Wordism is the idea that there is some Book by Karl Marx or Ayn Rand or somebody that will
make a successful nation out of any random collection of people.
Wordism, including Communism, religious wars, and the rest, has killed more people than
racism ever could have.
Also you cannot have both Wordism and freedom of speech. If you define loyalty as
attachment to a set of words, then you must define treason as any other set of words. We
can see that in action today as a “diverse” society becomes a state ruled by the politically
Correct Thought Police.
I believe in identity, that a people can only be unbited by a common bond of kinship. Where
a person belongs as a matter of kinship, widely different ideas can be tolerated.
There has never been a free society that was racially diverse.
There never will be.
There never can be.
Another form of government which destroys identity is Classism.
As the flood of third world immigration began in Britain, the Queen put herself solidly on
the side of the third world against her own people. She said that anyone who held a
British passsport, which huge numbers od people in the colonies did, had as much right in
Britain as someone whose family had been there a thousand years.
The Queen said all of them were HER loyal subects, and loyalty to HER was the only criterion
of whether one was British or not. The only thing that mattered was her own right of birth
as Queen. The fact that some of her subjects felt that their own birth on the island for
thousands of years gave them some special rights to be there was irrelevant.
One of the immediate causes of the American Revolution was the fact that the King banned all
white settlement by whites from Appalachia to the Misissippi River. That land, said the
king, belonged to the Indians, who were as much his subjects as the whites east of that
line.
Since there was about one Indian every two square miles on that land, the king was granting
each Indian more land than the average large land holder had in Britain.
But to the King, who thought in terms of class, there was no difference between an Indian
subject and a white subject.
To right-wingers, my objection to classism is heresy.
I have no illusions about the Natural Equality of Man. But when a person starts building his world around his class in society, he is doing the same thing a Wordist does. His loyalty becomes fixed to his class rather than to his identity.
I very much object to calling classism “aristocracy.” Aristocracy means rule by the best. Classism is naciocracy, wule by birth. It has no relation to aristocracy.
A naciocrat EARNS the trust of his own people by his loyalty to them. A classist DEMANDS his right to rule because of his birth. If the people won’t give it to him, he will not hwsitate to ally with enemies in order to get the power he demands.
So when the colonists rebelled against the English Crown, the King used Indians to attack them.
To a classist, all peasants are created equal.
#1 by kanefromsf on 03/10/2006 - 3:46 am
In capitalism you have to make your own opportunities. You can’t whine about where you are because you are given the opportunity to rise up. If you want to raise your class…earn it! Don’t try to change the rules of the game because you are losing. Start winning.
#2 by LibAnon on 03/10/2006 - 4:29 am
Bob, here’s an idea that’s been bothering me as a result of several recent incidents in the WN movement and I’d appreciate any thoughts you might have. Getting right to the point, isn’t it Wordism to use ANY scientific theory, valid or not, to justify a political position? In other words, isn’t “racial realism” capable of turning White nationalism itself into an anti-White weapon, just as Boasian anthropology did with liberalism?
Nationalism works precisely because it needs neither explanation nor justification. It works for the same reason that Baywatch was the world’s most-watched show. There’s nothing to understand. Life is a matter of taste. Try to make it “scientific”, however, and soon you’ll have thought police, taboo subjects, forbidden symbols, and demands that certain “elements” be purged. It doesn’t matter what the words are. Whether the words are “dictatorship of the proletariat” or “group evolutionary strategy”, Wordism is Wordism and always leads to the same result.
I hope I won’t be misunderstood here. I certainly believe that Rushton, MacDonald, etc. do good science and that Boas did not. What I’m saying is that no theory is ever rich enough to support a polity, and that all previous attempts to force politics onto the Procrustes bed of theory have led to despotism.
#3 by Mark on 03/10/2006 - 10:42 am
Great timing, Bob, especially in light of the present day “gold card” immigration “reform” that Bush is trying to force onto America. I do believe our good president and those brain-dead respectible conservatives that follow him have the notion that third worlders have as much right to America as those of us whose families have lived here for generations. Guess you don’t have to be king to put in place equally disastrous immigration policies.
#4 by Shari on 03/10/2006 - 10:48 am
This sort of plain thoughts has the effect of cheering me up some. As someone who has felt sad and downhearted, way more than glad, for most of my life, I can’t help but think that we are headed for a resurrection on more than an individual basis. But a civilzational, religious, and yes racial one as well.
#5 by Sam on 03/10/2006 - 8:38 pm
Good afternoon Bob,
I’ve read this article four time now and I’m still cannot understand what you mean by these two lines. “To right-wingers, my objection to classism is heresy. I have no illusions about the Natural Equality of Man” Could you expand on this?
also, I’ll be finishing off high school soon. Do you have any advice on how to educate myself before I go off to the local community college?
#6 by Dave on 03/11/2006 - 4:43 pm
This Bob Whittaker post, as is so often the case, is a cool drink of water in a parched desert.It gives real insight into why the elites are so confoundedly impractical in their thoughts into how things should be and cascading set of problems their policies cause.
For example, the prospects for liberty in Britain are now so bad that we have a bunch of damn fools administering “employee discipline” to the schuck and jive mayor of London for offending a Jewish reporter. The mainstream British press is dancing around gleefully claiming that they, after all, are the “true government” of England and that no one would be available to hold elected officials accountable were it not for their majestic asses, elections being irrelevant.
Have things ever been this hopeless? I wish I was old enough to know.