WORDISM: ERIC HOFFER AND HERESY | nationalsalvation.net
Since I am asking you to read a huge hunk of my writing here, it is important for me to explain how my way of thinking, the thinking I am asking you to consider here, actually works.
My example and hero among writers was Eric Hoffer. Hoffer was a writer of aphorism, short thought-pieces that were supposed to touch on whatever was in his mind.
To illustrate his kind of thought, Hoffer gave an example. He said that his way of doing research for his writing was different from that of others. Instead of looking in the card catalogue to find things relating to the subject he was mentally munching on he would simply look at the first thing that hit his eye, from a magazine or a newspaper to a book being touted at the time. He would spend half an hour looking around.
If the stuff he looked at didn't give him an insight into the idea he had come into the library munching on he would forget that particular idea and go on to something else. Hoffer insisted that any concept worth thinking about related to anything worth writing about.
Hoffer, who had never entered a schoolroom in his life, was given a professorship at UCLA. He resigned before the first semester was over. He said, "These students can't THINK!" They could not deal in concepts. They were training to be good professional regurgitators like the ones I described above as cookie-cutter products of today's journalism.
I try to copy my idol's idea that one's thinking must interrelate or it is useless.
So this book was originally supposed to be two books. One would explain "Wordism."
The other was requested by publisher, a book on history specifically from an ante-bellum white point of view. It soon occurred to me that the subjects are interrelated. In fact they go better together than separated.
First of all, as stated above, today's historian does not see history as a description of earlier people's present. He sees everyone he writes as part of a parade leading to what we consider the perfection of human thought we have achieved today. We call it Political Correctness.
Political Correctness is not LIKE a religion, it IS a religion. It is the established religion of the United States and the rest of the West today.
It views history the way all religions view history, as the evolution of mankind into an acceptance of the True Faith of our day and place. To a Christian, the Old Testament is the evolution of thought to towards the New Testament. To a Moslem or a Mormon, the Old and New Testaments show the road to the Koran.
No theologian can keep his job if he looks at earlier writings in any other light. No historian can keep his job if he looks at history as anything but a progression towards the faith he is paid to teach, the established religion of Political Correctness.
No historian is going to write a history of America from a Southern ante-bellum point of view any more than a Moslem is going to write a history of religion from Saint Augustine's point of view, and for exactly the same reason. In each case, the writer has the True Faith, and he is not about to go back to heresy.
And heresy it is.
Each age and each society has its own term for "HERESY!" In Communist countries all heresy was denounced as Fascism. In Fascist Italy heresy was denounced as Communism. In Politically Correct America "HERESY!" is spelled "HATE."
And as we all know Hate=Racism and Racism = any white view of the world.
A good example of HERESY!=HATE= any white point of view is what I call Bob's Mantra:
"Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."
"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."
"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."
"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"
"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem?" I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"
"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"
"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
There is no way to deny Bob's Mantra on a factual basis. It has been placed in hundreds of places and the only reply has been to shout "HERESY!"
As a general statement, the ante-bellum Southern position saw the Federal Union as a Union of white people. This point of view was summed up as part of the Dred Scot Decision of the Supreme Court in 1857. There are many good, solid PRACTICAL objections to that decision, but it was solid constitutional thinking as the Constitution stood in 1857. I have never read single critique of that decision that challenged the fact that was an accurate, defensible interpretation of the United States Constitution and constitutional history as that history stood at that time.
The Supreme Court decided that the Union was based on race. Political Correctness says that is heresy today. Both points of view are correct.
During the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, Lincoln said that if the Supreme Court gave states the right to make black people citizens, he would not favor doing it in Illinois.
Very, very few people are aware that the Supreme Court had actually banned states from making black people citizens. At least to Lincoln's mind the Supreme Court had gone that far in the Dred Scot Decision, and he didn't even disapprove of it. That was the world of 1858.
Historians are so wrapped up in the Political Incorrectness of the Dred Scot decision in today's terms that they simply cannot put themselves in the position of the present as it existed in 1858. But if you cannot do that, you are not discussing history, you are talking about today's established religion as applied to those living back then.
All of today's paid historians, liberal or token conservative, must discuss ante-bellum history in terms of some version of the Northern point of view. Sympathetic though he may be, even the most revisionists must see the North as right and the South as wrong.
As a heretic, I am going to present a complete, thoroughly heretical dissent from this.
Which is the reason this is an e-book and not, like my first two books, the product of a mainline publishing concern.
Under the Soviet Empire, this kind of writing was called samizdat, "self-publication." It was illegal. Now that I am comfortably retired, the threat of arrest and imprisonment or a psychiatric ward would bother me. But the only punishment I face for this American samizdat is disapproval.
After many decades as a political writer in America, disapproval is something I have learned to live with.