesmen talked about States’ Rights instead of defending the existence of our race.

Several examples come to mind. When we talk about our side, the left always says that, if we didn’t give in to them, the Communists will get the oppressed on their side.

But how often do we point out that the Weimar Republic had Hate Speech Laws, but all Hate Speech Laws do is what liberals used to say the right does, drive the resentment under cover.

We have GOT to stop thinking defensively.

When I said that I didn’t mind a web site going straight from the Mantra to anti-Semitism someone in General Comments 4 said they would agree since I said it. In short, they thought I was wrong.

Suits me. I don’t want a seminar where people feel obligated to agree with me.

What this sort of thing will be used for by anti-whites will be to show that any mention of the survival of the white race will be used for other purposes.

The answer to that is, “Of course it will!” If you suppress seething resentments they become the PROPERTY of those who want violence.

What is really frustrating is to see is that so many of us are unable to stop hiding under the table. Speech, diplomacy and war are different ways of handling disagreement.

Why can’t our people realize that without me reminding them?

I just wrote an article about the cover up of gay activity by the military in World War II.

Now that women are being brought into the service in large numbers, we all know about scandals that have surfaced, and we also know how hard it is for even a woman to report abuse and how it is impossible for her to have a career in the service afterwards.

We all know how prisons are and how they were when a man who reported only got the report as far as the inmate who killed him. We all know the British “public,” meaning private schools, were all male and homosexual activity was a norm. CS Lewis talks about it as a given.

This is why “Why is this information produced?” is such a critical concern.

There is not a single well-known book about how any of the twelve million Americans in uniform was sexually harassed and how the brass covered it up. Such a book would have had twelve million screaming enemies for whoever was responsible for it.

Kinsey’s “Study,” which was one-half prisoners, is quoted as Gospel, not because it was anything LIKE scientific, but because the information produced suited the purposes of a lot of people.

If such truths were ever allowed out, a generation that controls most of national wealth would be in the position of Catholic priests today. How can a man in an all-male institution protect himself from a charge of homosexuality? Every member of that generation would be tainted.

That information is not produced.

And the fact that we never concentrate on why information is produced is what makes the suppression so vigorous. If we looked at this sort of thing the way we look at ex-convicts, that a lot of them were probably forced to have same-sex and others got to like it, it might be discussed.

But when this came out about the priests, it was a huge blow to the Church and made men who had dedicated their lives to the Church ashamed of their collars.

By now we all know that what makes most really huge scandals uncontrollable is the cover-up.

Everybody knows, but nobody says, that you don’t become a bishop in the Catholic Church by being naive. Every single bishop knew what was going on. Court testimony shows that priests who were not molesters would just ignore a boy’s cries for help.

This is an entirely different business from a percentage of priests, or firemen, or police, or any other group contains a certaining number of perverts. It was not that it happened, but that the Church kept it secret and took no real action that caused the explosion.

Like worshippers of the Greatest Generation, the Catholic laity did not want to consider the certainty that an ABSOLUTE absence of news in this matter needed to be checked out.

The 10% figure for male homosexuality, that is, men who actually PREFER sex with other men to sex with women, stays unquestioned at 10% is an example of this sort cowlike acceptance.

When you deal with information, the WHY is as important as the WHAT.

Why is information produced?

The official media figure for male homosexuals is 10%. No one asks where it came from. It came from a Kinsey Report, Sexual Behavior In The Human Male, in the 1950s. The Kinsey study was known by all because it had lots of headlines in it for newspapers in an age when sex was not openly discussed much.

No one knows where this came from. Kinsey was himself a homosexual, and half of his study subjects were in prison. So when he reported that 10% of males were homosexuals, he also found that half of all males had had homosexual sex.

In the 1950s prison a solid majority of males had had homosexual sex. In fact, one of the reasons so many less prisoners today do NOT have this unwelcome experience is because we talk about it, and it can be reported.

The best estimate I have seen in a careful study of the subject estimated the percentage of male gays at about 1.4%. This was barely covered in the media, and it is unlikely that more will be financed.

The media and the activists like that 10% figure, so the boat is very unlikely to be rocked again.

I am an interrogator. It often struck me that the WWII types and soldiers since have a note in their voices when they speak of their worshipped sergeants, their first ones, that one only hears in a person who is speaking of an old love affair.

From one perspective the entire theory of basic training in WWII and long after was to make the recruits into the submissive females and the sergeants into the dominant males.
“Basic training” was sloppy and it consisted entirely of making young men accept sado-masochism.

It’s kind of odd, in a society where everything is interpreted sexually, that I am the one to mention this.

There was an island in the Pacific where the officer’s club consisted almost entirely of men who had been in combat and were going back in. They were the Greatest of the Greatest Generation.

The ranking officer there would regularly go to the officers’ club, get drunk, and assault junior officers. One young officer hit him back. Her was court-martialed and went to prison.

He went to prison because not one single Hero of the Greatest Generation would say, on the stand, that the senior officer beat on younger officers in that club all the time.

The officer who went to prison was a man who had been in combat, and a captain. Now try to imagine what would happen to recruit in Basic if he reported sissy boy activity against him by his sergeant.

Conservatives are constantly bitching about how liberals are getting absolutely absurd in their use of the word “racist.”

One liberal’s advice they quote was, “Pick a conservative and cal him a racist.”

But the respectables never talk about WHY liberals are now so blatant about the racist label.

They use it because it WORKS.

And they will keep using it because it WORKS.

We have a simple truth to get across: “I wish for liberals to say I am a non-racist but the only reason they will say that is because I am a groveling wimp.”

Liberals use the anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews gambit all the time because it WORKS. Whenever they use it, conservatives soil themselves and go into a fetal position.

If you found something that did that to your opponents, you would use it endlessly, you would openly urge your allies to use it. Liberals kept using the racist label on the Tea Party and the Tea Party put out tapes of their meetings to show no one used the N word.

It didn’t help.

Hey, dumbo, this is a WAR, not a high school DEBATE! Unlike groveling respectables, liberals don’t give a damn about you proving them wrong. All that counts is whether they WIN or not.

That’s why they always win over the respectables. The only time conservatives won was when they got over their fear of appealing to the “the Wallace vote,” a phrase the left used to scare conservatives away from the Reagan Democrats for many years.

The Republicans went back to moderation with Bush and became habitual losers again, doing the job the media feels a real conservative SHOULD do.

When Republicans looked like they had some cajones again in 1994, they won BOTH Houses of Congress. But once in office, they danced to the tune of the Democratic attacks again, and lost it again.

Republicans who won the smashing victory of 1994 went Inside the Beltway. They were listening to the Washington Post and the cocktail party crowd, which cowed them with the racist and radical labels on a day to day basis.

Only on their trips back to their districts, talking with people who weren’t the Big Shots they now dealt with, did they hear, “Why aren’t you CHANGING anything up there?”

They didn’t change even the trend to more government up there because the Big Guys inside the Beltway are Big Guys because they know how to manipulate wimps.

And if you wet yourself and praise Martin Luther King ensconced in the idea that liberals were always right the pros are going to keep using any label that WORKS.