Job Discussion Forums

[jeddahteacher]

A long but fruitful article by Robert Whitaker. If it offends you, stop reading it. If it provokes thought, make a comment.
JT
http://www.whyjohnny.com/blog/
Wordism
by Robert Whitaker
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.[Written,1997]

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.

[Roger]

...and some of us see their role as prodding our learners into producing as many words as possible. Chitchat, low-forms of discussions, talkatholons - that's what they feel they are being paid for. Or for organising them.

[jeddahteacher]

Wordists in Michigan, USA.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20040922.shtml

Anti-homeschooling bigots strike again
Michelle Malkin (back to web version) | Send


September 22, 2004


The public school establishment hates homeschoolers. They've smeared the movement as a conspiracy of conservative Christian zealots. They've scoffed at homeschooled kids as social pariahs. They've painted homeschooling parents as uneducated and negligent.

And now, under the guise of preparing students for a violent terrorist attack, educators in one public school district are casting homeschoolers in the role of bomb-detonating militants.

The story about a mock terrorism drill involving a local school district in the Muskegon Chronicle starts out innocently enough:

"Local school district transportation directors instigated the exercise because they wanted to test their abilities to respond to emergencies, said Tom Spoelman, transportation consultant for the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District. They eventually hooked up with Muskegon County Emergency Services, and planning for the event has been under way for about a year, Spoelman said.


....
What's jaw-droppingly unbelievable is the next paragraph describing the attackers in the simulation:

"The exercise will simulate an attack by a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools and Education who believe everyone should be homeschooled. Under the scenario, a bomb is placed on the bus and is detonated while the bus is traveling on Durham, causing the bus to land on its side and fill with smoke."

This is not a joke. A taxpayer-funded drill is using public school students to enforce anti-homeschooling bigotry under the guise of preparing for terrorism.

[GambateBingBangBOOM]

[jeddahteacher]

GambateBingBangBOOM wrote:
"And therefore anyone who immigrates to another country cannot be part of that culture. Where does that leave entire nations made up of immigrants, like Canada and the US?"

Gambate has made an intelligent effort to deal with the article I submitted and deserves a reasoned response.

One can immigrate to another country and make an effort to become part of the host culture as long as one is capable of assimilating to the language and religion and the mores - the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group - of the host culture.This is not automatic.

France has allowed itself to be held hostage by an immigrant population with extremely different mores. French schools (in large numbers) do not serve pork because it offends the immigrants. French girls cover themselves like the women in my host country in many French neighborhoods for fear of being attacked by immigrants for wearing immoral clothing. Many French towns are areas in which the French police no long enter. Diversity, as any honest historian could tell you, create stress not strength and often ends in rivers of blood.

Until 1965 the United States was an overwhealmingly White, Christian country with shared mores in which all were expected to communicate in English. Immigrants,imported slaves, and the conquered Indian populations had alway been expected to adapt themselves to this situation. Prior to 1965 only a small proprtion of immigrants who were accepted had non-European backgrounds. America was a country of immigrants who were capable of and expected to assimilate not a country that welcomed the random refuse of the Emma Lazarus propaganda. Healthy societies have standards.

That country no longer exists. Recent immigrants in enormous numbers are rejecting English and instead forming enormous non-English speaking communities. The host culture in the United States has lost the will to impose its mores on the recent immigrans and is intead tolerating the creation of ever growing networks of television, radio, and newspaper outlets in Spanish. The host culture has allowed its governmnet to abandon its duty to defend the frontiers from illegal immigrants.

A similar loss of will is apparent in Canada where Chinese has replaced French as the second language.

My host country does not permit immigration except with extremly stringent restrictions. All foreign workers can be and are deported for openly violated the mores of the kingdom. Illegal immigrants are sought out and deported. Newspapers do not censor the photos and nationalities of murderers and rapists .

If you want to learn what is happening in the United States it is necessary to read the NewNationNews regularly since the crimes reported their have Whites as their victims and will not be seen on FOX or CNN. http://www.newnation.org/

[dmb]

Just out of interest JT why do you use 1965 as a significant date?

[jeddahteacher]

In 1965 the immigration laws of the USA to disfavor white Europeans and incourage every color under the sun.

Long article below explains what interet group wanted the changes and why that interest group is having second thoughts. Author's credentials at the bottom,
JT







The Jewish Stake in America's
Changing Demography
Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy

October 2001

By Stephen Steinlight

Download the .pdf version


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gist provided below since original post was -sorry, sorry, sorry - too long.
JT

[bigbadsuzie]

Very nice JT, but in the interests of speeding up my education on this ıssue,do you think you could summarise this little lot into say something less than a 150 words ,thanks for the effort .

[gugelhupf]

Yes, call me a wordist (as opposed to a sexist etc) but when I see so many thousands of the things in one post my eyes glaze over and I fast-forward to the bottom of the page. Something about jews in the US was it?

[jeddahteacher]

Sorry.
JT
The gist:
..

For the most part we continue to mouth the traditional policy line affirming generous — really, unlimited — immigration and open borders,..

Yet, for the time being, as if on automatic pilot, Jewish organizations repeat the familiar mantras and continue with their uncritical "celebration" of diversity. (Diversity meaning, of course, diversity of race and ethnicity but not opinion.) ...

The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration (Europeans being defined as Nordic or Anglo-Saxon), a position re-asserted by Peter Brimelow, must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged...

With over 8 percent of Mexico's population already here, and who knows what additional percentage on the way, the notion of a de facto Reconquista, especially in the Southwest where the Mexican share of immigration is astronomical, sounds less and less like nativist hyperbole....

The big one for starters: is the emerging new multicultural American nation good for the Jews? Will a country in which enormous demographic and cultural change, fueled by unceasing large-scale non-European immigration, remain one in which Jewish life will continue to flourish as nowhere else in the history of the Diaspora? In an America in which people of color form the plurality, as has already happened in California, most with little or no historical experience with or knowledge of Jews, will Jewish sensitivities continue to enjoy extraordinarily high levels of deference and will Jewish interests continue to receive special protection? ...

Far more potentially perilous, does it matter to Jews — and for American support for Israel when the Jewish State arguably faces existential peril — that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States? That undoubtedly at some point in the next 20 years Muslims will outnumber Jews,...


In 1970, there were fewer than 800,000 Mexican immigrants; 30 years later the number is approaching 9 million, a 10-fold increase in one generation.
.....

With the changes in view, how long do we actually believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will go to Israel?....


Now, none of this would be a problem if we were willing to adopt the Chamber of Commerce/Wall Street Journal mentality. That worldview applauds an endless supply of immigrants as desirable in order to fill the bottomless demand for the wretched of the earth to occupy the bowels of the service sector, to suppress U.S. wages overall, and to further weaken the already marginalized American labor movement...

Dr. Stephen Steinlight was for more than five years Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. For the past two and a half years he has been a Senior Fellow at AJC.

[stillnosheep]

[AsiaTraveller]

Jeddah Racist,

No, that is not the 'gist'. Maybe the latter term wasn�t covered in your recent �online Tesol course�?

You haven't summarized anything, JR. You've merely condensed the original using its own words. How about something like the following, in about five sentences: "The author believes that ..."

Better yet, instead of flooding the eslcafe with pastings from the Internet, why don't you for once post something that starts with the following phrase?

"I believe that ..."

Are you so afraid to share your own opinions and thoughts? If not, why do you let others do your 'talking' for you?

[AsiaTraveller]

[leeroy]

I don't get it jt - are you Jewish?

[AsiaTraveller]

leeroy,

The Jeddah Racist posted a lengthy article written by a Jewish person, without supplementing it with his own comments or annotations or any other background material whatsoever. Why did he post it?

So your question should probably be the following:

'Why does the JR post so much provocative material about Jews and African Americans on the eslcafe?'

Do you think he'll give an honest answer in his own words?