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.

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 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.