Long before Orwell wrote 1984 there was a standard joke among lawyers about the Double Defense.

The Double Defense says that 1) “MY client didn’t do it and we have witnesses to prove he was elsewhere at the time of the crime” and “We also have witnesses who were at the scene who will testify that he was justified in doing it.”

Actually, some version of the Double Defense has been successfully used, but of course the lawyers consider any jury that would even consider such a defense a bunch of morons.

That is correct.

Imagine my reaction when our people routinely accept a Double Defense.

This Double Defense comes up all the time. Anti-whites say 1) we are NOT committing genocide and 2) Genocide is justifiable. Just how smart does that make US?

But I see this Double Defense in SF All The Time. The anti-whites go straight from denying genocide to repeating Mommy Professor’s Evil White Man stuff. So do any of our Ego Trip pro-whites simply point out that they are JUSTIFYING what they are DENYING?

Nossir. when the witness declares he didn’t do it and then goes on to say he is doing it for a REASON, Old Missing Frontal Lobe trails right along, arguing crime rates and colonization. They want to show how much they know, so it never occurs to them to put aside all their tome information and look at what the OTHER idiot, the one on the other side, just said.

It makes you tired, very, very tired.

A commenter sent me a link where a man who was a literature major has found that his whole mentality has been altered by the Internet. Where he once proudly treasure huge tomes, he is now impatient if a person can’t get to the point in a couple of paragraphs.

I keep repeating that you must always ask WHY a piece of information has been produced. In this case it is a matter of HOW it is produced.

IN order to say ANYTHING publicly, you used to get a maximum of one shot. Most didn’t get that.
You had to get name recognition, you had to get published. And when you got published you had to anticipate what the questions would be,.

Once again, using the Semmelweis Rule, the explanation of this is so simple it does not inflate the ego. What has happened is that the dam on information has been breached. It used to be a matter of slowly digging your way through the publication process or being accepted by one of the major networks. The process was very cumbersome.

Now you can simply say what you have to say and answer objections on the Internet the next day. You can hit people with an idea without being a respectable Buckley persona for the networks waiting months for the reviews.

So the heavy duty reading that went with the cumbersome old methods are as out of date as etching on stone.

In the new age you have to know what you are doing to say and SAY it.

More important, your reputation today is as a New York Intellectual will not make people read another whole book by you when they can hear others who simply have something to say and say it quickly.

If this method does not sound familiar to you you haven’t been reading BUGS long.

My commenters have internalized rules it took me years to formulate. One of these is that if what you are saying goes down too easily with anti-whites, you need to think about it.

Lord Nelson impressed me when he changed his line from white genocide, to the West being overrun. He didn’t realize he has changed it. He was reacting to the simple fact that the path of least resistance allies to the mind as well as physics. He suddenly found this was very easy to sell to anti-whites, and didn’t think over WHY.

Let me hasten to add that THE INSTANT I pointed this out, he saw what I meant and went back to the harder line.

A lot of readers won’t understand what the hard line is.

If you use the term “overwhelm” you are just one of the anti-immigration types.

We already have more than enough non-whites to do away with the race already inside our borders and they are multiplying like rabbits.

The only problem anti-immigration types have with non-whites here is that they refuse to have intercourse with their daughters. They “refuse to assimilate.”

That is NOT our problem.

Attacking immigration makes you a respectable conservative. Opposing interracial marriage or bastardization is “Hitlerism.”

It is also Jeffersonianism, but if you go onto the path of least resistance you won’t think of that.

Dave’s observation about my war on the costume fetish did what I read comments for, to maker me think. A free person is paranoid about anything that separates the people from Government. Nothing does that like a uniform.

My fate is to be decided by twelve of my peers and a god. I can do without the god, thank you.

What the hell is a judge doing in DRESS? This is a guy who is deciding life and death and he is dressing like a Superhero! NOBODY in a court of law should think of himself as more than a man.

And it is the nature of the human animal that what he wears affects his judgment. In European countries which were totalitarian and theocratic throughout their histories, there are only judges in their robes and little hats. The JURY is a purely Anglo-Saxon artifact. It was probably an expression of Britain’s loss of faith in its own people when judges and lawyers put on wigs.

Free people have a different relationship with those who govern them, one inn which costumes have no role. Try to imagine how the Founding Fathers would have reacted to Presidential Robes.

The Commander in Chief has no uniform.

In the fifteenth century most monarchs tried hard to keep all arms in the hands of nobles and soldiers. As with the jury system, England was a WILD exception. It is the only country I know of that ever punished PEASANTS for NOT having weapons!

It wasn’t much of a punishment, but after Crecy England’s military might depended on the longbow. That n turn depended on one’s having a longbow and practicing with it. It takes time and effort, and as more and more forms of amusement came along, fewer and fewer English peasants stuck to it.

A bowling lane has ten pins today because “nine pins” became so popular it was taking the peasants away from archery practice. They added a pin to make it legal.

But behind that little story is a bigger one. The kind and Parliament were actually trying to FORCE peasants to own and become expert with a weapon that killed armored knights. This was not the kind of thinking that was any more usual then than it is in Europe or blue states today.

What did the kings and the nobles really depend on in England? They lived and died by POLITICS. As I said, politics is life. The depended on their own popularity so completely that they tried to FORCE the people to have weapons that could kill them.

For obvious reasons you’ll have to wait a long time before any Mommy Professor mentions this historical oddity.

People without money will tell you that everybody’s motivated by money. If you want financial advice, go to a bar, sit down by the guy who is nursing the only drink he can afford, buy him more, and listen.

He will tell you how to make money. He will tell you the characteristics of people who make money. He will explain to you that making money is behind everything on earth. Money, he will explain, is the Objective Purpose of everything.

Someone WITH money, as they slide into their cups, will explain to you all about Power. They HAVE money, so it holds no ambition for them. In fact the main way someone like me got enough money to live on was being paid by rich folks who wanted power.

A person without money tends to believe that everybody is after what he is after, money. People who have money, he feels, are the bad ones.

A rich person in America does not have the power he feels he should have. People who have power, he insists, are the bad ones.

Uglies tend to believe the Beautiful People are just AWFUL.

If you do not have a white skin, it is easy to convince you that whites are terrible.

Depressive Puritan types hate joyful people, hoping they are damned.

The list is endless.

This goes along with the rule that those who hate are constantly condemning Hate, those who are merciless love abstract Mercy. The real explanation of this is quite simple. A person thinks about what he thinks about most. A billionaire does not think about money all that much. In fact, real luxury means that you don’t have to think about money at all: “If you have to ask the price you can’t afford it.”

BUGS is dedicated to straight, simple explanations like this. People who get PAID to be pundits do not think in my terms for a very simple reason. It is one reason respectable conservatives are the only professional commentators. If you hit a Politically Correct person with my kind of argument, the discussion is over.

They are getting laughed at.

Then it’s Dead Air. And Dead Air is death to talk programs.

So only a respectable conservative can keep the media commenters going.

Those who think about hate a lot capitalize it. They think that Hate explains human action. Those who think about money a lot think of money as the basis of all human motivation. Likewise Power. Likewise Mercy.

Paid pundits hate this kind of thinking for an equally simple reason. They get to paid to drag it out, to fill time and fill space on the printed page.

Hence the following verse, which once would have been called doggerel but now is referred to as the Art of Rap:
A NICKLE A WORD

In most magazines there’s always a place
For people with talent for filling up space.
That’s why they pay me a nickel a syllable
For filling up space that still remain fillable.

The things I say may not make sense
And seem to you absurd
For it’s not logic that I need
But words and words and words and words
And words and words and words.