Some years back I visited one of our pro-white gatherings on an island off the SC coast to meet a visiting lady from England who was a newly elected city councilwoman and a WN visiting from the Netherlands. In the course of conversation I talked about the huge number of burglaries in Europe and that most of them are committed, unlike in the US, when the family is at home.

The guy from the Netherlands denied that such burglaries took place. I said I knew about them, but if they didn’t occur where he was, they didn’t.

We went to have barbecue in south Georgia, and during the cookout the Dutchman went to sleep in a hammock. Then he said he slept very well.

In fact, he said, he had slept through two burglaries in his home.

I get this sort of thing all the time. People vigorously deny that something happens and then mention it. My brother tells me this is one of the frustrating things in his medical practice. People will mention what happened during their last coughing fit and he will point out that he asked them if they had coughing fits and they had said no.

I am probably a bit rigorous about this or I would be a very poor interrogator.

I tell people that I used to work in a prison and that the first thing every potential burglar wants to know is, “Is there a gun in there?”

My sister lives in a very high-price neighborhood. She caught the local disease of bragging that they didn’t have dirty old GUNS there. I REMEMBER specifically warning her not to say that, and to discourage her neighbors from bragging about that. She naturally thought I was being Lowah Clahss about the whole gun thing.

The next year two black guys walked in their front door and beat the hell out of her and her husband. They were South Carolina enough to fight back, but not smart enough not to let the world know they had no guns to protect their considerable property.

They’re lucky to have survived.

If you are going to let everybody know you are unarmed, you have to settle for regular burglaries as Europeans are or you have to keep your area all-white. That is as true today as it was when the North had lots of all-white suburbs.

Minorities are “being assimilated“ and guns are spreading in the US and burglary is totally out of control in Europe. I just happen to NOTICE it.

The story goes that Bernard Shaw once asked a woman he didn’t like whether she would go to bed with him for a million pounds. She said, “Yes.”

Then he said, “I’ll give you ten shillings to go to bed with me.”

She is supposed to have answered, “What do you think I am?”

He replied, “We’ve established what you are. Now we’re discussing price.”

I was thinking about that as I watched Bill O’Reilly interviewing Ann Coulter last night. The subject was that she was going to speak on a campus and of course “activists” rioted and made that impossible. Meanwhile her speech in Canada was canceled by Canadians because a professor warned her she would go to prison in that country for saying the wrong thing.

There was a problem because O’Reilly is in the position of arguing price. Like most respectable non-leftists, he is more anxious to lead the lynch mob against anyone liberals choose to call racists than liberals are. In any case, with the O’Reillys and National Review around, they don’t need to.

Ann Coulter frustrated O’Reilly because he kept trying to give her a chance to prove she wasn’t a racist. She kept holding to the line that she should be able to say whatever she wished. O’Reilly finally sighed and said, “Well, I kept giving you the chance and you wouldn’t take it.”

As I understand it, his frustration was that he kept giving her a chance to deny any offensive remarks and she kept emphasizing that Thought Crime Laws were IN THEMSELVES bad. She is also the only mainline writer I know of who has criticized HOLY DIVERSITY ITSELF.

The only national writer I ever saw who praised European Thought Crimes laws was William Buckley. Hannity has said that anyone who opposed interracial marriage, as very one of the Founder Fathers did, was a Nazi.

Mr. Shaw, our prostitutes are on the professional right.

Ann Coulter made the point in passing that no one speaks on a campus without a body guard. O’Reilly didn’t comment on that. He certainly wouldn’t. If you say something liberals see as racist or Hate, O’Reilly likes to insist he would be one of the threatening crowd.

Back when ALL public officials opposed interracial marriage, if you knocked on the door of the Presidential Mansion, the White House, there was an excellent chance that the President would answer the door. But then again, presidents, even Reconstruction Republicans ones, all opposed intermarriage and not one single Reconstruction Government ever repealed the anti-miscegenation law in any state, so O’Reilly and Hannity would have forced the president to guard himself.

They SAY. But for a couple of squashy-assed respectable conservatives to scare Old Hickory seems unlikely. When Jackson died, someone asked his black butler if he went to heaven or hell. The man answered, “If Mr. Jackson wanted to go to heaven, nobody could have stood in his way.”

I doubt seriously if a modern body guard would be dumb enough to try to crack one of those old nuts.

But that was before the Obedient Generation. Nobody since the 1930s has said, “People won’t stand for that.”

About ANYTHING.

That is why it is so absurd for people to say that “The Constitution protects our rights.” Before World War II, WE protected our rights. Germany wrote its Weimar Constitution and Stalin wrote the most democratic constitution ever composed in 1936. The Nazis rightly insisted everything they did was under the old Weimar Constitution, and they were right.

The Weimar Constitution had an emergency section which allowed the government to do anything if it followed proper procedures. The Nazis governed under those emergency provisions and, given the huge Communist vote and the Depression, there was an emergency.

Stalin simply gave his wildly free constitution — it even allowed for the secessions we saw around 1990 — a Marxist INTERPRETATION.

The National Recovery Act passed by FDR in 1933 gave FDR price controls, profit controls, and, in fact, a socialist economic regime. The Supreme Court, appointed by Coolidge and Hoover, declared NRA unconstitutional.

Had the Court done that in 1933 when Roosevelt’s honeymoon period was on full blast, he could have gotten his Court Packing Scheme through and controlled the Court. But he didn’t try that until the 1938 election, when for the first time his electoral magic of 1932, 1934, and 1936 had died down, so he failed.

But, like Prohibition, the National Recovery Act failed because it was tried on the wrong generation. The Obedient Generation would have bitched and obeyed Prohibition, as they itched and obeyed after their dog-training, called Basic. With the NRA, it would have been enough show their manhood by bitching, because They Had Proven Their Courage in the War.

Sarge TOLD them so. So did Walter Cronkite.

Old London Bridge was finished about 1200 AD and stood until the early nineteenth century. To pay its cost, it was lined with shops and living spaces, eight on the bridge. These were destroyed a century before the Old Bridge, the one the song says is falling down, was taken down completely.

In an earlier history I read the writer made fun of those who postulate that a “real” bridge across the Thames existed before the Romans, inspired by the Greeks who were inspired by the Egyptians, built it. Fords, being natural, yes. Even some tenuous wooded walkway across the Thames at some points which the hairy barbarians might have tossed up before running back into the woods.

But a BRIDGE?

Fiddle-faddle!

Everybody knew where BUILDING occurred. All the Historical, Earliest Buildings were right out there in the desert where we could find them. I wrote an article lately about how convenient it is that all the historical stuff happens to be right there where they can be easily found.

The latest book about London Bridge was written after a discovery a couple of miles downriver from the Old London Bridge.

It is a bridge. It is a HUGE bridge. It is dated to 1500 BC. The writer explains that was during the high bronze age, when there was lots of trade. But he still sticks to the thesis that there was nothing in the area of today’s LONDON at that time.

“They” would have found it, you see. Just like “They” would have found that bridge.

And that is the cement, the cement of pure faith, that holds together the entire accepted history on which Political Correctness, Modern History, Modern Thought, and Modern Archeology, are built.

History is not an area of study any more. History is an institution. You become a historian by being ordained by other historians. They don’t lay on hands but they still wear the robes. I keep repeating that one religious institution has more in common with other institutions than it does with the doctrine it claims to represent.

A conversation between Jesus and Buddha would have been entirely different from one between those representing Christianity and Buddhism today. These are institutions saying “Why cant we get along?“ not two men with their own rigid concepts of what is true.

It is hard to imagine two more opposite approaches than two men debating real truth and two institutions with vast resources to preserve trying to go along and get along.

But no one NOTICES this difference!

Each faith gets along with what it has, the remains of a vanished book called The Sayings of Our Lord written when some of those who saw Jesus were still alive, a set of Gospels each of which was written to be the ONLY Gospel, selected by a committee, and endless proven forgeries.

Behind all that is Christ.

Buddhists have the same sort of thing, shreds, institutions which are gone today.

The big difference is that Christianity, and I suppose Buddhism, can look to the Spirit of the Founder. But history just plods right on, ignoring the fact that it is an institution.

So what do historians DO? They dig among the shreds, just as religious institutions do, but, unlike religious institutions, they don’t ADMIT it.

It has often been remarked that Westerners are great at developing everything from Public Libraries and References of detailed information to the storage of literature.

At the same, any student of our actual history is puzzled by how, with our genius at storing and referencing knowledge, the same basic errors go on generation after generation. The classic example is how Galen’s Ancient Theory of Humors, which has no basis in fact at all, remained the basis of medicine and medical study right into the nineteenth century.

The answer is that an institution was built on it, an institution called The Medical Profession. To be an academic in that field, you had to be able to explain all things in Galen’s terms and in Galen’s Latin.

What the Medical Institution wanted was Latin and accumulated selected facts. Like any institution, it had no room for someone who was trying to invent the whole field again.

Who succeeded in Medicine when doctors killed as may as they cured? Those whose interest was not in cures, but in having Educated Doctors. If you could write in the right terms and in the right language, no one stopped to consider how many patients died or were cured.

A field of study steadily advances in KNOWLEDGE. But as it institutionalizes, everyone must FIT into the institution. It may or may not be that a major topic of debate at Universities in the Renaissance was how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, but there is no reason why it should not have been.

If you could use the accumulated doctrine and the correct language to discuss that point, you could easily have gotten a doctorate out of it before Occam came along.

What institutions routinely lost is not KNOWLEDGE but PERSPECTIVE. All the knowledge in the world means nothing if it looked at the world the wrong way.

But who can qualify for an INSTITUTION and make a correction in that Institution’s PERSPECTIVE?

BUGS demands a lot of knowledge. But in the new age, knowledge is handled by machines. Only perspective is now the exclusive talent of human beings.

Google is about knowledge.

BUGS is about perspective.

If the RICO Act were enforced, every bishop of the Catholic Church would be in prison. I say this because you have a simple choice, either every bishop knew about the shifting of pedophile priests from diocese to diocese, or they were ignoramuses about the reality of the Church, and you don’t get your miter in that crowd without being sharp.

If I understand the RICO Act correctly, and as I say I never did anything legal in Washington, if a higher up knows illegal orders are being given and does not report them, he, as part of the organization, is as liable as the one who gives orders.

This is never fully enforced against ANYONE, let alone the church to which over a quarter of Americans belong. As Organized Crime Attorneys have doubtless pointed out thousands of times in and out of court, if RICO were enforced against almost ANY organization the way it is against The Mafia and its relatives, the heads of about every major corporation and every church in America would be behind bars.

As far as my limited legal knowledge goes, that is perfectly true.

So we are in the peculiar position of saying the hiding  of a few findings on nicotine or a few rigged crash-tests or a few bishops causing more pederastry than any single pederast could even imagine has to be OK.

After all, the last two letters of RICO stand for Corrupt Organizations. One could say that organized crime is ALL corrupt, though both the Godfathers died trying to make most of their activities legit. And that, of course, is one of the themes of The Godfather: You think you’re out but they drag you back in.

But this brings up the question, Are you EVER out?

The answer has to be yes. The logic the Church uses for its Pro-Life stance cannot be applied to anything in life, least of all the Church itself. If the Church enforced the same logic it uses on abortion on itself, it would have to disband.

Even if one must say that the Church itself cannot disband, its doctrine declares it eternal despite error, every Catholic organization short of the Church itself could probably be forced to disband by its own pro-Life, no-compromise language.

And by its own pro-pederast actions.

This is has been an exercise in thinking out loud. My Mantra mindset says that there is something fundamentally wrong about banning all medical use of fetal material while at the same time forgetting the giant, life-ruining pederastry, I for one do not find all that excusable.

When slobbering over anti-Semitism became chic, the Pope went to Israel to do his blubbering. But If he has taken any similar action about DECADES of ruining the lives of Catholic boys, I have yet to hear of it.

I think the lesson is one we all know, but which needs to be brought out from time to time. It is the same lesson that is taught by the example of J. Edgar Hoover:

Every FAMOUS moralist, be he a person or a Church, talks unconditional morality and practices BRAZEN selective morality. Today the judge of who becomes a FAMOUS moralist, as the Church must be to get money and maintain power, is the media.

What I have just said is obvious to every adult, but it has not been long since there was no place to say it.

Now there is.

And that could make “practicality” in the new age a totally different thing.

When people found out I worked on the writing of legislation on Capitol Hill, they would naturally ask if I was a lawyer. I had a standard joke reply:

“No, I don’t do anything legal.”

“Uh-oh, let me restate that…”

Of course what I meant was that lawyers made sure that people like me discussed policy language in a bill. But, just as every speech one wrote for the congressmen began with MR. SPEAKER: certain places in the legislation had to conform to legal form.

Some of this was arcane. For example, Federal language used the word “abolishment” rather than the correct term “abolition.” The lawyer had to finalize the FORM, but when it came to 3 am compromises on intent and policy, the congressmen sent senior staff in, not lawyers.

So instead of trying to explain that, I just made the joke about my not doing anything legal.

But I face something of the same problem with my writing. I could say that the unique thing I have to offer is not factual information. If I say I do not base my thinking on a special set of facts I know, it sounds, like “doing nothing legal,” as if I were proposing that facts don’t matter.

On the contrary, my best work, like the Mantra, is based on solid actuality. But it is a different LOOK at actuality.

Having developed a way of thinking, I could spend another fifty years or so just looking into the facts you and I both know as a matter of course and finding different aspects to them that people need to think about.

I made huge factual errors in my first book that make me cringe now. But that book made Review of Reviews, and nobody mentioned one of them. Even my enemies realized that the examples I gave wrong were not basic. They were infinitely more interested in the fact that I was stealing the word “Populist” from the left.

But I cannot get all the research done by myself that people get paid to dedicate their lives to on the other side.

In his Foreword, Joe Sobran said that my last book was not really a book, even though he praised it handsomely. That is true, in the same sense that if I wrote a complete piece of legislation by myself, it probably would not be legislation. Lawyers have to do the doctoring, and most of my congressmen were lawyers themselves.

I got the discussion down and the lawyers did what needed to be done.

In exactly the same way, I have nothing but respect for those who study issues and then write our tomes. But a person who is only a member of the committee legal staff cannot make the POLITICAL decisions and do the POLICY exactness that was my job.

But the legal staff would be useless without us policy people. Policy is the point of the whole exercise.

This seems obvious, but it is hard for me to explain that the case of our tomes is similar. The problem with tomes on our side is that few people BUY them, much less READ them. One reason I gave up on conventions was because when I made this obvious point, I got that cow like look I so often make when I point something obvious out, something everybody already knows, as a prelude to saying what to do about it.

We cannot depend on the tomes to get a bigger audience for themselves. They have been coming out for a century and practically nobody HAPPENS to read a hundred thousand word book contradicting what he believes and is converted by it.

But every time we shake their tree with the Mantra, we set the groundwork for those who can see to look for more. People only start looking at “racist” literature when they are shaken by something they read, and damned few are going to just happen to read a hundred thousand words at the outset.

I understand the place of the Tome People. But they cannot understand OURS.

In General Comments 3 someone mentioned a reply they got to the Mantra: “Loyalty to the white race is treason to humanity.”

This is the motto of Noel Ignatiev’s group he calls Race Traitors. This is typical and funny. For an Ivy League Jew to be claiming he is a traitor to the white race is exactly like a Jesuit claiming he is a traitor to Protestantism.

Ignatiev, a small time teacher at Harvard, says “The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that the only opposition could be from white supremacists.” While repeating the Jewish establishment line but for his present purposes he pretends to be bravely defying the white race which, for present purposes, he claims to be part of.

This is very typical. Anti-whites routinely hide behind being white as if there were no such thing as treason. As I have said, Jews are white or a minority or a separate group when it is convenient. Anyone who challenges their momentary identity is anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Anti-white whites will routinely be shocked by the Mantra, “How can I be anti-white? I’m white.”

My reply is, “It’s called treason, dum-dum, it happens all the time.”

Then I get out and some SFer gives a long, complicated reply which lets the anti-white get back into the debate. My stuff is designed to expose the enemy and leave them naked. The standard reply we learn from tomes gets them back into the argument. They have something to argue with.

In short, the Tome People do for anti-whites what respectable conservatives do for the left.

I just wrote a piece about how one cannot plan for the new age of information if one does not REMEMBER how things were before it.

We at BUGS have discussed at some length how my sentence structure here is so different from the one officially demanded by texts on writing. I have adjusted to short sentences and ending one thought at a time because direct mailers have found that is the way to reach people in competition with others who have learned to do the same thing.

Oddly enough, Internet studies are finding the same thing. In a mass of information, internet readers will not give you much time to bore them or to sound smart. Like those selected for direct mail, the competition is FIERCE.

No one was more indoctrinated in the old paragraph structure than I was. I had to write for editors.

I also had to write for speeches, and the staccato I write now would not do for reading out in public by a congressman at a formal function.

Brian did a study of my old writing in Whitaker On Line and its evolution. How did he do this analysis? He looked in Google, of course. He found a means of MEASURING sentence structure. Try to find THAT in the old World Almanac or in less than several hours in the public library!

Brian found my sentence structure has evolved, and he can MEASURE it!

My life has been spent in communication, but a lot of people have far better credentials in their communications careers than I do. But we now have two special pieces of wisdom I can offer you that they can’t.

First, I REMEMBER. I do not selectively FORGET every time the other side was embarrassingly wrong. To get mainline credentials, you have to pass the acid tests of those who have a VETO on things that would embarrass them. They can’t tell you everything you CAN say, but they can certainly ruin you if you cross their line.

No one is allowed to REPEAT how all the talk about gun permits fifteen years ago was about how a BLOODBATH would happened if permits were handed out to people who didn’t wear police costumes. I have heard those screams mentioned a decade later, but never REPEATED.

Secondly, I remember how direct mail worked, and how direct mail, and ONLY direct mail, could statistically analyze the results of every change of wording and sentence length and hundreds of other variables. They wrote for “flyover country” in a competitive market, the way blogs must today.

Now for a third factor. I began the last discussion by talking about how hard it was to come by facts not so long ago, and how impossible it was to correct silly statements Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite declared to be Gospel.

That was pre-Google. We have taken a GIANT step toward overcoming what I REMEMBER being the problem by the simple fact that your Google is as good as that of CBS. It is no longer Opinion versus what you looked up, It is CBS versus Google.

But all this brings up a fourth factor, which I call The Art of Being Wrong. My writings use a lot of factual information, but information is not my primary focus here. I am trying to change PERSPECTIVE. So if I am talking about the Alamo, and the best information is that there were three thousand Mexicans there instead of the five thousand I give, I consider it a waste of time to have a long discussion of it.

If I make a mistake that really alters the PERSPECTIVE, I will correct it. But most of my general points are simply so obvious once stated that the exact facts I cite are irrelevant.

The fact that immigration and assimilation are directed at ALL white countries and ONLY at white countries might be debatable if you looked at the lack of pressure on Andorra or Liechtenstein or Mount Athos or SMOM. But the desperation of someone doing that makes the point.

Or should I spend a lot of time talking about Mount Athos or SMOM being an exception?

So I SAY what I think. No one has to say “with all due respect” or “I hate to disagree.” That’s what sycophants told Cronkite and Company. I say it here, and you correct it HERE. I consider that a favor.

The Cronkites could never LEARN. Their days are gone. We have here a seminar, and a real seminar puts the professor and his grad students on an even keel. Which is why you won’t find a real seminar at any University today.

Every year from about age eleven, I bought the World Almanac of Facts each year as soon as it came out. I wore it out, too. In 1953 I could tell you that the area of the United States was 3,022,387 square miles.

Also in 1953 I got my first Amateur Radio license. Hams were the first geeks. I wonder how many people know that in the first years of its existence, Radio Shack was entirely a ham radio term which referred to the shack in which we had our stations? Though in fact few of us could afford a shack or the equipment to fill it.

I no longer have a ham license or a World Almanac. The world has moved on. If you needed facts back then, you used your Almanac, your out-of-date encyclopedia, or a trip to the library. Because of this factual errors were a major problem, even in everyday conversation.

ACCEPTED factual errors, like “Modern anthropologists have proved that all races are equal in inherited abilities.” Only those with newspapers or pull with the FCC could contradict that kind of thing. “Roosevelt ended the Depression with the New Deal” was the kind of thing the much-worshiped Edward R. Murrow would say. And though every economist knew the Depression was sill in fill swing in 1939, no one had any INCENTIVE to make it public.

Big media HATE the Internet. They are just now being forced to recognize the blogs and the twitter.

It certainly wasn’t “twitter” when Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite or their thousands of acolytes pronounced it. It was Opinion back then. Does anyone now remember the sour faces News Commentators had when they would talk about cable networks or even Internet sites like Drudge daring to say what THEY thought?

The new media have DESTROYED the anti-gun mindset. I remember in the 1960s when the skyrocketing crime rate was mentioned, there was not even a pause for transition. All the Official Commentators would say, “We are TRYING to pass gun control legislation.” No other means of dealing with crime was even MENTIONED back then in the national media.

This is why it is so easy to be hopeless today. No one REMEMBERS these changes.

Rule One: You can’t PLAN if you don’t REMEMBER.

No one remembers that for 30 years, until 1964, the maximum income tax rate was NINETY-ONE PERCENT. Walter Cronkite types made it perfectly clear that anyone who opposed this was an agent for the plutocracy.

Naturally the plutocracy never paid 91%. Professional boxers or people who struck it rich paid it, and damned few of THEM. But this was not part of Opinion. There was no way to disagree. When Opinion stood for something crazy, there was nowhere to call it crazy.

Now there is. And the Opinion I remember so well has been cut to pieces. I remember very well when rent control was inevitable, and New York had led the way. Now it is a question of when New York will get rid of it, despite the Media Elite Center people who depend on it.

In the 1950s and 60s , the entire United States between New York and San Francisco was OPENLY known as “flyover country.” They were just people who had not yet caught up with Opinion. Now those who regularly called it “flyover country” deny they ever heard of the term.

They still try to dismiss opinion with a haughty attitude, but fewer people listen to them every day. It is a new age, a new age we are working in on BUGS. We can plan because we REMEMBER.

History says that all of man’s early accomplishments either happened deep in caves, like the Cro-Magnon paintings, or out on a desert which hasn’t been used since. Archeologists just found a temple built in Turkey thousands of years before the pyramids and have declared that all later temples came from That one, instead of it all coming from the pyramids.

Like the pyramids, this temple is sitting out there in the open where nothing has been going on. They had the same trouble discovering the Toltecs. The Toltec ruins were in Mexico City and had been built over, so they didn’t look in that area. Fortunately some of the ruins were still showing, in fact people in Mexico City had seen them for years, but the Experts were busy scouring the desert.

And on it goes. Under the giant old church at Uppsala is the old huge Odinist shrine. Nobody has seen it, because it is under a church. Again, the whole thing is idiotic if you put the question in plain English: Did EVERYTHING prehistoric happen in caves or in today’s wastelands?

As a matter of fact, that is what ancient history SAYS happened. No one looks at WHY this information was produced.

If Herodotus had not written, we would not know that six of the seven wonders of the ancient world ever existed, since they were in places where there is activity now, so historians would never have looked.

I love documentaries,, but the second I see one is about the Pyramids, I switch it off. I am finding that other people do, too. I am tired of seeing the same people looking in arid areas and caves and jungles for the first things. It was generally assumed that, since every big structure was invented at the site of those Pyramids so conveniently sitting in a desert right by the Holy Land, that the Stonehenge Culture began there, too.

Stonehenge Culture ruins have been found from Britain down into islands off the Middle East. It was absolutely assumed, without argument, that the first ones were built right by the Middle East. Carbon dating established the exact opposite. Diffusion was North to South, which was promptly forgotten because it didn’t FIT.

No historian EVER talks about the simple fact that all ancient history is assumed to have happened in caves, deserts and jungles. If they ever thought of that, history would make allowance for this, but it doesn’t. It would be an interesting discussion if we talked about what we HAVEN’T discovered because there are thriving societies sitting on and wiping out the old ruins.

But that would spoil the whole profession. Every philosophy from Marx to respectable conservatism has been developed for two centuries on the basis of the Middle East being the origin of history. More than once I have got Christian ire by saying ANYTHING didn’t happen in today’s Israel. Mentioning where Mount Ararat, for example, really is will get the subject changed quickly.

For sixteen centuries scholars poured into Palestine to dig for relics. Many said that Hebrew was the Perfect Human Language. Then they got secular.

By some incredible coincidence, the exact place where the University Scholars had already been digging just happened to be right in between the place that the new secular scholars declared was the Birth Place of All Civilization! Wow. SURPRISE!

Scholars cited in Palestine found out that just to the east, Mesopotamia, and to the west, Egypt, were Origins of All Things. Ain’t it great when it’s just next door?

Back there was a series of findings of human remains, again in the desert, always in the desert, each one was declared to be “where mankind originated.” A top anthropologist who lived in Kenya dug in Kenya and found even earlier skeletons. Again the media all reported he had found the “earliest men.” They actually BELIEVED the earliest men happened to be where he was digging.

Of course they believed that. That is the basis of all ancient history today.

Adam Smith said that the four factors of production are land, labor, capital and management. The only quibble non-Marxist economists have had with that list for a quarter of a millennium has been to argue whether management is not really a subset of labor.

But what is critical is how little thinking, none actually, they have done on the word “land.” They have always thought in Adam’s terms, of “land” as meaning what a factory or a farm needed in HIS day. To Adam Smith the word “land” meant resources as well as a factory site. You need land to graze sheep on or to mine for coal.

Economic thinking on land as a factor of production, is where Adam Smith left it.

Today it is not uncommon for what Smith called “land” to be nonexistent. Some of the most expensive “land” on earth is above the fiftieth floor where a firm is located. SMOM is an independent country in Italy which is recognized by a number of other countries. It is located entirely on the second floor of an otherwise Italian building.

Location, location and location. Smith knew some locations were more valuable than others, but today it has an overwhelming importance he could not have imagined.

And that is least of “modern economitss’” problems with the first factor. Even in Adam Smith’s sense, the place you put a factory is mostly not a matter of resources. Africa has lots of resources and Japan has NONE, but how many people would put a factory in Africa?

This is why libertarian economists are such complete fools. They know very well that no sane businessman would put a factory in Haiti with the same percentage profits as he would accept in the United States. No LIBERTARIAN would pay the same amount for Haitian investments as he would for the same factory in America.

Why? Because Haiti is full of HAITIANS His money is subject to HAITIAN politics. PERIOD.

Yet every libertarian economist insists that if the American population moved out and the third world moved in, he would be just as willing to invest his money here. It is the American” land” that is productive, and a new population wouldn’t change it.

Like most of my propositions, once you put the thing in plain English you wonder about the sanity of those who haven’t.

It is a LONG time since I made my living as an economist. In aircraft negotiation I was officially an economist.

America now is a lot like Spain in the sixteenth century. Spain put all its effort into producing gold while other countries developed exports which immediately took all the gold. The United States has exactly the same source of wealth Spain did with its colonies, though it looks entirely different.

Gold was money. The United States produces money. It is true that China holds $700 billion in US money and bonds, but this is not the weapon you might think.

No, Virginia, China is not sitting there thinking how their vast US dollar gives them the power to destroy the white devils. If the dollar is destabilized, China loses seven hundred billion dollars it cannot afford to lose.

As I say, it is a long time since I really kept up with these things, but in 2008, when we had our monetary crisis our stock market dropped,. But it was a greater catastrophe abroad. Including in the Euro area, especially in the Euro area.

We got scared. They PANICKED.

It is hard to think of US dollars as like any other export. But US dollars underlie the world economy exactly the same way Spanish gold did. Money is a GOOD.

I remember laughing to myself at a deal China and Russia made about 1960. They were exchanging things, and there would be a gap, so they agree to settle that gap at six hundred million DOLLARS. I remember in Communist countries themselves there were foreign currency only shops where the local money was no good. For years after the collapse of the USSR dollars were called “the green ruble” and when you went to an ATM in Moscow they would ask if you wanted your money in dollars or rubles.

We know all this, but no one THINKS about it. The media, which is constantly preaching how much better Europe is than America, also preached about the superiority of Communist countries even more. So Europe’s out of control debt and the one long recession it has had for a generation is never mentioned, much less considered.

In 1960 no one even noticed that the USSR and China would not even consider dealing with each other in anything but dollars. But it is a lot like noticing if the United States and Britain refused to deal with each other in 1943 in anything but Reichmarks!

So we run deficits, big ones. Our production base is, as is said, disappearing, as Spain’s didn’t develop when its main product was gold. So people expect a collapse of the dollar.

It is true you can only export so much paper, but due to the Eurocentric media, people do not understand the other factors working here. If the dollar destabilizes, it is a disaster for those who hold all those trillions.

Obama’s economic policy scares Americans. But his policy has been standard in Europe. The Euro is worth more than American dollars, but who would HOLD Euros as a BASIC currency? You can be damned sure Europeans wouldn’t.

Money is a VERY conservative commodity. The dollar has a history. Despite all the talk, few doubt that the dollar will be worth SOMETHING twenty years from now. The Euro, the only possible competition, depends on Germany, Spain, France, Italy, and whatever parts of Eastern Europe join the Euro area in coming years to all work in concert.

It is true that our industrial based has the same problem Spain’s did. But in the time of Spanish gold, industry was the way of the future. Industry is now the way of the past. I get the impression that Japan is producing as little of its exports cars as we do. Those are built in Korea or India and assembled in Japan paying Japanese labor, if indeed they ARE even assembled in Japan now.6

I wonder how many “Japanese” imported cars ever saw Japan?

It is hard for us to realize that it has always been a major problem for non-Americans to find a place to put their money safely. It was a conjecture in the 1960s that, despite the statement that norteamericanos owned everything in Latin America, the total investment by South Americans in the US was higher than ours in them. NOBODY kept his money in South America except as a temporary investment. The routine Brazilian inflation rate over fifty percent annually.

For years Central America has been trying to get a common currency. I don’t know if they have succeeded yet. But that is the important point: I don’t KNOW.

How many Americans know the NAME of the Chinese currency?

The American word “dollar” is as universal as the American word “OK.” Money is PSYCHOLOGY, and it will take generations before any other currency gets into the world’s mind the way the one we are pumping out does.

I always marvel at the endless trade deficits we run. What is allowing us to do that? I have just explained what does.

No one can understand today’s international economics without thinking about this. Economists don’t really think about this.

Mantra Thinking means taking a fresh look at what we take for granted. I can’t push the Mantra itself all the time, but sometimes I can get the conversation around to what, for the average person, is the mindlessness Mommy Professor never prepared him for.

In one episode of Seinfeld, the last scene had them going to the emergency room from a circumcision. Due to Costanza’s bungling, both he and the bis had been cut and needed to go to the hospital. The joke was NOT that somebody had been sliced and was bleeding, but that two ADULTS had been sliced. There was no question in anybody’s mind that adults who get cut must go to the emergency room.

The fun idea was that only the INFANT should have been sliced. It occurs to no one that the tiny baby needs any attention, though for him the cut is a lot more serious than it would be to an adult. Gentile babies born in a hospital have been sliced like this for over seventy years, routinely.

After the year 2000 a couple of doctors did experiments with modern electronic stuff and published their discovery: Circumcision is PAINFUL for the infant. In fact, with the machine they have been using since the 1930s, it is TRAUMATICALLY painful. It is so bad that some doctors have been giving kids some anesthetics in the last few years. Nobody considered it before.

I have also seen many, many hilarious scenes on TV of children getting their baby teeth pulled. It’s a real yuck! Their mouth is bleeding and some of the most sensitive nerves in the body are exposed. So they show fear. That means they are just little sissies, of course.

Now make that person into an adult who has a tooth coming out. Suddenly we need a trip to the dentist’s office, we need Novocain, we are dealing with court suits if it is done cruelly.

An adult who converts to Judaism is not ABOUT to have some dirty, uneducated old bis slice at him. They only take one drop of blood from an ADULT, and they are damned careful about THAT. But it’s always open season on infants, both Christian and Jewish.

It is not that everybody doesn’t KNOW about the cruelty of circumcision and tooth-pulling. It is just that no one THINKS about it. THINKING about what you know is Mantra Thinking.

BUGS has something unique to offer to everybody. We offer clear thinking on forbidden subjects. The key words here are two: 1) forbidden and 2) clear.

On the first word, every society has its Forbidden Zone, some more than others. In fact one may make the argument that if there is not a Forbidden Zone it is not a society. In a libertarian society the forbidden zone is forcing others to do what you want them to. The Mafia would love a libertarian society and, since libertarians oppose borders which restrict the factors of production they call labor and management, how could they keep the Mafioso out?

So, in order for libertarianism not to be laughed at its own convention, immigration is a forbidden subject. On of the best ways to ensure a productive, safe society is to keep it racially and culturally all-white or even all-Oriental IF the Orientals are committed to what they got from whites. Any discussion of this would be shouted down if a speaker managed to say it at a libertarian convention.

I talk about libertarianism first to demonstrate that, no matter how free they claim to be, every society, even the theoretical libertarian one, has a Forbidden Zone. That’s what makes it a society.)

The problem is that a forbidden zone is a fortress against thought, manned by those who represent Militant Ignorance. When the telescope was invented by Western Society the old cosmology was doomed. Today Political Correctness, which was built on the assumptions that animals have no borders and no war, and that all mental problems are Responses to environmental factors are dead and rotting while standing there backed by the forces of Militant Ignorance.

Each year more and more obvious nonsense has to be defended to defend the Forbidden Zone. While the rest of society marches on, that Forbidden Zone Wall gets higher and higher, pours down hot oil on the attackers until it finally collapses.

Those of us who spend out time talking precisely about the Forbidden Zone of our society have a lot to offer people. Those who refuse to read our stuff because it is Forbidden, whether you call Forbidden Heresy or Hate, miss it all.

Libertarians can never have a free society because they refuse to listen to the simple reality that it is the people who make up a society. By definition, libertarianism must ignore the people and insist that all that is needed to make a country free is for them to have lots of copies of Ayn Rand there.

I almost said all their free society needs is for everybody to READ Ayn Rand. But they have no way of enforcing that. The only way to keep this from coming up at a Libertarian Convention is to shout it down.

But the rest of us can get a chuckle and, more important, a piece of real world knowledge from exposing the Libertarian Forbidden Zone. Every philosophy has its Forbidden Zone, and Libertarianism is just an extreme since it claims to have n forbidden zone.

If you look at the first paragraph again, you will see this discussion covers point 1. We’ll deal with point 2) separately.

“Negroes Riot After Smoking Marijuana.” This is the sort of lead in newspapers that helped lead to the outlawing of marijuana and rigorous penalties against its use.

Thousands of Civil War veterans became addicted to opium during the War, and even more had to have it to deal with the pain and even more with the pains diseases caught in the War left them with. During the War it was called God’s Own Medicine, the only effective remedy for pain.

Tens of thousands of veterans ordered opium in the mail, because, as you read now, “They were addicted to it.” Most of them probably ordered it because it was the only thing that kept their painful lives bearable.

George Washington had several POUNDS of opium on his regular grocery list.

Opium could not be restricted until the Civil War Army had pretty well died out. And when the campaign against opium got going, it, like the campaign against marijuana, stated that opium was causing the inferior races to go nuts. Those who criticize the War on Drugs point this out in every documentary.

Drug laws got through on racial inferiority when THAT was popular. Nothing has really changed except that the “Violent Negroes” and “Dangerous Orientals” have become “children” and nut jobs.

But the basic concept has not changed at all. Everybody believes in Freedom, but we cannot let you or me have what might fall into the hands of chinks, jigs, or, more lately, children and psychos.

When someone says “Freedom is the right to do what you wish so long as it doesn’t affect others” they are demonstrating what happens when a concept becomes Wordist and capitalized. Everything you do outside your own skull affects others, and the Freedom types want to be sure the right thing happens inside your skull, too.

It is hard to imagine a society that is less free than one in which you are not allowed to own anything that psycho could misuse. Children are officially unfree. They must be taken care of, and both our political left and our right would cheerfully extent childhood to the grave.

There is a white powdery substance that, used wrongly, could kill a million Americans. But it is freely available. It is called sugar, and it can be fatal to diabetics. Yet candy is freely available even to children and irresponsible adults.

Some people make money selling sugar with no restrictions at all. This certainly violates the Wordist definition of Freedom. People die of sugar shock all the time.

But Wordism never has to face its own silliness. In an earlier generation Prohibition was brought in with overwhelming approval. In fourteen years we learned better. Even the most fanatical anti-alcohol Bible Belt states got rid of it.

But the War on Drugs will never stop. We are not the people who learned better. We NEVER ask whether the present prohibitions WORK. It is like guns: psychos kill with guns, children should not run around shooting unsupervised, so they must outlawed.

Not because prohibition WORKS, but because they SHOULD be outlawed.

Mantra Thinking ALWAYS concentrated on what WORKS and how things really work. Wordist thinking leads to Freedom, which is, as Orwell said, is slavery. You cannot be free without Mantra Thinking.