There is the Book, Marx, Koran, Old Testament, Gospel, Wisdom of Confucius,

Then there is the Institution, Church, Party, Islam. Institutions follow evolution, survival of the fittest, regardless of what Book they claim to be following.

As a result, every Institution must explain why it looks like every other institution it is competing with for the same population. The Communist must explain why the Worker’s Liberation Country needs to be a concentration camp. There were those who noted that putting all the peasants of a country under the Interdict to collect money from the King did not violate “What you do unto the least of these…”

In short, somebody has to explain what the Book says is what the Institution does. In plain English, it wakes a lot of Doublethink to fit an institution into the Book. This explanation of Doublethink comes in massive volume.

It is called Commentary. Every religion, including the secular ones, has mountains of Commentary. Commentary is the exact opposite of Mantra Thinking. There are mountains of Socialist Commentary on why the Bolsheviks tried to abolish money in 1917-1920 and then switched to The New Economic Policy. The New economic policy consisted ENTIRELY of a partial return to capitalism.

Marxist and Mommy Professor Commentary devotes volumes to such explanations, and get paid for it. The only explanation they avoid is that communism is silly. Can you imagine the word “silly” being used by any Wordist Commentary or any respectable conservative?

“Silly” is a Mantra Thinking word. It is a term no one who fancies himself as an Intellectual would use about Other Great Philosophers.

Mantra Thinking says that if you have to write tomes about it, it probably isn’t true. A society supports a huge number of people who could not make a living outside Wordism, in our case lawyers, judges, and Mommy Professors. What gives them free access to the public trough is the term “Simplism.”

As Justice Frankfurter said, “To say that a law means what it says is case of PERNICIOUS oversimplification.” Anyone who just notices what WORKS and what doesn’t is an “anti-intellectual.”

They MEAN that. A world where people avoid motional quotations and just note what WORKS would starve the self-styled Intellectuals and Modern Thinkers to death.

There is a mindset that allows Christians to value self-torture as the ideal of the one who said that one should treat others as one would want them to treat him. It allowed some of the most idealistic and certainly most sincere people in the Church to torture people in the Inquisition. Calvinism was self-hate which ruled New England and when New England ruled US, it became an American disease.

Orwell called this disease Doublethink.

The LAST thing that Political Correctness is, is NEW. That is why they have to hide behind “This is The Year 2009.” By their very name, conservatives let them get away with that. They say they are “conserving” old concepts and outlooks. That alone would make respectable conservatives worthy of the “respectable” label which allows them to make their living: It hides the reality that every Idea of 2009 is a very old idea that didn’t work then, either.

Which brings us back to Doublethink. Political Correctness repeats the same old stuff like self-hatred being a virtue, that is thousands of years old. Conservatives hold to what they call Christianity, which has a lot of obscure Latin and no Golden Rule.

In short, both our established religion and its tame opposition are based on Doublethink.

New England’s Calvinist thought led to what all Old Testament thought leads to: their children became Unitarians and then atheists.

There is nothing in Communism that has not long since been part of a heresy. The last thing Political Correctness is, is new or original.

You well know that no one debates with ME because it is so easy for me to cut them to pieces. At the height of the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s it was routine for me to take each new grad student and cut his equality nonsense to pieces.

Even in my early twenties, no Brave Race-Mixer would take me on.

Meanwhile “our spokesmen” kept losing debates.

But while people see that what I do works, you know how difficult it is to make THEM use it. This is not just because it takes all the fun out of debating pure crap. A major reason we have such a hard time spreading Mantra Thought is that EVERYBODY else is so deeply rooted in Doublethink that they SMELL something wrong in the Mantra.

Conspiracy Theory is Doublethink. On the one hand a small group has us bound hand and foot. But at the same time those who are in absolute power find it critical for the people they rule not know they exist.

Why?

Actual power shows itself. Kings spent huge sums on palaces and baubles that could have paid for armies and spies. In the real world, power doesn’t hide. If those who have us bound hand and foot HIDE from us, the first thing you need to do is explain WHY.

But again, the Hidden Power is an old idea which every Doublethinker has always lived with.

Conservatives uphold what they call Old Christian morality, which consists of self-torture in the name of the Golden Rule. No conservative EVER asks why every Worker’s Paradise was a prison that made the Fugitive Slave Acts look benign. Fugitive slaves were not shot on sight as they were at the Berlin Wall and all the OTHER Red borders.

You will no more hear any respectable conservative bring this up than you will hear him ask the definition of “racist.” A racist is one who accepts NO form of Wordism as his primary loyalty. That is heresy to today’s left and right.

So one reason Mantra Thinking turns ideologues off is because they SMELL a trap in it FOR THEM. It offends them in a way they are not even aware of.

To put it simply, Mantra Thought is Singlethink. One cannot play the game TV debaters do of bashing away one bastion of the enemy and then allowing him to hide behind its opposite side in Doublethink. You are either pro-genocide or pro-white, you are either pro-white or anti-white today. You cannot declare a state is ideal for the people and then surround it with machine guns to keep them in.

But ALL Wordism needs Doublethink. You can’t base your whole world on a book without it. A book cannot explain everything today, much less everything even a decade letter. But this, again, is Singlethink. No human being can explain what will be a decade hence, much less the world forever.

Period.

When the Churches, Rome or Geneva, tried to cram the whole world into the Old Testament, it shot itself in the foot repeatedly. But instead of accepting that, “conservatives” KEEP trying to cam the world into some amalgam of an imaginary Constitution, an imaginary Declaration, an imaginary Christianity that they are as desperate to protect from Singlethink as any priest of Political Correctness.

Mantra Thinking is Singlethink, and damned few people who think they have the Truth, ANY Truth, can accept it.

The Wilson Quarterly had the usual article on Africa, why is it so hopeless? It was the same article I have seen all my life. It discredited all the old theories about disease and socioeconomic this that and the other, and ended with the big question mark such an article always does.

Professor Wilson, of the team of Watson and Crick who discovered DNA, was fired for stating the answer to this puzzle some time back. It would seem impossible for a tenured Nobel Prize winner to be fired at his advanced age, but it was no problem. Since Jensen and Rushton’s work and the best-selling status of The Bell Curve, the fact that blacks have a low average IQ has not been seriously questioned by anybody who can read.

Watson’s statement was not debated. It was simply stated that no one should SAY that in public. The stagnation of Africa is not as important as enforcing the rule that no one can say what everybody knows. Repeat, the POINT is not seriously debated.

When he Wilson Quarterly did an article on freedom of speech which I discussed before, “Stating that races have different IQs” was one of the things they writer was astounded by. Like everybody who has ever opposed freedom of speech, he said that this simply CANNOT be right.

If you are a respectable conservative and you want to keep being fed, this question is NOT to be brought up.

Which leaves the ball entirely in OUR court.

The Genome Project is performing the same function I became very familiar with fifty years ago. Back then, “modern anthropologists have proven that all races are equal in innate abilities” was so standard a statement that I saw it in the World Almanac and in COMIC BOOKS. One of the three founders of the Genome Project gave his money to the Black Panthers.

The other day I saw the usual documentary which said that every man on earth was more kin to every other than chimpanzees in the same family were to each other.

I like to point out, and I am the only person who WILL, that in order to be allowed to practice forensic medicine, you have to be ready and able to do two things: 1) Tell the race of a corpse from scraps of skin or pieces of bones long past their prime, and 2) Swear on the witness stand that race does not exist.

I always ask readers to think of WHY information is produced.

In the case of the Genome Project, try to imagine the possibility that they could have come to any OTHER conclusion than that all races are exactly alike. The project was held up a long time before those giving out grants were assured that the project would not bring out any Heresy. As I say, the donation of one of the proposer’s prize money to the black panthers was a public assurance of his Orthodoxy.

If a Nobel Prize Laureate gets fired for saying the wrong thing about race, what are the chances a project costing tens of millions of dollars would get funded without being vetted first?

My point here is that there is no longer any question about the facts. It is entirely a matter of what one is allowed to SAY. The suppression is no longer hiding, AT ALL.

This is a great example of how respectable conservatives serve our enemies. They can be counted never to mention this open suppression. In fact, Buckley was the only regular national columnist to ENDORSE imprisoning people for racial heresy.

Emmanuel Kant said it best. A student pointed out to him that something he said contradicted the facts. His reply was, “So much the worse for the facts.”

My Associate Director on Capitol Hill was a female Bostonian, a Harvard graduate. She had been a major appointee in the Bush Administration. In her fifties she was absolutely astonished when I told her that Jamestown was established before Plymouth Rock was reached.

Lincoln declared the New England holiday of Thanksgiving a national holiday. He was never president of the South. If you asked anyone outside the South in the last generation where English America was founded, they would say it was at Plymouth Rock.

Unless you are a Southerner or a German, you have no idea what it is like to lose a war to someone who really HATES you. At the Voice of America in the 1980s I took over a series of VOA programs on American History. It had been going on for years, and there had not been a single program on history below the Mason-Dixon Line.

An NEA-sponsored series on American history told “how this country spread from a settlement in New England across the continent.”

The House of Burgesses in Virginia was first elected in 1619, over a year before the Mayflower landed. That House of Burgesses continued in a straight line to the Virginia Legislature today. But I saw a Believe It or Not in the 1950s that said that the first person elected to office in today’s America was a New Englander in the 1640s.

Not being illiterate or Northern, I chose NOT to believe it.

Anyone who does not think that war is EVERYTHING has not LOST one.

People ask me what I think of Obama.

I reply, “He’s black.”

They then wait for more. I add nothing. You know me well enough to realize that I often consider the period the most important part of a sentence. I was asked what I think of Obama and that period indicates that the reply is complete.

The new administration began exactly the same way Clinton’s first term did. Clinton had Hillary set up a committee to reform health care. He tried to sell this reform and his popularity dropped from its honeymoon high. Obama started off the same way.

But when Clinton did things you knew it was CLINTON who did them. Clinton is a political genius. There are a thousand things you can say about Clinton, but his initiatives were HIS initiatives.

No one can point to one single thing that is Obama’s idea or Obama’s initiative. His election has put the old Ivy League liberal crowd back into control of the White House. You know, “the best and the brightest” who got us into Vietnam.

There is nothing Obama says or does that any particularly puppet-like Democratic president wouldn’t do. He says nothing that comes from HIM.

All this one can deduce from my answer.

IF you stop looking for some kind of respectable conservative respect, you see that the period is the most important part of the sentence.

Historical “fiction” is far more ACCURATE than regular history books. I have learned this through reading hundreds or thousands of both. Once again, as I keep repeating and I hope you HEAR, this goes back to the one question you must always ask yourself:

Why was this information PRODUCED?

History books are produced to satisfy academics and were trained by them. I read along and hit error after error routinely in regular history books. But I have long since stopped trying to correct them because they are not errors anyone reading these books CARES about.

For example, one book discussed Viking ships. It stated that, “surprisingly enough,” the only thing that could be “traced to the Middle East” was one type of sail used. The sail could not be “traced” at all. But the writer and his readers all took it for granted that if anything existed in the Middle East and in Northern Europe, it was invented in the Middle East.

Historical fiction writers have a hard life. Their books are not being read by those who look on the New York Times Best Seller and Sophistication List. They are being read by several hundred thousand history NUTS. If you think I’m just being funny, you miss my point, which is CRITICAL.

A writer of historical fiction who is sloppy pays for it, big time. He gets a thousand letter from PAYING CUSTOMERS a lot of other historical fiction writers would love to have asking “How do you TRACE a particular sail to the Middle East from the remains of a Viking ship?”

The very idea would fascinate his readers Can you REALLY trace a Viking ship to Middle Eastern design? HOW? And they would NOT react well to his admitting it was pure horseshit.

The question would never occur to a fashionable history reader. He assumes everything was invented in the Middle East. Mommy Professor told him so. That is why he says it is “surprising” that only this part of the ship was like Middle Eastern ones.

Hey, Bozo! Both the Viking ships and Middle Eastern ships had a BOTTOM, too! Did they built boats with no bottoms until the Christian missionaries got there?

This is part of the gigantic framework of assumptions every college graduate is trained in.

Seriously, to say that early Germanic people INVENTED things is what HITLER said. No one would put this in plain English outside this blog, but the fact is that the “sophisticated” history writer, subconsciously, sees something anti-Semitic in that assertion.

So only the writer of historical fiction will have to send out a thousand disclaimers of his Middle East nonsense no one would have questioned a Mommy Professor historian about.

Every successful historical fiction has lengthy disclaimers about what is and what isn’t true in his book. “History” books only cite the Mommy Professors they get the Truth from.

Before Vatican II many in the Catholic freely predicted that all Protestants were going to Hell. No one minded. But if they said JEWS were damned, all Hell, pardon the expression, would have busted loose. Even trying to convert Jews to Christianity is an act of PC anti-Semitism.

In William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich he declared that nothing important was invented in the Third Reich because the Jews weren’t there. It sold millions of copies and was on the bookshelf out in sight in every Mommy Professor household.

Who but a Nazi would question this statement?

My family used to talk about how Hitler seemed to be talking on the radio twenty four hours a day. His voice had none of the identifiable scratch that records and wire recorders had, so the word was that he was being kept awake twenty-four hours a day with drugs.

That was how well known the German invention of the TAPE recorder was.

Both the Autobahn and the VW, for which Hitler himself gave the original bug design, were developed in Nazi Germany. Dr. Werner von Braun probably think his team invented some stuff, and when the V-1s first hit London, I doubt the Brits said, “Oh, God, it’s the same old thing again.”

The German jets and the first version of a Stealth bomber were a bit new in 1944. In fact, it was not until the 1980 election campaign that the public learned about the “first” Stealth bomber INVENTED, presumably, by Jewish-Americans.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was required buying for any Mommy Professor product who wanted to be “with it.” Some of them probably READ a lot of it. But the line about no Nazi inventions is still there.

Who but a NAZI would correct it?

Well, as a matter of fact, if it had been historical fiction, several THOUSAND readers would have demanded to know where he GOT that crap.

By contrast you are not going to see many historical fiction books on people’s shelves that they have not READ. Only us historical fiction freaks HEAR of them, much less BUY them.

And we read each word. And we FASCINATED by history. A writer of historical fiction is performing in front of a TOUGH audience.

“Historians” write for manikins

The BNP just won a biggie in the last elections.

I would like to see bumper stickers saying, “Isn’t there room in the WHOLE WORLD for ONE British Culture?” This is the obvious answer to “multiculturalism,” at least obvious to ME.

Some 22% of Britons say they will “consider” voting BNP. When you realize that means “Nazi” in every publication they read, that is quite a large number.

Someone once asked me what I would advise some European party to do, since I am a recognized political expert. I replied, “I would advice that Party to let me live in that country for a few years.”

I haven’t been keeping up with British politics. I get a free National Review every two weeks, and they were terrified by the BNP’s breakthrough in this last election. Anything respectable conservatives hate deserves a second look. William Buckley was the only national commentator to endorse Europe’s prison-for Hate Laws.

But if I understand British politics somewhat, it is hard for an American to understand how MUCH government they have. So Griffin may talk about housing, which strikes us as a non-issue, but the British Government has responsibilities in housing which would astound an American.

I am always open to correction on this point.

Also, we underestimate the amount of control government has here because of federalism. Britain is centralized, which means that, in theory, every law is made in London. This is largely still true theoretically despite the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament. I think that has had an affect on our psychology. Our governments tell us where we can live, what the interest rates will be, where our stores will be, and all that.

But it looks different to us when the head of government directly addresses housing, for example. The British are comfortable with “the government” handling all these things whereas we fool ourselves by saying that there is no THE government, but “t he country,” “the State,” the Federal Government” each having their own regulations. If one government was directly responsible for these things, as in Britain, we would feel over governed.

Actually there is an awfully lot of local government in Britain, which we inherited, so this centralization is more theoretical than we like to admit. As I say, they are theoretically centralized and we are theoretically federalized. But we have about as little contradiction of Washington here as they do in Britain.

The last thing I would recommend to someone running for President would be to talk all that much about housing regulations. But I have lived in Britain, which is the only reason I happen to know why Griffin has to.

I am acutely aware when I am an outsider. Not least because I am enough of an insider to know what an outsider can MISS.

But I think a bumper sticker saying “Is there not enough room in the WHOLE WORLD for ONE Danish Culture” would be excellent in that country. It would not interfere with anything they are doing, and bumper stickers are an American specialty.

“Freedom is the right to say two plus two is four.” That is the famous conclusion of George Orwell in 1984. At two widely separated times, two different high Japanese leaders made the mistake of pointing gout that Mexican immigration lowered the average IQ of the United States.

You can imagine the whirlwind they reaped by that Hitlerian statement. Each on was newly astonished:

1) The Average Mexican IQ is lower than the average American IQ;

2) Therefore if you add lower IQs to higher IQs you get a lower IQ. That’s as obvious as two plus two equals four.

3) Which is the problem.

As Orwell pointed out, this is not the first time in history we’ve had this problem. And the first clear sign that you have this problem is that it cannot be discussed.

Jared Taylor was invited to Canada to debate multiculturalism. Needless to say, the invitation was withdrawn. It was finally realized t hat multiculturalism is not to be debated ANYWHERE. Every major magazine in America, especially National Review, has criticized the “absolutist approach” to the first amendment.

It is a huge weakness in their defenses that they demand an end to what Orwell would have called free speech. No one holds more tightly to this line than the respectable right. Only our Canadian friend Paul Fromm spends his days and nights fighting for Free Speech in Canada. While doing so, he makes some excellent substantive points about race.

Paul bases his success on hitting at the BASIS of the suppression of free speech. A writer for the Wilson Quarterly said that John Stuart Mill was wrong for basing the argument for free speech on utilitarian principles. The writer said that people had the right to say that innate Racial IQs were different, even though that t CANNOT be true.

Mill said that free speech was useful BECAUSE THOSE IN POWER CAN BE WRONG. The writer said one thing “we” all agree on — his “we” — was that races cannot be innately different. He said that such arguments cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds because they cannot be true.

However you may criticize it, you have to admit that Catholic Church is not the most bouncy and flexible institution on earth. In fact, that’s why I chose that church for myself some time ago. Try to find out what the Methodist position is on something.

After chairing a lot of Narcotics Anonymous meetings in Unitarian Churches, my conclusion was that Unitarianism is “The Church of Whatever’s Cool.” Or, as a friend of mine said, “The Unitarians are based on the principle that is, at most, one God.”

Even after Vatican II when you go into a Catholic Church you know you are in a church. The FEW times I go to church I want to be surrounded by believers. Yes, the priest will talk about trendy issues from time to time, but mostly each Homily is from the Bible.

My point here is that while the Catholic Church is known for being unbending, the simple fact is that almost everything adopted in Vatican II was not only a contradiction of Vatican I, the Council of Trent, but it could not have been DISCUSSED in Catholic countries after the Council of Trent. As in the case of the Declaration of Independence, no one ever mentions that the Council of Trent was adopted in WARTIME.

I have never read a single discussion of the Declaration of Independence as the basic document in American history which ever MENTIONED that it was a WAR document.

Wartime is little different. The Anti-baptist Severus was burned by Calvin, but it was one case where Calvin and the Pope were in perfect accord: “Severus was silent until the fire reached his face, when he began to scream. Twenty minutes later, he was silent.”

No, that attitude didn’t leave a lot of room for discussion.

In the 1960s, the hippies had a Free Speech Movement at Berkeley. It consisted of yelling obscene and blasphemous words at each other. TO a liberal or a respectable conservative, this is free speech. To the WQ writer t his is free speech.

Both liberals and respectable conservatives already HAVE the truth. Free speech to them is a pure indulgence, without purpose. It consists of curses of nasty phrases or of political heresy. To them these are all the same.

That is not the purpose of freedom of speech, the right to say two plus two is four. But no mainline commentator could possibly know that.

I don’t really present ARGUMENTS. I present ways of saying the truth in such a way as to leave the other side looking ridiculous. That is exactly what you cannot do and be declared respectable in the media.

They have given up trying to argue with me precisely because my method is so EFFECTIVE.

For example I was looking at an editorial which shows that the children of Mexicans who come to the US end up a lot like Mexicans who stay down there. This is avoided by libertarians because they believe in magic. They say that the border is magic, and if the population of Mexico comes over it they will magically produce a society as productive as whites.

But there is another point here. All the explanations for Mexican failure are predictable. Nothing is their doing. We all know why that is, but we don’t SAY it. The article is to be published. Regardless of the truth — WHICHEVER WAY IT GOES — every word in that article can be explained by the audience, not by the facts.

It is unlikely, to say the least, that one would say for the sake of tact happens to be also the truth.

This goes back to the Middle East history I have been talking about. There is an enormous coincidence here, too. By a miraculous coincidence, all those people who had been scouring the Holy Land for a thousand years suddenly discovered that they only had to go about a hundred miles in either direction to be historians instead of theologians.

It reminds me of the old Mutt and Jeff cartoon when Jeff found Mutt searching under a street lamp. “What are you doing?”

“I dropped my watch a hundred feet over that way.”

”The why are you searching HERE?”

“This is where the LIGHT is.”

It reminds me of the anthropologist some years back. He lived in Kenya. He “found the earliest man.” Guess where?

The first thing you do is find out WHY someone says something. If it is exactly what he would say or do for some other reason, the chances are it isn’t true.

Only a fool takes an advertisement as truth. Only a fool accepts what one would say for the sake of tact as reflecting reality.

Life After Man showed what would be left after man disappeared from the earth. What they did not go into is the real relevance of the program.

For example, the only monument left after a few thousand years would be the Stone Mountain Confederate Monument. Mount Rushmore is too open to the weather. You know how there is a standard “Future Uniform” on the old TV shows to show someone comes from the Future, the one with the pointed ridges on the shoulders?

If the only thing people or evolved monkeys of the future had was the Stone Mountain Monument, they might have a standard picture of human beings, all wearing Confederate uniforms!

Suits me.

But we have images we KNOW are just as absurd, but we keep them. The Classical Buildings like our capitols and monuments would cause anyone from ancient times to roll on the ground laughing. We poor little barbarians found gray stone statues and gray stone buildings in Greece and Rome and built MORE gray stone buildings!

We now know that NO Roman or Greek would have left a statue or building we way we left anything like THAT! Hey stupid, the PAINT wore off!

But is you look at “I, Claudius” on BBC or Educational TV, you will see that he is surrounded by those same discredited, gray statues. But it is NOT the masses who produce this crap. It is the Intellectuals. They set up the fashion, and they will not let it go.

This is what Joe Sobran, in his Foreword to my last book, called “the ignorance of the intellectuals.”

The natural follow up to Life After Man would be a series showing what historians would have concluded if historians looked at what was left after a hundred years, a thousand years, five thousand years, and what the history would look like in each case.

Our entire accepted history is based on the idea that Intellectuals are the basis of Progress. So they developed this Renaissance nonsense. Those who wrote looked back to the last time in history there was a society based on lots of writing and Intellectuals. In our case, that was the Classical Age. Then they declared that Progress only reached us because we “rediscovered” the Classical Age.

Actually, I cannot find a single idea, and there must be SOME, that we used from Classical Times. In fact, the whole history of nineteenth century medicine is our getting RID of the crap Galen and others left behind, and getting back to common sense.

The Classical Building nonsense and the picture of all of us wandering around in Confederate uniforms falls in with the article I just wrote about Cargo Cult Communism.

Those science fiction shows from the 30s and 60s showing everybody in 2009 walking around in uniforms with pointed shoulder decorations were SEEN as what they were: a cheap way to say, “This is the Future.” But if one of the writers had said “This is REALLY what the future will look like.” we would have questioned his sanity.

What if those writers insisted, one and all, that all people in the future would REALLY wear those uniforms? They would have been instantly discredited. Yet those who continue to build those ridiculous “Classical” things and put them in their “educational” shows are considered Intellectuals!

Those who try to trace all Progress back to the Middle East are our official Intellectuals. Their history is exactly like the classical statues. When they dated Stonehenge, it had always been assumed that the henges we found from that age started in the Middle East and ended up in Britain. Actual dating showed that was a HERESY: Those buildings STARTED in the North and the latest ones were in the Sacred Middle East.

Like the “classical” buildings, this was a non-problem for our Ruling Intellectuals. They are still building Classical Buildings and so forth in gray stone. No discovery has altered our Ex Oriente Lux history in the slightest.

In India there is that single piece of advanced, tempered steel sticking up. While all iron technology is dutifully traced to the Middle East, this one piece of steel is more advanced than anything produced before the twentieth century. It doesn’t fit, so it is ignored.

When those Aryan mummies ere found in China, they were ignored. They had on clothes stitched in a way that history said was invented in the Middle East a thousand years AFTER these people lived. I am willing to bet history STILL says the same thing. China had iron industry, and China had lots of Writers and Intellectual, so it must have INVENTED that technology. They didn’t even invent rice paddies!

But history says they did. It simply ignores any troublesome possibilities and goes right on implying that China is the Ancient and Original Genius. Accepted history lies less directly than by simply implications people have already absorbed. But having the Emperor Claudius wandering around between statues he would have laughed at is a lie, and a big one.

We must stop coddling the Intellectuals. We must call a Cult a Cult and an ignorant barbarian influence of our Intellectuals like the Classical crap what it is.

Respectable conservatives, as always, are worse than useless. Nobody quotes more untranslated Latin and Renaissance history nonsense than the Buckley types. They are the LAST people who might call those Intellectual ignoramuses what they are.

That is why they get the respectable label. That is why they get paid.

I have pointed out that no one EVER asks ANYBODY to define a racist when they use it as an attack. But asking for definitions is very common on the other side.

I said that I believed there is “life” on Venus. But of course that life will be, in a masterpiece of understatement, “different” from life here. The reason there is likely to be life on Venus is precisely our definition of “life” has expanded, due to the finding of extremophiles under miles of ocean in temperatures that would make boiling water, which is used for sterilization, or killing all life here, seem cool.

And THAT earthly extremophile life descended from us, or vice-versa. When I say “life” therefore, I am talking about a form that is related to us only by some common spore that was in space or which developed entirely separately. Because of this broadened definition the term “life” has a different ring today than it would have fifty years ago.

A lot of our philosophy has a similar problem with definition. Arguing over the Trinitarian Father and Son is made further complex by the fact that the very definitions which were so carefully laid out in Nicene Creed were critical to people at their time, with their definitions of things. We repeat words like “of the same substance” but we really have no idea what THEY were arguing about.

To a fourth-century Greek, “substance” was as technical a term as “quark” or “electron” is to us today. We think it sounds religious, but a Greek atheist then, and they did exist, would use the term the same way a Christian did. Scientifically, in their day, a thing was made up of form and substance, in exactly the same way that things are scientifically made up today of atoms and electrons.

A Nicene Creed composed today would be as weird to the fourth century as theirs is to ours. The difference is, they would KNOW it was odd. No one today, atheist or religious, has any idea how meaningless the creed in its old form is today. Let me hasten to add that this is the fault of theologians. We could mean the same thing without all those monomaniacal references to the same substance and so forth.

In the last fifty years we have irreversibly changed our definition of class and conflict. When I was coming up it was absolutely believed that animals held no territory, that animals were at peace with their own kind, that animals had no class system, and so forth.

So the CRITICAL basis of all our beliefs was that war, property, class and national boundaries were all purely the result of human social arrangements. However different their solutions, just about everybody agreed on that, from the eugenicists who sought to breed man into a higher form to the few socialists who were not eugenicists at the time who said that if money were abolished, all those problems would end.

Today, Marxism and PC repeat the same mantra, exactly as Christians repeat the Nicene Creed in a form that is meaningless to them. No one asks them for definitions, for a discussion of basics in the light of reality today, any more than anyone asks them the definition of racism.

We constantly hear that mankind is one. The lion shall lie down with the lamb. But what we now know about nature is that an animal will tolerate another species in its territory, but it will kill another of its own kind that trespasses.

If a liberal cites the strict gun laws in countries with low violence, no one mentions Switzerland, where they have open carry and are heavily armed, but the usual low European rate of violence. If someone talks about how peaceful the world will be when “the races,” meaning all white countries and only white countries, are mixed, peace will reign.

No conservative EVER mentions the countries where that glorious mixing HAS occurred, as in Brazil. And no one who makes his living being a conservative will ever bring any of those things up.

Why not? Because to ask liberals these things would make them look SILLY. The job of a person who wants to be in “the opposition” to what is now a set of completely laughable ideas is to avoid making them look silly.

Only amateurs can deliver the message today.

It is very important for us to search for life on other planets because we certainly won’t find it here.

I was watching a documentary which said “Nothing could live on Venus.”

Why? Because of the heat and pressure. The pressure on Venus is less than that on the vents where life abounds. The heat down there is well above that used for sterilizing water. It is cooler than Venus’ surface, but jumping from life thriving at 400 to life thriving at 900 is not is not much of a leap.

The atmosphere of Venus is very very thick Carbon Dioxide. We are a carbon-based life form. So while the hydrothermal vents have given hope of finding life on a moon of Jupiter, under the ice cover, Venus is will considered impossible.

Well, thermal vent life on earth considers it impossible to live up here, so Venusian life would have the same reaction to our cold earth with its near-vacuum atmosphere.

I think there is life on Venus.

Back when I was a boy and snakes had legs, there was a recitation of what conditions were necessary for life. Even when I first heard this recitation in sixth grade, I thought, “It means life like US.” The conditions certainly excluded life in the five-mile-deep thermal vents we didn’t know about yet.

Others besides myself noticed that the conditions for life were very narrow, but the DEFINITION of life given routinely in our classrooms described fire. This was back when every textbook and even comic books declared that “Modern anthropologists have proven that all races are equal in inherited abilities.”

Whenever the Genome Project brings up something that can be used to push the old line on race it hits the literature. Most peopled don’t even remember each line after it has been abandoned.

In a recent interview we were talking about Obama’s Nobel Prize. I pointed out that anybody who does Political Correctness a favor gets a mantel full of Prizes. Sometimes the Awards come in so quickly they are embarrassing. The black reporter for the New York Times who was exposed for making up his stories was up to his neck in Awards. A black woman who made up a huge story about a child dope addict and her interviews with him had a Pulitzer Prize they had to take back.

An Emory Professor who wrote a book about how early Americans had no guns was exposed for making up his sources. Once again, the Awards he had already gotten were legion and had to be taken away, along with his job.

For every one of these cases, there are a hundred that are not exposed. There are no scandals in the press, so the two cited here represent hundreds not exposed. In fact, the Washington Post, which demanded full accountability from every other profession, had been debating for months whether to keep the false reporter on.

A tenured professor, much les a tenured LEFTIST professor, is next to impossible to fire, so this one case at Emory gives you some idea how reliable academic stuff that backs Political Correctness is. The professor’s awards and the reporters’ awards would never have been questioned if they been just a little more careful in making up their stuff.

If you can get anything that backs the Politically Correct line it will be published. No one ever notices if it is dropped later.

It was the same with the old line “Modern anthropologists have proven that all races are equal in inherited abilities.” As a matter of fact, every professor who ended breaking up this nonsense, like Jensen, started out by believing this orthodoxy implicitly. They were each just looking for a confirmation as a side note, and couldn’t find it.

One of the brief headlines of the Genome Project was that all men were from one “African woman.” It turned out that the “woman” referred to was two million years ago. Even that was probably not true.

But who is going to look into it? It took a generation before the old “Modern anthropologists have proven all races are equal in inherited ability” crap got knocked out and the price paid by those who did it was great. It will be along cold day in Hell before THEY get any awards for it.

This is why I keep emphasizing that information is a PRODUCT. You always have to ask why is a piece of crap and/or information produced. In other words, what information WILL be produced with the incentives in place?

Instead of this very obvious and practical approach, people put together tomes on giant conspiracies. They never seem to talk about things like, “Who is going to QUESTION PC orthodoxy? What will happen to them if they do?

We all know that the one place where there is titanic power and money and NO SCANDALS is in the media. But when I mention this, people react by saying “Of course not.”

They then chuckle and go back to their Vast Conspiracy stuff. If you are dealing with someone who rejects all that conspiracy stuff, your average Joe, he laughs too. He knows very well that a reporter can get caught lying and be OK, both black reporters cited above are doing just fine, thank you, and you may be assured the Emory professor has found plenty of employment that pays better than his old job.

But from the internal memos on the subject we also know that no reporter on the New York Times DARED tell the story of his openly lying colored comrade. None of this would surprise anybody. But if there are lots of people who can be quoted as turning these obvious realities into a Giant Conspiracy, this simple truth can be covered up and ignored.

BUGS is dedicated to using common sense, what everybody knows, to explain reality.

It works. Conspiracies don’t.

BUGS and the white rabbit is a study in tactics. I cannot be identified with any Only Truth, and the White Rabbit includes a mystical movement with which I cannot identify. On the other hand, it is one of ours and he has concentrated on the Mantra.

This would normally have been a serious problem before, but I have a secret weapon called Brian. So Brian went ahead and promoted the White Rabbit here as seriously as Horus could ask.

I am sure Horus felt slighted by my not dealing directly with him, but personal feelings is not what we are about. In fact, one of the essential elements of team work is that we slight each other or give each other too much credit. My tiny Populist Forum consisted of me, my wife, and a Bob Hoy, who had been a newspaper photographer.

Bob Hoy had once made a commitment he could not fulfill. So I called the person he was in deep with and said Bob could not make that commitment because “He is just our publicity man, I’m responsible for decisions and commitments.”

I would “have to clear things with Bob” or with my wife.

Not only did this get us off a lot of hooks, but it also gave the impression of a large, rigidly organized operation with resources, of which we had none. The Communist Daily World denounced us as one of the Big Money Groups, like the Heritage Foundation, on the right.

We didn’t have a bank account. We didn’t have any written hierarchy or rules. We just did things.

I was talking to some of our folk on Skype and more than once someone said, “People ought to be told about…”

My reply was, “so TELL them!”

Someone high in the BNP told me I was “the most quoted person in the BNP.”

I said, “You mean the most quoted AMERICAN in the BNP?” He said, no, the most quoted PERSON. I am sure that is not true, but the point is that one major man in the Party thinks it is, so I must be doing something right.

Horus and Brian simply went ahead, got over any natural worries, and did the job.

Well done, Comrades.

I have pointed out that there is fundamental conflict between freedom of speech and country based on a Truth. A country based on loyalty to one’s own kind can accept any truth. But a society which is only based on some Principles, on some words, cannot allow too much contradiction of those words.

One must either enforce Truth or some particular Truth. Respectable conservatives agree with liberals that America represents a Truth, in their case Family Values or some version of Judeo-Christianity, versus the Truth of Political Correctness. They also insist that America is founded on the “self-evident” truths of the Declaration of Independence rather than on the “WE the People” of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers had watched Europe battle over the Only True Faith. They had watched the Thirty Years War, the Inquisition, the wiping out of the Palatinate by Louis XIV to make it Catholic, the whole panorama of wars for Truth.

In fact, those wars were the way a major part of our population ended up here. And they had had enough of it. So the Declaration of Independence was a propaganda document for Europeans written in wartime. It was largely an appeal to French liberals, and the all men are created equal crap was an excellent expression of what the FRENCH Revolution, and its resulting Terror and its military dictatorship, were based on.

The Constitution was for US, to be adopted by OUR states. Its only reference to the European Truth Plague was to ban the Federal imposition of ANY religion.

The Constitution assumed that the white movement to America, which was just an extension of the white waves across Europe so many times before, was the basis of America. They assumed local and racial loyalties would provide a society, and they wrote a contract which allowed for these different interests and LOYALTIES to bargain.

The Founding Fathers would have laughed out loud at Lincoln’s declaration that the Union existed before the states. Washington referred to Virginia as “my country” right up until his election as president. National Review WORSHIPS Lincoln and it has had cover articles declaring that the Declaration, not the Constitution, is the basis of America.

Until you get this perversion clearly in your mind you will have no historical context. As long as you feel you cannot have a racial loyalty unless it is based on IQ tests, you are just one more of the Political Correctness — National Review — Inquisition — Judeo-Christian mix.

Our problem is not the way the left-right argument is going,, it is the left-right argument itself.

A society which is based on a particular set of beliefs, no matter how much it cries “Freedom!” cannot in the long run be free. This is such a simple truth it is hard to state and even harder to deny.

Freedom is the right to believe what you will. A society which is based on a belief, no matter what that belief may be, cannot allow it to be doubted. Anyone who says “That is what America is a all ABOUT!” is an enemy of freedom, even if, in fact especially if, he declares America is all about Freedom.

That is why the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are such perfectly opposite documents. The Declaration was a propaganda document written in wartime. Those who confuse the two documents or find any continuity between them has no historical perspective at all.

That is why the Declaration was a unanimous declaration. The Constitution went into effect with two states still out. In the Declaration, slave states, which included most of them, cheerfully declared that all men were created equal and experts in British Law cheerfully declared that the King alone was responsible for almost everything Britain did.

No literate adult in 1776 would have believed either statement. But there was a WAR on.

There is not a single principle declared in the entire United States Constitution. “The people” were writing a CONTRACT. The President swore to uphold the Constitution. Today we are told this means Constitution “as interpreted by the Supreme Court.” That is an oath no on who wrote or adopted the Constitution would have accepted:

“I swear to uphold and defend the latest opinion of the United States Supreme Court.”

We al know that, if we give it the slightest thought.

But we do not give it the slightest thought.

We BELIEVE.

We believe in something that “America is all about,” multiracialism, multiculturalism, Religious Truth, Freedom. And on each of these subject we read tomes which explain how only the set of beliefs set forward in the tome represent goodness and truth, the ONLY goodness and truth.

Documents like the Declaration are a dime a dozen. The Declaration of Rights in France a few years later led to a terror and tyranny worst than the Bourbon one, which was really awful. The Soviet Declarations led to a uniquely awful tyranny.

In fact, the Soviets not only had their Liberation Declaration, they adopted a Constitution in 1936 which announced FAR more freedom than the American one did. It even allowed secession.

But, just as our Constitution now has that little rider, “as interpreted by the Supreme Court,” the 1936 Soviet Constitution took on a little rider which was not included in its words: “as interpreted by Comrade Stalin.”

And, of course, the Soviet was “all about” Communism.”

In fact, the National Socialists acted under the Weimar Constitution, which officially ruled Germany until May 8, 1945. It contained an Emergency Provision which gave the government the right to take ANY emergency measure, ACCORDING TO ITS OWN INTERPRETATION.

So both Hitler and Stalin demanded loyalty to the Constitution, subject to interpretation. Both Hitler and Stalin just said what Germany or the USSR was All About.

No one at the US Constitutional Convention would have allowed any one branch of level of government to say what America was all about. If you look at the Federalist Papers, the idea that any one branch, least of all the “least powerful of them,” the Judiciary, would INTERPRET it.

What America was about from the get-go is not allowing anyone to say what America is all about. They had Stalin and Hitler figured out a century before they were born.

Nowadays us old folks say “Don’t talk down to young people” a LOT less than the last generations did. The fact is that we spend a lot of our declining amount of effort trying to learn to handle the cell phones, and computers and Twitters and Googles and Blue Ray and so forth, all of which are as familiar to young people as driving a car was to us.

But there is one area where I can tell you “how easy you got it” that you an identify with.

Try to put yourself in my place back in the 50s. A converted Yankee asked me in the 80s, “Did any of you Southerners realize in the segregation days that the whole white race was threatened?” I told him we did, and he kind of sniffed.

You see, he was a Yankee, and he had been converted by realizing that the while race was threatened. Southerners, being a less sophisticated breed. I can’t complain since this conviction STILL makes a Southern accent a deadly weapon in Washington, where anybody with a Southern accent can cause himself to be underestimated.

The Mantra is not easy today, but its logic was understood by most intelligent Southerners. One Methodist bishop, as soon as the 1954 decision was made, endorsed it by saying that we must get used to the white race disappearing just as Jacob was willing to sacrifice his son Esau — I think I’ve got em right this time. He ignored the point of that tale, which was that Jehovah had banned human sacrifice.

But, being a bishop in the South, it never occurred to him to doubt what the stakes were. I also suspect he expected his people to know the Bible well enough to see he was talking in code.

The Mantra was easy, but back then it was impossible. How could two or three Negro children in a Little Rock school presage the end of a whole race?

One of the standard mantras of the “moderates,” Southern integrationists, was, “Integration has nothing to do with intermarriage.”

The Southern segregationists said, “It has to be fought here or our race will end.” My sophisticated Northern buddy thirty years later was the kind who laughed at that kind of talk.

So the integration decision led to the intermarriage decision and Immigration Reform. When Immigration Reform was being debated, Ted Kennedy said. “If it starts getting out of hand, we can change it.”

Yea, right. But people believed it then. They laughed when we said, “A little bit of integration is like a little bit of pregnancy.”

So it is true that the few decent older people like me DID have one thing harder than you. Any form of the Mantra used to be laughed at. Today it is fearfully suppressed.

Sic ‘em, brats!