Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Whitakerism: A Propositional State Cannot Allow Free Speech

Posted by Bob on June 4th, 2011 under Coaching Session


Like, the truth of this becomes clear almost as soon as you state it.

If a state’s existence is based on a proposition, it cannot allow the proposition to be seriously questioned.

In a propositional state, all loyalty is based on the absolute conviction that one is loyal to an Only True Faith. History shows us that the one thing that will change where there is free speech is the Only True Faith of a time before.

You can look at “When the Wagons Rolled West” (link) to see what America was based on before the very questionable adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

America was seen as part of the movement of the white race, which had moved, in wave after wave, into Europe by succeeding groups of Indo-Europeans, Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, Doric, Ionic, Latin. America was part of that age old tradition.

Even after the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted, the Dred Scot Decision, “A black man has no rights that a white man need respect,” was still official. Until July 20, 1868, when the Radical Republicans declared the amendment imposed by their military dictatorship to have been ratified, the Dred Scot Decision was the Law of the Land.

This is so buried that it is said that the only amendment adopted to reverse a decision of the Supreme Court was the one allowing a national income tax. Every historian states that. Every historian MUST say that.

Why?

Because, as in all authoritarian states, history must conform to the doctrine, the proposition.

In the Soviet Union if the economic statistics did not confirm to the doctrine that they were thriving and growing, an economist who deferred from that line lost not just his job but his life.

Any historian who questions the proposition that for the first ninety years of its existence America was dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal is out on his ass.

A state based on natural loyalties does not have to enforce any particular proposition.

And the proposition can be Freedom.

Another Whitakerism: a capital letter word is always the exact opposite of the same word in the lower case.

The Inquisition practiced Mercy, because slowly burning a heretic alive gave him his only chance to repent and be spared Eternal Hellfire. Torture is part and parcel of True Mercy.

When one says that America is dedicated to Freedom, it means that if anyone questions True Equality they are an enemy of True Freedom.

The result is that anyone who recites actual history is a traitor to the Propositional State.

The lower case freedom cannot allow a doctrine of any kind to be the basis of the state.

The Constitution dedicates America to “ Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and OUR Posterity.”

By DEFINITION, the blessing of freedom means that you do NOT state the doctrine that is best for yourselves and your posterity.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Dave on 06/04/2011 - 11:11 am

    Tyranny rests upon the principle that any plausible lie will do. That is the source of doctrines: plausible lies. And it is discouraging that people are so easily tricked by plausible lies.

    The vicious Morlocks, who are the apex predators of any particular Establishment, put incredible energy into the development of “national” doctrines, usually in connection with denying people their ethnic and racial rights as separate peoples. Also, because the Eloi, the Morlock’s prey, have the greatest respect for the terms “legal” and “illegal”, they know how easily the Eloi are tricked by doctrines that are “officially” sanctioned. In contrast, the Morlocks themselves are never so idiotic.

    This is why I love listening to Henry Kissinger. Henry Kissinger is a Morlock who can’t keep his mouth shut. Accordingly, he gives away the thinking of all Morlocks. Kissinger’s basic shtick is doctrinal: Competing regimes must have a shared framework and vocabulary for perceiving their conflicts or these conflicts are prone to uncontrolled escalation. In other words, they must agree on doctrine.

    All the Morlocks have to do to anyone challenging the geographic naming conventions and fake sanctioned histories behind their doctrines is brand them with “illegal” motives. In other words, internal psychological compliance with their doctrines is mandatory and enforced (i.e., you are an “American” first, and a white person second). People like Kissinger want to make this a global regime. This is what gives tyranny its religious character. It is the demand for internal psychological compliance across peoples and borders. And this is the basic principle international tyranny uses to con people into accepting fake “national” histories, motivated by the need to justify the subjugation of peoples and their territories under regimes that have procured international recognition for their doctrines.

    That’s why the most important question of any sanctioned history is: whose history? Asking that question is to seriously get in the face of officially sanctioned doctrines.

    For example, I resent having a piece of the history of the African Diaspora named, “American History”. It’s African history in the Americas, but it is NOT “American History”. There is not one part of the history of black people that is my people’s history. It is so important not to get the history of your own people confused with other people’s history. That confusion is EXACTLY what the tyrants want. The American Constitution is now so muddied by this nonsense, by its doctrine of racial and ethnic inclusiveness, sweeping many separate ethnic, racial, and national histories into one big confused muddle, that it is worthless. It is really no different structurally than the method used in the Peoples Republic of China. The edifices and practices look a lot different, but the underlying structure is the same. It is all about mashing different races and peoples together, and calling them the same people (“one nation”) with a “shared” history. The con of “one nation” and “shared history” is one of the fundamental doctrines of tyranny.

    Watch out: The Morlocks are calling the history of Mexico, “American History”. One the few remaining Manchu’s in Manchuria would have no problem understanding this phenomena at all. Everybody calls him “Chinese” and he is required to accept the history of Ming China as part of his own “shared” history. The Han conquered him with his own Mandarin language and then used that as a tool to drag him into Han “centeredness”. It all happened fairly rapidly and on the scale of real time, fairly recently. That’s why it is such a damn threat to have English speaking Mexicans in America. If you don’t understand this, there is something wrong with you.

    Similarly, I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that the President of the United States is black. It is the fact that he is black AND communicates in English as his primary language that is the problem. What is Barack Obama’s real identification? It is not with the non-white world as a whole. It is only with that portion of the non-white world that communicates primarily in English and to a lesser extent that portion of the nonwhite world that is merely fluent in English. THAT CONSTITUTES THE THREAT because it is that portion of the nonwhite world that is demanding political rights at the expense of our own. I feel like Robert Whitaker. Why doesn’t anybody else but me see this?

    It is subtle how perspective gets twisted by dominant languages and hidden motives. That’s how the tyrants catch you. It is their use of dominant languages as a political tool to impose foreign culture and histories, the names they put on land and water, what they include and exclude in legal documents, and what they thereby justify. It is how they confuse separate people’s histories and throw them all together. And then people succumb to these implied perspectives without ever questioning, without ever asking, why?

    You have to get your mind right BEFORE you decide what door you are going to open. Your whole self-conception and your conception of your own people can get incredibly screwed up if you don’t understand that there are compelling motives behind how a dominant language is used as a political tool, how geographies are named, how separate people’s histories are jumbled together, and how entire histories are named.

    • #2 by Frank on 06/04/2011 - 4:27 pm

      Dave, this is one of the best elucidations I’ve ever seen of how wordism works, and how to see its power, not to mention how to disallow its power over our lives. Thanks.

    • #3 by Simmons on 06/05/2011 - 1:20 am

      Good we will be diverging our evolutionary path from blacks as their command of the English language is rapidly fading.

      I guess I can quibble some the details but for the most part mashing people together or seperating upon language makes sense.

      Take the jews and their cult state of Israel, they speak hebrew in what I assume up until Israel was formed was a language like latin is to most catholics. But IMO it won’t help them because after watching the war movie “Lebanon” for the most part they are still momma boy pussies. So for now their core group is seperated from us gentiles by the language and Arab ineptitude. I wish all jews spoke hebrew as their first language.

      We can use the language as we see fit, we don’t need their instructions anymore.

  2. #4 by Frank on 06/04/2011 - 3:50 pm

    A quick link to a place where there is discussion of Bob, and wordism.

    http://mangans.blogspot.com/2011/06/americas-wars-and-conservatives.html

  3. #5 by BGLass on 06/05/2011 - 11:19 am

    “….This is what gives tyranny its religious character. It is the demand for internal psychological compliance across peoples and borders. And this is the basic principle international tyranny uses to con people into accepting fake “national” histories…

    That’s why the most important question of any sanctioned history is: whose history? Asking that question is to seriously get in the face of officially sanctioned doctrines.

    For example, I resent having a piece of the history of the African Diaspora named, “American History”. It’s African history in the Americas, but it is NOT “American History”. There is not one part of the history of black people that is my people’s history. It is so important not to get the history of your own people confused with other people’s history. That confusion is EXACTLY what the tyrants want. The American Constitution is now so muddied by this nonsense… that it is worthless. It is really no different structurally than the method used in the Peoples Republic of China…”

    Wow. Sometimes it can help to just express the firm statement– in reminder that NO ONE is really obligated to take in stories that some other of the various peoples tell themselves about themselves. We all have our own stories, our memories, our myths, our histories, our unique trajectories to some land space-area in the world, etc. It differentiates and says: I am a people, too. Every generation runs into a new level of the problem: what IS “america.”

    For the Language authority, it went from a people, to a proposition, to a land border— to, when that broke down due to mexico, or what is really meant by the euphemism “mexico”, the napolitano voice on t.v. “rule of law.” The courts. Thought about that way, these transitions are very visible.

  4. #6 by shari on 06/05/2011 - 12:44 pm

    Then the “rule of law” becomes the rule of lawlessness and Genocide. No, it can’t hold together, but I suppose there will be one last try.

You must be logged in to post a comment.