The scandal over scientists falsifying data to push the Green agenda made 2009 worth while. Some years back an Emory professors lost his tenured job for simply making up a book’s “facts” to show early Americans didn’t have guns.

It is now established that Franz Boas, now a hero to National Review, made up his information about immigrant traits in the US.

It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get caught doing this! Who in academia would have the slightest incentive to look into any study which backs a conclusion that people giving out grants and promotions want to be true?

It’s like the idea of a scandal in the press. “What did they know and when did they know it? is strictly for those outside the press. When that black reporter was rising like a rocket at the New York Times while making up his stories out of whole cloth, there was a long series of memos inside the Times debating what to do about it as he continued to manufacture his stuff.

No one expected anything else. Those were the kind of notes that would get a president impeached.

Obviously this sort of thing is not unusual, but anyone who said it happens a lot would be lynched by respectable conservatives.

Every day anybody who wants it on Capitol Hill gets a list of NSF grants. Senator Proxmire used that easy information to denounce grants for projects which sounded extreme. Naturally many he randomly denounced were enormously important to achievements of benefit worth a thousand times their cost.

Grants for research are hard to get. Those who give out the money watch them a LOT closer than Proxmire did. If you come to a conclusion those giving the grants like and it shows up in a documentary or in the press, you will get more of them. If you don’t toe the line, you’ve had it.

In Climategate those pushing the Green agenda said that all their information came from journals which have Holy Peer Review. But they also revised the definition of journals that have peer review. The respectable journals happened to be the ones not questioning the Greens.

The journals that lost respectability should have hired a respectable conservative to show them how to stay inside the line.

I was VERY happy to hear that from Horus. You don’t necessarily have to say WHITE genocide if you get where you ought to.

If you are easily offended I am NOT the advisor you need. I was the 180 opposite of professors. I got paid for advice that WORKED, not advice that FITTED. If you had said Whitaker and yes man in the same breath, a large part of Capitol Hill would have laughed themselves breathless.

I didn’t spare the egos of those who paid me money so I won’t spare yours. If my implied criticism isn’t really relevant to you, ignore it in those cases the way my bosses did. What I am leading up to here is my repeated suspicion that however rationally it STARTS; making things easier on you is always something to be LOOKED at.

Let me hasten to repeat what one German philosopher said truly: “If we talked to others the way we talk to ourselves, we would be sadists.” He was talking about an instrument of torture called the Aryan conscience.

If what I say is not relevant, pretend you have more to do than worry about it. As I said, I tortured myself far too much. So BALANCE. If you are human, you will go after yourself too much sometimes and let yourself slip into bad habits by going too easy. And, as commenters point, there is that element of bullying.

You go after yourself when you are at your weakest, just like everybody else does. When you are depressed or tired and defensive, you go on the self-torture bit. When you are on a roll you let yourself go.

We are sadists and bullies to OURSELVES and THAT we could use a look at.

You can’t do much about other bullies, but you CAN stop yourself from being one, attacking you when you’re down. Like the Trappists, it is such a total violation of the Golden Rule that we don’t SEE it. We feel a little like we are making up for all that imagined guilt and failure that crowds in on us when we are DOWN.

And above all, that is when it is EASIEST to kick ourselves.

Being an Aryan is good for the world, but no way is it necessarily fun.

It is probably because the Mantra is so personal to me. IT is HARD WORK to find a way to get that simple message across. I can imagine those who tried to get supply and demand across, and Newton with his gravity, faced the same problem. It is easier to hit and run.

I apply Occam’s Law to people; the simplest explanation you can find is the right one. Occam had a hard time, too. So after many many years of observation and experience with them and getting PAID for it in a very unforgiving environment, I always react the Occam way first. So when you began to talk about hitting and running, my reaction was, “What is wrong with this picture?”

In other words, I am worried about this hitting and running going so far you don’t TRY to get across the Mantra, which is easier. God, is it EVER easier not to try!

But if you do hit on the Mantra, you will often get a reaction you can USE. Off their home turf in Stormfront, anti-whites, and that’s anti-WHITES not “antis” — another piece of costly and convenient laziness– stay off the anti-white rhetoric. They need to get off the deadly point, so they talk about themselves, and how THEY are not anti-white.

But Brian will tell you that on their home turf, the professors, being cowards, will say out loud they are FOR genocide. That is worth the effort.

Way to go, Brian!

But usually they won’t go that far since in most cases you are not in the class subject to open bullying which those cowards go far. As a former professor I can tell you nothing is easier than bullying a class or anybody in it.

PC’s are bullies and cowards. But outside of class, be SURE to call them on it. As soon as they start criticizing whites as an answer to my genocide argument, I say, IMMEDIATELY, “so you are for this genocide and you are justifying it.”

DON’T LET THEM OFF THAT HOOK. “Well why would you justify genocide by saying whites are bad? YOU CAN’T DENY IT AND JUSTIFY IT AT THE SAME TIME. “

The fact is there is genocide going on, a policy aimed, quite openly, at the end of one race. The standard argument about the Evil White Man has no relevance at all. Denying genocide and justifying it are 180 degree opposites. All than rhetoric justifies the concentrate on our race. But it shows you are used to justifying it rather than denying it.

Stay on message.

It is pathetic.

It is pathetic when a grown man stays a child. He is raised at home and then goes to college and Mommy Professor turns him into a standard and packaged PC at age eighteen.

And he stays that way the rest of his LIFE.

And no one is dumber than a dumb man who is convinced that he’s SMART. I think that is why Mommy Professor encompassed what I was saying with it. These people go straight from Mommy to Mommy Professor and they are stuck there for life.

The big difference is that their real Mommy told them what she said was RIGHT, not that it was SMART.

Back when not everybody went to college, we had a saying, “All freshmen are socialists and atheist.” It was as routine our lives that each year a new group of freshmen would be overwhelmed by their professors and begin to parrot them. But upper classmen were SUPPOSED to outgrow that.

Today, they don’t even realize it is a STAGE. You can’t be a baby bear all your life.

But you also aren’t supposed to be a cub all your life, either.

Sure a first year kid is impressed by a professor’s claims to fame, but most people back then knew that professors had ZERO life experience. So you got over Mommy Professor. It was part of the trip to adulthood.

But for most people now, that step, the bear cub, is the end. They end up like hippies and environmentalists, forever adolescent.

A commenter had my problem with Mommy Professor, referring to him as “she.” But a documentary solved that for me. It was about people harassing “meter maids” in Britain. Every single meter maid was a man. A Mommy Professor can certainly be male.

Like Edison’s utter crap about genius=perspiration, another piece of Common Wisdom needs to be despised: “The Sixties generation was just spoiled. They hadn’t been through the War and the DEPRESSION like we were.”

Bullshit. When you wonder about what the new generation is coming to, you look first to where it is coming FROM. But the WWII Generation, which talked about how one has to take responsibility for his own actions like they did in WORLD WAR II and the Depression, completely disowned any responsibility for their own children.

The Sixties Generation was the last to live on a higher level than its predecessors. So you could say that EVERY generation of Americans was “spoiled.” While the Greatest Generation says the Depression, “taught them something,” then, at the height of the Depression they were spoiled rotten compared to EVERY generation of Asians. Asians would have given anything back then if there were a soup kitchen or if they could ask, “Brother can you spare a dime.” That was a 1932 dime, a dollar or two now, and just for asking!

In Asia you were lucky if anybody dragged your starved corpse away because the ravenous dogs or pigs got it.

The people responsible for the next generation is the last generation. But the Greatest Generation disowned the least responsibility for the children who despised them by the old standby that got them coddled for decades: “We SUFFERED!”

The people who know you best in terms of what they can do are your own children. Children and prisoners have nothing to do except observe their keepers. A guard will spend his time worrying about his family or his politics, but prisoners do nothing all day but try to beat the system. They know all about every guard.

Respectable conservatives absolutely worship the Greatest Generation and absolutely despise its children. And nobody talks more endlessly about how you are RESPONSIBLE for your actions than Respectable conservatives. No one will ever ask them why their Heroes were not responsible for their own children.

In fact, you can only understand why America’s population bust and runaway drug use began in the sixties by looking at the generation that caused. No, the Sixties Generation was no more “spoiled” than any other generation. You have to look at the group that produced them.

No one dares do that.

The Sixties Generation, which I knew well, knew, first of all, that their parents were WIMPS. For the first time in American history, children knew their parents would not defend them. On the Bell Curve, when people will not stand for things, there will be some lynching. The WWII Generation never had one lynching, they also did not have a lot of other things that are a lot farther in on the American Bell Curve.

In any generation before the Greatest, a drug dealer in a high school would have been shot by a parent, and the prosecutor who brought a case against that parent would never be elected to public office again. Until the Obedience Trained Puppies of WWII no jury would even have considered a case against a parent who shot somebody who was trying to push drugs on his children.

No previous generation of Americans would have allowed their children to be used in sociological experiments like integration, much less busing his kids into a ghetto. Not the Greatest. I remember my nausea in the 1960s as the parents of one murdered child after another got on TV to proclaim how they
Did not blame the murderer and would appeal for mercy for them.

That happened all the time, gang.

Earlier Americans always said, “If he breaks into my house, he’s PAID for.” It never occurred to them to argue about the right of a man to protect his family. But the revolutionary change was when the WWII Generation actually sat on juries that send people to prison for life when the prosecutor appealed to their Obedience.

The Sixties Generation was rotten because, quite rightly, it despised the Obedient Generation. As children will, they allowed their dedication to Rebellion to be harnessed and used by the real establishment. The last people who would oppose this would be Obedient Generation.

When I got into international aviation negotiations I wrote Carleton Putnam about it. We had corresponded ten years earlier and he knew who I was. Putnam was founder of Delta Airlines. He never once mentioned that he could help me in the industry.

This is what one expects of our side. They won’t even force their HEIRS to take out side. I have talked about the fact that Communist Party members would routinely rob banks and marry heiresses to get the Party money.

If whites do it it’s called discrimination. When Politically Correct people do it it’s called networking. We used to say that the fashion industry was “run by queers.” Mommy Professor denied this vehemently and it was denounced as Hitlerism.

Until AIDS hit. Then the media mourned the death of practically the entire personnel of the fashion industry.

Then Barbara Walters had a gushy piece wondering why gay men were such great designers. Try to imagine if she had has a program about why white male were naturally such great executives. After all, it hasn’t been long since almost all big executives were white males.

Mommy Professor would immediately point out that whites only got big jobs because they were white and male. But gays have some preternatural genetic gift for designing clothes. Well, maybe it is true that a few more gays are hired because gays are hiring them, but that’s just networking.

The one vocation that depends most on the luck of the draw is acting. Every successful actor is the result of a series of lucky breaks. Even DeNiro, who seems to appear in every movie, will not claim uniqueness in his talent.

And actors just happen to have the political diversity of the Harvard faculty.

So far, I have sounded a lot like a respectable conservative, and my stomach is getting queasy. So let me quote a guy on Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” when Ventura asked, how we let then get away with all this. The man replied:

“They’re smarter than we are.”

Jesse did NOT pursue that naked truth.

No one would expect Putnam to help me by networking. He would do it for his son’s Jewish buddy, I’m sure, but not for politics. It is critical to Political Correctness to keep this mentality, actually this lack of mentality, among respectable conservatives. It is a critical weapon in keeping celebrities far left.

Since it works and is smart, it is principle among the kept opposition to declare NOT doing it for their side a matter of Freedom, personal independence, objectivity, and, of course, Christianity.

Jesse Ventura is from Minnesota, and I’d never heard him praise anyone but liberal Republicans like Lowell Weicker and Democrats. He won as an Independent, but the congressman from Vermont is listed as an Independent though he makes it very clear he is a Socialist, big and little s.

So I expected his Conspiracy series to be a short-term deal that “exposed” all the racist and right-wing plots we have seen “exposed” nightly for decades. Even I, a documental, turn off those shows that repeat what the hippies have been saying over and over for forty years. So when I started watching Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” I kept my hand on the remote.

I have seen two of them. I was surprised by the first and stunned by the second. The last one was an attack on what, next to getting rid of the white race, is Holy Grail No. 2 for Old Hippiedom.

Ventura QUESTIONED environmentalism. What is critical here is that he said something I said a third of a century ago: Money and power drives the left as well as it does rightism. Prior to my “A Plague on Both Your Houses,” 1976, no liberal and therefore no respectable conservative ever even imagined that the hundreds of billions spent on the War on Poverty or public education could cause LIBERALS to get greedy or power hungry. No one MENTIONED money on the left.

Our societal assumption is that Jews cannot hate. Anti-Semites’ only motivation is Hate, but Jews can only have Righteous Indignation. Likewise, rightists are driven by Greed and a Hunger for Power while leftists are sometimes misguided or overenthusiastic Idealists. If the Nazis had had a Berlin Wall at their borders to keep people in, there would be an illustration of it in every history book from the fourth grade on.

But one of the many requirements for being a respectable type conservative is that one share this assumption with liberals to the point where it is never even mentioned. This is a Law of Survival for professional conservatives.

Until you REALIZE this, really REALIZE it, Ventura’s second program will not jump out at you. It was the first time I have EVER seen a program on national television say that a popular LEFTIST cause could be used for evil purposes.

Think about it, have you EVER HEARD of such a thing?

When one walks on forbidden ground, one makes good points. I can’t HELP but make good points here, because I am treading ground absolutely forbidden to all professional commentators. Conspiracy shows don’t sell because we all know what they will say, and they will say it for the hundredth time. They have to use public funds or leftist money to produce yet another exposition of the fact that a Communist whom Kennedy had let back into the United States from the USSR shot Kennedy.

Ventura’s program on 9/11 pointed out that NEVER BEFORE had the black box from a land crash been lost. FOUR of them, ALL of them were “lost” on 9/11. Ventura not only pointed this out, he HAMMERED on it.

Once again, this NEVER happens in the professional media. If I get a point like this, it is because I am listening very carefully. But Ventura, REPEATED that point over and over, the way a leftist does his points. Some professional conservatives who have some shreds of a conscience and a mind left will slip them in. Ventura slammed this one home.

This CAN’T last.

Jesus said that salvation was “free and without price.” If he had said that in Spain five hundred years later he would have been ripped off of his nice comfy cross and stopped in to fire.

I was listening to a homily from a priest who was describing Jesus’ talk to the rich young man. He said, “The reason the young man was Lost was …” This was a new one to me. Lost? He asked Jesus what he must do to be saved. Jesus asked if he followed the Commandments, and he said he did. Jesus then said, “IF YOU WOULD BY PERFECT, sell all you have and give it to the poor and follow me.”

Christians would be in deep trouble if one had to be PERFECT to avoid being Lost, Damned. But this is understandable if you understandable if you understand institutions. Institutions talk a lot about money and power, because they ARE money and power. No matter what book an institution is based on, they think in money and power terms.

All institutions want sacrifice to be uppermost in their adherents’’ minds. The homily was just another example of how a person who has devoted his life to an institution is going to find the money side the most important.

ALL institutions. A Japanese Buddhist priest charges a fee for his service to be dedicated to a particular person, just as a Catholic Church does for a Mass. Both do it free in some cases, but they regard it as charity.

It would be a little hard to track the behavior of a Buddhist priest in Osaka to that of a Catholic priest in Dublin by their common roots. But both are institutional people. This is called parallel evolution. Saber toothed tigers evolved separately all over the world. They had the same survival challenge and developed the same way. Institutions in different places are so much alike we don’t even notice it.

The young Stalin was a bank robber. But he gave what he robbed to the Communist Party. Some young Communists would marry heiresses specifically to obtain money to support the Party. Like monks, they swore they were against wealth but they spent much or most of their time getting it for the Party, just as monasteries kept starting poor and getting rich from wealthy people’s wills.

One writer referred to Communists as “secular Calvinists.” Calvinist churches became rich by telling their members that salvation was purely a matter of being Chosen before birth. But their members had to show they were part of the Elect of God, and a person who was Elect gave money to his church.

Communists and Calvinist doctrines are alike in that both say that the Triumph of their Truth is inevitable. Oddly enough, Calvinists discovered that this brought in the cash. Communist or Calvinists, being On the Side of a Truth that is Inevitable has the opposite effect one would logically think it would.

You would think that if one were a Communist he would take it easy. Truth will out anyway, so why bother? But that is exactly what people said about Calvinists. But Calvinists churches sprang up like mushrooms, and they got money that often put the Roman Church to shame.

If something owns Inevitability it is the Only True Faith. And people will support the physical institution, the wealth and power, of an institution that promises no reward except Being On the Winning Side, and it does not matter if your side wins long after you are dead.

On a Monty Python episode they showed some English gangsters threatening a military base. They talked to the base commander and said, “You have some nice Tanks, etc. here, be shame if anything happened to them…” and so forth.

I was really interested in how the British military COULD handle such a problem, but the skit was interrupted because it was “too silly.”

We just had a case at Fort Hood where twelve soldiers were killed and over thirty injured because there was a single shooter and the military had no weapons. They let themselves be shot down like school kids.

I remember numerous occasions when US Navy ships let Russian ships shove them out of the way, when one Soviet sailor jumped on the American ship and claimed asylum, they gave him back for prison.

The US military cannot protect American borders.

So what WOULD a British commander do if his base were threatened?

Call the unarmed Local Constabulary. We all know from Gitmo and illegal aliens that everybody is entitled to constitutional protection. When someone comes in with a REAL gun no one wonders why soldiers are as helpless as high school students. We all take it for granted.

What if the gangsters don’t WANT to go with the Local Constabulary?

In short, how would the skit have gone if they had tried to finish it?

With friends like Tiger Woods, PC doesn’t need people like me.

“The Babe Ruth of Golf” was shown with his blond Scandinavian wife as often as possible. He was even as tall as she was. Here was a True Love Match “which happened to be interracial” or, as Hannity puts it, “two Children of God.”

Then the black guy got too horny and decided he had to have a blond mistress, too.

But I REALLY couldn’t believe it when a female commentator on CNN said that this was the “usual problem with successful black athletes, they have to get themselves a blond, trophy wife.” I could not believe that the moderator didn’t explode into blood and guts right there.

The guy’s commentarial was a really novel thought. He said, “It has nothing to do with race!” Gosh, THERE’S a novel line! But this time it notably lacked the Required Rage.

When he had the wreck out with his blond mistress, Tiger instantly offered his wife what all black guys offer their white women: Money and lots of it. He offered her millions above their pre-nup, which already made her a millionairess, not to divorce him. There hasn’t been a less True Love couple “who happened to be of different races” since OJ.

Tiger’s father determined to have nothing to do with black women but in his time all he could get was an Oriental woman. Black men on television will say that they don’t date black women. This is a brag.

It pisses some black women off, but I have yet to see those “precious feelings” be of the slightest concern to Women’s Lib or any other part of PC. So the black guy sits there and talks black to black women about black women in a way that no white would be allowed to talk for one minute.

But I don’t think the Thought Police reacted properly this time. The white woman who said this was a habit of successful black athletes should have been instantly called down and suppressed if the priests of the PC faith were going at full throttle.

The problem is that the media don’t know how to react when someone is as honest as Tiger Woods. His father made it clear that they were trying to breed the n****** out of them. Tiger was no less honest about it: he bought himself as unNegroid a wife as he could find on the market.

The script calls for the WHITE WOMAN to say it’s all True Love. Black male are often OPENLY proud they got a white woman. PC is in the position Doublethink often puts one in: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” so they assume that a black male who marries a white woman, this doing the one thing most important to PC. That that black male is their friend.

But PC and the black male have absolutely different reasons for their actions. The PC priesthood wants to show it is EASY for a black man to get a white woman, that it is no different from any other match.

This is a great deal like telling blacks in new white Mercedes that it is EASY to get a Mercedes. From the propaganda natural to the PC priesthood, Tiger’s ability to buy himself a brand-new Scandinavian beauty queen wife was only True Love. They were ASTONISHED, astonished to the point of letting the Thought Police miss some open heresy, when his first act was put the lie to that.

How could Tiger have betrayed PC by making, as his first move, an offer of MILLIONS of Dollars to his trophy wife? Because Tiger does not think like they do. It never OCCURRED to him to push the idea that ANY black man could buy something like that.

Tiger can do this because he is a huge success. He can have a white wife, he can buy a Mercedes.

If his Mercedes gets destroyed, Tiger will get it fixed because he has the money. If the Trophy Wife he bought might leave him, he puts up money. Black males simply do not think in terms of PC orthodoxy.

Like the Bourbons, the PC priesthood forgets nothing and learns nothing. Which is the reason that today most people don’t know who “the Bourbons.” were.

In relation to Anglo-Saxon Law I mentioned recently how different a person is who was raised in a community. In a community a person who testified to anything was taking a life-time risk, and the higher his rank in society the greater the risk he was taking. Everything depended on your WORD in those times.

I was just watching a program on the History Channel that said that more and more scientists are agreeing that global warning is man’s fault and the Intellectuals need to take over the world to save us. In a traditional community, “more and more scientists are agreeing” would be instant death to any documentary.

When our established religion no longer allows any questioning of a very shaky thesis, they ALWAYS jump to the “growing consensus among scientists’” bit which is the same as the Modern Thought bit, which is the same as the cocktail party “They found out that…”

In a community someone made a general declaration that a whole field of neutral experts had taken a particular point of view, it was a major undertaking. A trusted figure in the community who misused his trust once would be remembered for it. The second time he did it he would be totally discredited. If SANE people trusted to you to blatantly misspeak in such a way ONCE, your credibility would be gone forever. The second time you would not be believed. You would be laughed at the third time you tried it.

All my life “Modern Thought,” “a growing consensus of scientists,” and “They found out that …” has almost always been WRONG. Respectable conservatives protect commentators from any discussion of past errors and treat the latest nonsense with greater respect than they the last load of manure they delivered.

Contrast this Advanced and Scientific approach to the old Saxon Law. A psychiatrist who is known to have seen all crime as society’s fault and has helped free murderers before states, for the hundredth time, that this particular psychopath is really good and was molested as a child and if you pay enough money to psychiatrists he can be cured.

His earlier testimony — if you have a good attorney — is only used to demonstrate that “He has expertise and experience in this kind of case.”

Actually the defendant has such experience, too, but to my knowledge no attorney has called the defendant as an expert witness

YET.

But the only reason you would NOT call the defendant as an expert witness in his own case is that juries have a modicum of sense left. They still pay SOME attention to the old Anglo-Saxon “Who sez?”

But not much.

Simmons says he may have committed BUGS heresy by just saying something is anti-white garbage and then stomping out. I don’t know anything about heresy, my specialty is human proclivities. Nothing is more human than intellectual laziness.

It was a major step forward when commentators stopped telling each other what the latest news gambit was and started talking about HOW TO MAKE OUR POINT. Just SAYING “anti-white” is step forward, but like all points it can get out of hand. Pretty soon you can end up are just saying something cute and walking out.

Which is how respectable conservatives make their living. And nobody gives Simmons more of a shiver than an rcon.

In the discussion Simmons talks about the only person there who knows WHY statements are anti-white is Simmons. Making the point of the Mantra is very, very hard, and any normal human being would prefer to say something and walk away.

I don’t think Horus is just giving an excuse for the least effort. But I know PEOPLE, and what he says can END UP being used that way.

We are in a unique position because we have to THINK about what we say. That is why so many BUGS comments are off track. No Jehovah’s Witness has to THINK about how to present his statement, neither does any disciple of Political Correctness. What we must do has already been done for them. So our task is VERY hard to understand. But ours is the most important part of ANY movement.

I have been in thousands or tens of thousands of face-to-face confrontations. I learned to ask myself: “What did I DO?” Bill Rusher wrote a book called “How to Win an Argument.” As you well know, that is precisely what I do NOT have in mind. A victory for me is usually when I leave the discussion and the subject of that particular debate is forgotten by everybody but my point is not.

If Simmons just leaves the concept that one can be anti-white, he has done SOMETHING. But if he stops there in most cases, it is useless. Our point today is that we have only two options: pro-white and anti-white. Anti-white is called anti-racist, but it leads to the disappearance of one race and only one race. It is genocide.

You don’t have to tell ME how hard this point is to get across. But it is seldom that the first shot sinks a ship. Very often a shot across the bow won the ARGUMENT.

But that, gentlemen, is not war.