Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default Wordism vs. Nationalism

Wordism vs Nationalism

Posted by Bob on September 26, 2004 at 11:09 am
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Politics | 1 Comment »

"From the May 15, 1999 WOL


Michael C. Tuggle’s Edgefield Journal article, “True Believers and the
South,” reminded me about Eric Hoffer. Hoffer was a philosopher many
of our so-called “intellectuals” are trying desperately to forget. He
had several characteristics the modern academic cannot stand.

To start with, the ideal of the modern academic is Karl Marx.

Karl Marx, the left’s Champion of the Working Class, never did a day’s
labor in his entire life. Academics all insist they are “friends of
the working class,” but they don’t want to hear from anybody who
actually does any work.

From the point of view of our so-called “intellectuals,” Hoffer’s
first crime was that he was an actual working man.

Hoffer was a longshoreman who read a lot. He never had any formal
education, but he wrote a number of brilliantly intellectual books,
starting with “The True Believer.” He repeatedly pointed out that
intellectuals who claimed to be “friends of the working class” had
nothing but contempt for real working people.

This real working man had contempt for other leftist pretensions.
President Johnson appointed him to the Civil Rights Commission, and
within a few weeks he declared the whole thing a fraud. Later he was
given a professorship at Berkeley. Within a few weeks he pointed out
that these high-powered university students were great at repeating
cliches, but “They simply cannot THINK!”

Hoffer wrote in the 1950s and 1960s, back when almost all professional
academics declared that working people needed a socialist economy.
Hoffer’s statement on how socialism treated real working people was as
blunt as the rest of his comments. “Under capitalism,” he said, “We
are expected to work for money. Under socialism, we are expected to
work for words.”

For a sane person, reading the Soviet Constitution after their so-
called “Worker’s Revolution” is hilarious. In 1917, once he became the
Soviet dictator, Lenin — who also had never done a day’s work in his
life — declared that Russia was now “a nation of workers, peasants,
soldiers, and INTELLECTUALS.”

Now let me ask you something, gang. Which one of these groups —
workers, peasants, soldiers and INTELLECTUALS, is going to sit on its
backsides and give orders to the rest?

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.

Lawyers, bureaucrats, and academics insist that the only purpose
people are united under one government is for purposes THEY lay down.

Lawyers, bureaucrats, and academics believe that a common race or a
common culture means nothing. It is DOCUMENTS that unite men. To them,
an American is neither more nor less than a person who has filled out
the proper papers. All that matters to our rulers today are the words
and documents they produce and control.

Those who want lawyers, bureaucrats and academics to rule are the
opposite of nationalists. Nationalists believe that men are united by
a common heritage and by blood ties, not by words and documents.
Lawyers, bureaucrats and academics believe that the only thing that
makes one a citizen of a country is words. 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.”

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.

Each form of socialism is a form of wordism. Each form of socialism
claims it makes all mankind one.

There are many different kinds of socialism, and each form of
socialism claims to unite all mankind. Actually, each type of
socialism unites only the people who are dedicated to the same form of
socialism. Willy Brandt, the anti-Communist mayor of West Berlin
during the 1950s, was a Democratic Socialist. He was the opponent of
his fellow socialists, those of Soviet Communist variety, in East
Berlin.

Meanwhile, the Chinese Communists, who claimed their form of socialism
united all mankind into a single loving unit, were enemies of Brandt
AND East Germany. And, as usual with loving wordists, the Chinese
Communists were busy murdering tens of millions of people in the name
of their particular form of Love and Brotherhood.

A lot of noise is made about how brutal and vicious war between
different nations or different races can be. But the worst wars in
history were wordist wars. Those who devote themselves to Catholicism
and Protestantism in the sixteenth century were wordists. Like all
wordists, they said their philosophy, their books, their doctrines
would unite all mankind. But, as usual, the only people they united
were the people who agreed with their books and their dogma. But
people who subscribed to the OTHER wordist dogma were their deadly
enemies.

When the Protestant wordists and the Catholic wordists went to war
with each other in the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, the slaughter was incredible. In our century, we talk
endlessly about Hitler’s killings, but he was an amateur compared to
Stalin. Hitler was a piker compared to the wordist Communist Mao Tse-
Tung.

Today, the media talks about the ethnic cleansing of Milosevic. But
compared to the Cambodian Communist Pol Pot, Milosevic is nothing. Pol
Pot killed a QUARTER of the entire population of his country, whose
population was about equal to that under Milosevic. By comparison,
Milosevic is small change.

But Pol Pot is excusable, because he did what he did in the name of
wordism.

Milosevic is a fanatical nationalist, so he is like HITLER. Wordism is
dear to the hearts of a society ruled by lawyers, bureaucrats, and
academics. For the wordists who rule us, it is nationalism, not
killing, that is the only crime that matters."


http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2004/09/26/wordism/
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
William on Wordism in White Nationalism Bret L Audio Opinions 0 September 7th 09 10:22 PM
Wordism Won’t Work Bret L Audio Opinions 0 July 4th 09 10:52 PM
Wordism [email protected] Audio Opinions 2 May 15th 09 06:25 AM
Wordism [email protected] Audio Opinions 0 May 15th 09 05:28 AM
The poet of the piano in the Romantic age of Nationalism BretLudwig Audio Opinions 0 May 12th 08 02:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:09 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"