Archive for October, 2018

Thoughts On Wordism

Robert Whitaker, Philosopher In their book “What Is Philosophy?”, French authors Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari state that “philosophy is the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts.” If this is so, than we can count Bob Whitaker as a philosopher, for he came up with the concept of wordism. Simply put, wordism is loyalty to a set of words. It is contrasted with nationalism, loyalty to a people.

“A person who believes that men should be united according to their nation — their common race and culture — is a nationalist. One who believes that men are only united by words should therefore be called a ‘wordist.’” ~Robert Whitaker

There are also people with no loyalty. We call them sociopaths.

Wordism is Everywhere For any moral question, any conflict, really anything going on in the world, we can understand it better by looking at it through this wordism-nationalism dichotomy. Things previously inexplicable or contradictory start to make sense.

Religious Wordism A god can be tribal or it can be universal. A religion which worships a universal God is a wordist religion. A religion which worships a tribal God is a tribal religion. Here we see the concept of Religious Wordism. In a tribal religion, our God is for us, your god is for you. It wouldn’t make any sense for you to worship our tribal god, unless you were one of the few outsiders let into our tribe. So the only people eligible for membership in this religion are members of the tribe. Most of the time we’re at peace, but from time to time we’ll go to war to see whose god is more powerful.

For a universal religion, however, every warm body on the planet is eligible to be a member. You simply have to BELIEVE (or claim you believe) the right set of words, as interpreted by the acknowledged priest class. Religious leaders of universal religions like Sun Myung Moon encouraged interracial marriage so that the only thing binding the spouses together was the religion. The official policy of the Catholic Church in South America for centuries was “Assimilation” or interbreeding. Universal religions are in constant conflict with anyone who doesn’t believe.

Political Wordism A country or political entity can be based on a a set of words, or it can be based on a people. Those are the ONLY two things a country can be based upon. Thus we have the concept of Political Wordism. In a country based on a people, only those people are eligible to be citizens. Treason is defined as disloyalty to the people. America was founded as a white homeland for “ourselves and our posterity.”

In a country based on a set of words, everyone on the planet is eligible to be a a citizen as long as they BELIEVE the right set of words. Treason is defined as disloyalty to the words. Therefore, a wordist country cannot have free speech because it cannot allow any serious questioning of the words it is based upon. Additionally, it cannot be a real democracy, because what if the people vote for something contrary to the words? We see in Europe, where all countries and the European Union are now all based on a set of Values and Principals -that is, they are based on WORDS, not the people who actually live in those countries- when the people vote in a way the elites dislike, it is characterized as “undemocratic.” Heresy is outlawed as “hate speech.” Every wordist country needs a permanent inquisition to silence any heresy to the words it is based upon.

We see political wordism and religious wordism are quite similar. Since the Religion of Political Correctness is also the de facto established religion of most white countries, that makes them theocracies or religious tyrannies. So is there any reason to make a distinction between political wordism and religious wordism? I think there is. In political wordism, the beliefs are enshrined into law and form the basis of the nation. In religious wordism, the beliefs are those of the group which adheres to the religion. Also, we can imagine a situation where the nation itself is not a wordist nation, but some, most or all of the people follow some form of religious wordism.

The Wordist Mindset The wordist mindset is the attitude that the only thing a person should be or can be loyal to is a set of words. It’s just a matter of WHICH words you are loyal to. They either aren’t even aware of the notion that you can be loyal to a people or they regard any such loyalty as illegitimate if not evil. If we look at the questions Christina Cliff asked us, they all just assumed that you could only be loyal to a set of words. She was trying to find out which words we were loyal to. She asked three times what our “ideology“ was. This is a person who can’t even conceive of being loyal to anything other than a set of words.

The real dichotomy today is not religion vs. atheism or Christianity vs. Islam or globalism vs nationalism. If you step back and look at the big picture, the most basic dichotomy is wordism vs racial nationalism. And wordism and nationalism are incompatible. If you try to combine them, you will eventually run into a contradiction. If there is a conflict between the two, one of them has to come first. You cannot serve two masters.

The Wordist Class The group that makes it’s living by producing words can be looked at as the wordist class. These are the lawyers, professors, politicians, journalists, writers, and bureaucrats that make up our current ruling class. But, just as not everyone in the military thinks they should stage a coup and take power, not everyone in the wordist class is a wordist in the sense that they are not loyal to a set of words, or they do not think the country should be based on a set of words. The members of the wordist class who do promote wordism I call the modern priest class. They are distinct from the priest class of Christianity or any official religion. Calling them a priest class highlights how they are associated with the Religion of Political Correctness and also ties them back to historical priest classes who managed to gain the top position in their civilization’s power structure. These are the people who rule us. They rule through their command of words and their ability to create and disseminate propaganda. They put their propaganda -weaponized terms, talking points and narratives- in textbooks, lectures, news broadcasts, television shows and movies. In it’s more benign form, a wordist might rule through persuasion and rhetoric. In it’s tyrannical form, it rules through moral browbeating and psychological warfare aimed at demoralizing the population. This is the situation we are in today.

“Lawyers, bureaucrats, and academics, these are the people who rule us. All of these people produce only one thing: Words. For those words they expect lots of money and ALL the power. These people constitute a vast and almost unimaginably powerful lobby dedicated to the importance of words over everything else. The only purpose of government, from their point of view, is to give them money and power.” ~Robert Whitaker

Besides white genocide, the great moral issue of our time is reining in this wordist priest class. The warrior class and productive class are reined in by the non-aggression principal which forces them to contribute to the common good. Now it’s time for something like the non-subversion principal. All of these people in the wordist class have vital functions to perform in a harmonious society. Journalists are supposed to keep an eye on politicians, judges, CEO’s, and each other and bring to light abuses of power. Priests are supposed to teach you morality. Lawyers are supposed to help administer justice. Professors are supposed to teach people and teach them how to think. But they’re not doing any of those things. Instead, they’re using their talents to give their class ever more power and money at the expense of society. They are sucking dry all of our moral and social capital.

Now let’s look at wordists themselves. I see two basic types of wordists:

  1. True believers, and
  2. Opportunists -those who support a particular wordism for various reasons but don’t really believe it, for example:
    1. Nationalists posing as wordists to further their racial interests,
    2. Mestizos or brown Muslims marching against “racism”,
    3. People who administer wordism for money or social standing, bureaucrats, imams, journalists, professors.

Not everyone who pushes wordism is a true believer.

Wordists Have to Be Intolerant A nationalist member of Tribe A does not consider a member of Tribe B to be EVIL for not being loyal to tribe A. This is expected. In fact, if a member of tribe B were to announce his first loyalty to Tribe A, that person would be viewed with suspicion. No one trusts a traitor. But a wordist thinks that when everybody on the planet with a pulse BELIEVES his favorite Universal Truth, everything will be perfect. Therefore anyone who doesn’t believe is preventing this utopia from coming about. So they tend to regard heretics as EVIL. The only people who can be tolerant of members not of their group are nationalists.

“Every wordist says that his philosophy will unite all mankind into one huge, loving community. But in the real world, different kinds of wordists are every bit as divided as nationalists are, and infinitely more vicious. Communism is a form of wordism. Communism is supposed to unite all mankind into a single, loving unit. The Communist form of wordism has killed over a hundred million people this century.

“All wordists claim they love everybody and that their words unite everybody.

“Then they proceed to kill real people by the millions, all in the name of their words.

“Every wordist claims that his particular words will unite all mankind. The religious wars that slaughtered millions of Europeans in the sixteenth century were fought between fanatics who believed the words of Protestantism united all men and the fanatics who insisted the words of Catholicism united all men.

“If you represent the Only True Faith, you cannot tolerate the very existence of other opinions.” ~Robert Whitaker

Whether to be a wordist or a nationalist is a choice. But, unlike a nationalist who is born into a tribe, a wordist must choose which wordism to believe and be loyal to. So why would you choose a particular wordism? You would choose it because you think it is better than the thousands of other Universal Truths which have been concocted. A nationalist may or may not think his tribe is better. But a wordist MUST believe his words are better, or he would choose another set of words to believe.

You could counter that people are born into a wordism which has been adopted by society as a whole, and they are inculcated into it’s values from birth and just go along with it. But adopting a particular wordism is still a choice, even if you kick that choice up to a broad societal level. The decision of whether to believe a particular wordism is still an individual choice.

When Wordists Take Over Wordists do their greatest damage when they take the top position in the social hierarchy. India began its slide when the Brahmin class took over the top position in the caste system from the warrior class. When Zoroastrianism was an Aryans only faith, Persia was able to hold its own over the greatest military machine of the time, the Roman Legion. After the priests took over, they were overrun by bands of desert Arab bandits. The last head priest of Zoroastrianism was a mulatto.

This may explain why Christian wordism never caused Europe to brown out. The Christian priest class never took the top position in the social hierarchy in Europe from the aristocracy. However, Christianity did inculcate slave morality in the masses. This set the stage for the modern priest class, the wordist class, to take power first in Russia in 1917 then in America about 1930. The wordists now occupy the top position in the social hierarchy in all of Anglosphere and Western Europe and they are doing their best to brown out all the lands they control while waging a cold war against all the white lands they are not fully in control of yet. There’s a laughable notion that corporations are in power and white genocide is all about profit. Corporations and politicians have to bow down to their leftist masters. Corporations do what’s bad for white people whether it makes them money or not.

Why Talk About Wordism? Basic research is always good. But we see many pro-whites who spend all their time engaging in activities which have no chance of helping to get pro-whites in power. With them, it’s one Outrage of the Day after another which they impotently whine about, one after the other. They never engage in the propaganda war. Just giving a name to a phenomenon begins to give you power over it. We can use wordism in a number of ways to discredit anti-whitism and demolish their belief in their moral superiority:

  1. Wordists claim to be above provincialism, You can point out that, since there are thousands of Universal Truths, they are at least as provincial as nationalists.
  2. Wordists claim to be for peace. You can point out that they have far more blood on their hands than nationalists.
  3. You worry about what we might do to maintain an ethnostate. What about what you do to maintain your wordist state?
  4. We’re obsessed with purity of blood? You’re obsessed with purity of thought.

How can you be loyal to words? Good question! Words can’t be loyal to you. This highlights a basic absurdity of wordism. Loyalty is a moral choice. Maybe believe is a better term. But wordists treat words exactly like nationalists treat their own kind. Maybe they’re just irrational. You could say they’re loyal to their fellow wordists.

Don’t nationalists use words? What about the Constitution? Isn’t that a bunch of words? And all the laws are words. Nationalists use laws. Aren’t you wordists, too? No, because we are not LOYAL to the words. Words are tools. I use a hammer, but I’m not LOYAL to it.

The implications of Bob’s concept of wordism are enormous and many are yet to be worked out. Wordism is one of the tools we can use to crush anti-whitism.



Free Speech Versus Violence

Someone said in a forum that the one argument anti-whites had that he might consider is that pro-white statements might cause violence. Meanwhile, the same anti-whites insist that the only way we can have peace is for the history of white oppression to be a major topic in our schools.

When Kelso and I and others were visiting New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, the police were in force. When we spoke in an old church where an ex-cop on our side had raised the money for pro-white meetings, there were hundreds of threateners across the street.

I’m used to that.

When we speak on a campus, we are often blocked by ”a threat of violence.”

But the whole situation was summed up by one of the cops who showed up: “We aren’t worried about YOU.”

The “threat of violence” ALWAYS comes from the anti-whites. The question is not whether they will act like the thugs they are, but whether public officials should allow any point of view to be shouted down.

During the Cold War, liberals always insisted that “We should settle differences by discussions, not by violence.” But every university prevents any discussion of white genocide by talking about “a threat of violence.”

What do you do when one side wants to speak out and the threat of violence comes entirely from the other side? Is this a key to a peaceful society? Is this a free society?

As usual, I am stating what everybody knows but nobody, including our side, ever SAYS. Why do our people dummy up all the time?

Speech is the human ALTERNATIVE to violence.

This is another reason the Mantra is so critical. The one barrier we have is that respectable conservatives have joined with liberals in saying that any questioning of anti-white views is to be met with violence.

Outside the United States, in fact, the government provides the violence. William Buckley endorsed Europe’s sending people to prison for denying the six million figure for the Holocaust. This is not even Holocaust denial, it is arguing the NUMBERS.

The Soviet Union sent people to the Gulag for any criticism of Jews. In Battleship Potemkin, a Soviet propaganda film, you will see a heroic mob beating a man to death for an anti-Semitic remark.

John Adams risked lynching by successfully defending the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre in court. He is considered a hero for that.

In fact, in every single case in history those who defended the right of speech against violence, especially the Communists, are declared heroes.

Except us.

But, just as in the case of all immigration and assimilation policy applying only to white countries, we dummy up about it.

By now, the anti-whites are terrified that something like the Mantra will be recognized as a legitimate point of view.

That is our job, and that is why it is so HARD.

And that is why all the time we waste on crime rates and US immigration policy and criticizing affirmative action is a boon to the anti-whites. If they can keep all discussion of white survival off the table, and in the Forbidden Zone, they will own the debate.

Another fact we never mention is that Hate Speech Laws didn’t stop Hitler.

The American position has always been that free speech is the only human alternative to violence.

Our side seems to have forgotten that completely.