This is a point I made here years ago:
Wordism says that a society is united by a set of words, a doctrine. The doctrine can be libertarianism or religion or socialism or Fascism.
No union based on any form of Wordism can maintain freedom of speech. Very soon someone using words will be attacking, or accused of attacking, the words on which the whole system is based.
This is what is meant when someone asks, “Is this freedom of speech or is this heresy?” “Is this freedom of speech or is this Hate?”
Any society based on a set of words rather than a common identity must eventually defend those words from heretics by force.
#1 by shari on 11/13/2013 - 9:17 am
Or to paraphrase, you cannot serve two masters. You will love one and hate the other. Why would you love slavery?
#2 by -Gar5- on 11/13/2013 - 10:59 am
Why is wordism more popular?
Because anyone can change the words – when you try to change the people it’s genocide.
When does wordism end? When the public get bored of it, and find the next one.
I see people bouncing around from one set of words to the next . . . and anti-Whites say I’m being silly, by being “tribal”?
#3 by Simmons on 11/13/2013 - 11:02 am
I think this is related, the stunt Craig Cobb got involved with is bringing the game into our court. Our academics are out chasing the squirrels per usual, and the non-Bugsters are depressed but I look at this as a potentially huge break thru.
#4 by Hexadecimator777 on 11/13/2013 - 11:20 am
A short, but very meaningful entry.
#5 by -cecilhenry- on 11/13/2013 - 1:06 pm
To play ‘devil’s advocate’, isn’t the declaration of independence just a set of words to hold a society together??
That is what your opponents might say.
I would say it is a set of words (ideas) that are meant to hold together a people with a common racial and cultural identity.
But what say you…..?
#6 by Wm White on 11/13/2013 - 6:31 pm
Jefferson argued that governments derived their power from the people—a line of reasoning that sprang from the writings of patriots like Thomas Paine. Jefferson (or Paine ???) said the PEOPLE enter into a “social” contract with the body (that governs them) and that when the government “violates” that contract, the PEOPLE have the right to establish a new government. (paraphrased from a quote)
===
This was a radical concept at a time when monarchs ruled and could only have been conceptualized and brought to fruition by a group of independent thinking –White Anglo-Saxon men (backed by strong, alike thinking, White woman).
===
Mantra thinking is much more basic and brings action and thought back to the gut-level realization that the White race (can have different governments and rulers), but all are tertiary to the survival of our people –white people.
#7 by SwampRabbit on 11/13/2013 - 6:39 pm
Nope.
The Declaration of Independence was written to declare independence from England and framed in socialist intellectual ideology in an attempt to attract European intellectuals to the colonists cause. In other words, it dissolved the existing paradigm and social hierarchy.
The Constitution, on the other hand is a set of words, laws, which were assembled “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” <-That is the only philosophy upon which The United States rests.
#8 by SwampRabbit on 11/13/2013 - 6:45 pm
Porchtalk, July 23, 2005 – Annotated Constitution – Preamble
#9 by -Gar5- on 11/13/2013 - 7:23 pm
The words weren’t the country, the people were – the words were to give people a nice life.
#10 by Jason on 11/13/2013 - 11:45 pm
Nice summary.
#11 by -Gavin- on 11/16/2013 - 1:15 am
The declaration of independence was never meant to be some sort of holy document with a set of words that must be obeyed now and forevermore. It is simply a declaration of independence and (as Bob has stated before a propaganda document designed specifically to get foreign support.) If anything come close to being a wordist document for the USA it would be the constitution and even that has an amendment process. The people who set up the USA designed it so that we would not now and forevermore be bound to a certain set of words.
#12 by -scythian- on 11/13/2013 - 6:15 pm
Who is going to defend the program of White GENOCIDE by force? Whites? I believe it is not inaccurate to confidently say we are the ONES crushing that notion.
Dave said something to the affect of ‘non-whites depend on Whites for their security and Whites depend on the Constitution for their security.’
My own summation is that non-white anti-whites (such as but not limited to those that immigrate to a majority White country and then have the unmitigated gall to claim “it’s not a White country”, “it is a land of immigrants”, “it belongs to EVERYBODY”) are banking on White Traitors for their security and White Traitors are banking on THEIR anti-white polices and laws for their security, a losing proposition if ever there was one. But this is mommy professor’s history lesson that they latch onto against all reason. LOL.
#13 by BGLass on 11/13/2013 - 8:55 pm
cecil,
I thought Mr. Whitaker pointed out that the constitution preamble says the country was created, “for us and our posterity.” Actually— …”and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” do establish the constitution….
In other words, the constitution, itself, says it was creating an ethnostate, very clearly.
The declaration was a propaganda piece to get money during the war, not a legal document, establishing the country. Since it says more about “equality” etc (trying to get money from the french) some try now to shift to it, like in the presidential debates, as if it meant anything, other than a t.v. ad, (but written by better people, again, to just get money and pander).
#14 by -Dave- on 11/13/2013 - 9:13 pm
The Constitution was a ruse, reversing the gains of years of murderous conflict and countless atrocities.
But there was plenty of justice too in those years of murderous conflict, except the Constitution’s “Supreme Court ” has never had the slightest clue of what that justice was.
#15 by Simmons on 11/14/2013 - 5:21 pm
This has nothing to do with our debates on punctuation but this is for Bob and his predicate that our race did not depend to that damned graveyard in the middle east.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=11630
#16 by Jason on 11/17/2013 - 8:22 am
Thanks for that post. I am also interested in the idea that the Vikings and “Barbarians” were not the violent hicks the intellectuals present to us. Funny how they kicked everyone’s ass if they were so backward.
#17 by Daniel Genseric on 11/14/2013 - 7:27 pm
Who understands this better than Johnny Mantra right now?
Scary timing.
#18 by Sentinel on 11/15/2013 - 3:03 am
And behind any society based on a set of words are individuals whose power grew from and relies upon that same set of words. The right message can crush those silly words, and we all know what that message is.
Anti-Whites can TTGH: Take their Toys and Go to Hell.
#19 by Bob on 11/15/2013 - 8:31 am
Gar5, there are more Universal Truth Faiths than there are tribes, hell, there armore Universal True Faiths than there are PEOPLE, and another thousand Only True Faiths will be formulated in the next hour.
#20 by The Asgardian known as Michael on 11/15/2013 - 9:02 am
Excuse my absence as I am fighting for the life of my town right now….pointing out the contradictions.
I’ll be back soon,