My nephew-in-law is a computer man who went to college in the late 1970s. He said the awful thing about that time was that young people were told, “It’s all over.”

The future was organizing the resources we have and reducing them so that we would do as little harm to the environment as we could. More recently, our established religion came up with a term for that: carbon count.

Carbon count is a VERY religious term. Man is innately evil. No one can live without a carbon count, precisely in the same way that no human being under our previous established religions could live without sin.

One Calvinist writer said that there were savages who rejoiced at death and mourned at the birth of a child. He said that they were right in the latter case, because that pagan child was born to be damned.

One may hear Christians saying, “Everyone deserves death,” meaning that we all deserve it, and only the intercession of Christ will save us from “”death,”” Notice I put two sets of quotes around that, because that has to be the most blatant use of a code word ever. They mean that everyone deserves Hell, compared to which death would be a mercy beyond comparison.

If you are raised in the Bible Belt the difference leaps out at you when they use that wimpy little “deserve death” bit.

Christianity rose with a preaching of the Gospel. To tell everybody that they deserve eternal agony and despair is not Good News. As Churches became institutions, here was less and less talk of Good News.
And churches that cold afford it filled up with graphic images of Hellish agony.

We have watched Progressivism do precisely the same thing. Early liberals were eugenicists and they looked to a Future of unlimited human progress. Like the early Gospel Christians, they sold Hope. As they became established their doctrine took on the color my niece-in-law suffered under.

The rule is clear enough: Growing faiths teach Hope, established faiths move toward Guilt. The early church was built on Salvation and the high morality the Church claimed. Once the Church got its privileges, the dream of rule by paragons and saints died.

So if they could not claim superior morality, the Church had to fall back on its power over Hell.

This is a conjecture, but in the case of Political Correctness it is far more obvious. Even in my lifetime Communists were claiming that their countries were catching up to the United States in creature comforts. A Workers’ Paradise was literally on the way.

Soviet Science claimed that it would conquer space beginning with Sputnik. All the inventions capitalists had claimed, all the real scientific progress that would lead to a better, more fun life, had actually been invented by Russians.

Few here even know that Progressivism was a Gospel, a Good News that would end all poverty, take us into space, and drive the Evil Ones out of existence.

Now there is no hope whatsoever in progressive or Marxist politics for things to get better for us. Now it is ALL Guilt. Now it is ALL about how we are sinning by wanting too much. Now we are all carbon producers, and our goal is to produce as little sin or carbon until we die.

It is as if, just as Saint Paul picked up the last stages of Zoroastrianism and put it into Christianity, Progressives took the last stages of Christianity and found it very useful for the last stage of their rule as the established religion which has failed.

I mentioned the eventual use of fusion power in an article, so Brian, as usual, went and looked it up.

I had the impression that they were still in the stage where it took a million watts to produce one watt by fusion, but it turns out that eleven countries are building a practical fusion generator and a lot of other stuff that I got from Brian.

I didn’t even know until recently that thermonuclear bombs have no radioactive fallout. It’s the A-Bomb needed to set off the hydrogen bomb that produces the radioactivity. But all the movies I used to see demanding Peace With the Soviet Union always indicated that the bigger the bomb, the more the fallout.

The point is, these were MY impressions. And I am willing to bet they are everybody else’s impressions except for a very tiny minority. So in passing I admit ignorance. But my ignorance is important, because it reflects the impression people in general have.

I have never seen ANYTHING about fusion energy being around the corner, and I am a documentary junkie. I see endless rows of fans generating electricity that are supposedly the Wave of the Future.

What gets to the public is a lot like the great scientists who agreed to bury the facts about global warming. But it seems to me this is getting a lot more blatant than it was just a generation ago.

Racial IQ differences was a hard fight, but compared to today, it was a fair one. We got suppressed, grants taken away, threats, the whole nine yards. At least we thought it was the whole nine yards.

But now it is getting really creepy. There should be a hundred documentaries on fusion energy. If it is being developed at all today it will be out of sight in a few decades. But it is not discussed.

The fact that NOBODY believes blacks and Hispanics will EVER cease to require affirmative action is a given. As I have said before, there not any group of people as totally and deeply convinced of natural white supremacy than you will find at an NAACP Fund Raiser.

But I was reading an article in the Wilson Quarterly which said that “people are even allowed to say in print that different races have different levels of intelligence.”

Meanwhile, the other side has given up. Rushton and Jensen get top billing in psychological journals, The Bell Curve’s brief discussion on race is conclusive of the debate.

This, as I say, is just plain creepy. Fusion produces no pollution, It will end the global planning effort completely. So how do they handle it?

Silence.

This is not a conspiracy. To use BUGS terminology, it is simply that there is no reason to produce this information.

One cannot counter silence with detailed information. There is no place to PUT the information.

That’s why it’s called Silence.

A normal person cannot fight this. A normal person would be embarrassed to admit he doesn’t even remember the facts Brian gave him, much less wow em with his expertise. But I am not trying to wow anybody.

My expertise is politics. My knowledge is what the average person is exposed to. I keep using the Mantra to hammer the first hole to start moving through.

As Horus points out, this is contrary to what movement people, particularly older ones, do. Above all else, they do not want to go into an argument and be shown lacking.

I couldn’t care less.

This is a war of repetition slamming against the Wall of Silence.

You can impress people or you can win.

Period.

I experienced the media bubble personally after the 1980 election. The media did not know anybody who had made the Reagan landslide.

And they were PROUD of it.

They even had ME on National Public Radio at least three times! They admitted freely that they didn’t know anybody in the group that had nominated and elected Reagan, but if you listen as carefully as I do, it was noticeable that they were no at all apologetic about it.

In any other country on earth, it would be considered a bit odd if no one in the media had any contacts in the group that just took over the government by popular vote. But the American media considered itself a world unto itself. You belonged to it because you did NOT belong to the masses.

Reporters who wanted to be “in” referred to American between New York and Los Angeles as “flyover country” even if that is where they worked

ESPECIALLY if that was where they worked. They had to work harder to prove they weren’t hicks.

This is a lot less blatant today, but it was absolutely universal when I was coming up. They made a point of it. As “inner circles” the media people pointed out that they didn’t know anybody in the Reagan ranks to show that they were above all that. Of course big city sophisticates didn’t know those people.

They also made a blatant point of who they DID know. I remember one time during the 1980 convention when they followed a liberal Republican around, someone they knew well, and he bitched constantly about how none of the people he had “worked with all these years” were there.

Well, if you are part of a group that has consistently lost both Houses of Congress for a generation, one might expect even the dumbass Republicans to cut them out, but that was of course never mentioned as a reason.

I got the impression he thought there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” at work.

And after Reagan got a landslide against a sitting president and led Republicans get to a majority in a House of Congress — the Senate — for the first time since 1952, they kept repeating that “the votes are in the middle of the road.”

Jerry Ford kept repeating that until he died, but he was the original person Lyndon Johnson said couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

Republicans won in 1980 and in 1994. Both times they went what the media called “far right.”

And today you can’t be a professional commentator unless you say, “the votes are in the middle of the road.”

The media are not in business to be right. If you are a member of the media, you have to answer to your own bureaucracy. I can’t remember anyone being punished for being dead wrong, as long as you are dead wrong saying what FITS.

Yes, it sounds like I am repeating what you already know. My problem is that everyone who SAYS the media are out of touch act like it is IN touch.

It is about time we started seeing this advantage as a PRACTICAL reality. It doesn’t do a hell of a lot of good to keep noticing that the other army makes a consistent set of errors unless you take advantage of them.

There is a difference between a legitimate business and a protection racket. Business PRODUCE. Protection rackets DESTROY.

White and Asian immigrants got there by production. Today the average Catholic has a higher income than the average Protestant. Asians made almost no use of the discrimination laws.

The reason blacks and their imitators wear their pants down to their knees is because people in jail aren’t allowed to wear belts. So blacks wear their pants down to show they are like those much-admired Tough Guys who end up behind bars.

You will never find a group of people as unanimously convinced of the innate inferiority of the black race than you will at an NAACP meeting. I am saying this from an understanding of people. No one at that meeting believes that blacks will EVER get anywhere near whites in accomplishment, no matter how they are educated or how many years go by.

If you can’t make it by accomplishment, the only alternative is protection. The civil rights movement didn’t really get going until the riots. The blacks only burned their own section of town, but you could see smoke around the Capitol Building.

The media stopped reporting on riots when they became general. This is confusing today, because those riots scared whites into passing the Voting Rights Act and gave a major boost to the black movement. You would think the media would have been delirious at this sign of black rebellion.

But this was the early sixties, and the media were as out of touch with Americans as they are today. So they simply stopped reporting on riots. They got tens of thousands of letters from white people who could see the smoke from their homes, but it became a Non-Happening.

All three networks suppressed any such news. Finally one anchor said, yes, there were riots, and he listed some of the cities they had occurred in, unreported. But it was certainly no apology. He had that New York City look on his face, irritated that they had demanded this and giving it to them just this once.

Now that we have for over a generation determined that blacks and liberals get what they want from protection, provided either by government punishment or violence, this silence on the part of the media back then seems strange.

But this is an important point: one of the things we have going for us is that the commentators and the experts on public opinion live in a bubble so isolated from reality that people don’t BELIEVE it, least of all the people who keep talking about Genius Conspiracies.

This is a good example.

The reason the media did not report the riots after Watts was because they were afraid of a White Backlash. The media did not realize the nature of the World War II Generation, and thought they were dealing with Americans who were capable of a backlash.

There were programs on TV until the 1960s showing the danger of lynch mobs, though there hadn’t been a lynch mob anywhere since before the Slave Generation took over. Dope dealers in schoolyards and child-killers who would have been lynched by actual Americans were being let go routinely by the courts.

But the media didn’t notice.

Eric Hoffer, who knew America intimately, laughed at the constant liberal saying in the 1960s that Americans were “a violent society.”

He said “Modern America is a bunch of sheep;” he pointed out, “We’re a nation of cowards.”

But the media kept believing in white resistance a generation after the Slave Crowd took over.

They didn’t know.

They hadn’t looked.

They had no one to ask.

The first thing a lion does when he takes over the pride is kill all the kittens fathered by his predecessor.

Monkeys will allow orangutans inside their territory, but they will kill another monkey who tries to get in.

Ants will eat anything they can, but they only make war against other ants. They do it out of pure prejudice. Those are another kind of ANT. They shall not pass.

Nothing is more unnatural than for ANY social animal to be at peace with other groups of its own kind.

The crucial point is that this is the OPPOSITE of what was considered natural before the latter part of the twentieth century. From Rousseau to Marx to Libertarians, it was assumed that animals had no borders, and no class system. All human institutions were the products of human IDEAS,

There was only one exception, survival of the fittest. But survival of the fittest was entirely INDIVIDUAL, not SOCIAL. Each individual animal fought each other animal. Beyond that, all was equal, all was borderless.

The simple fact is that this whole world view has been exploded. Totally destroyed. The question you might want to ask others is why this complete revolution in thought has affected NONE of the Wordist concepts we inherited from before it happened.

Nothing is more unnatural than The Family of Man. But before 1950 this was considered the only ALTERNATIVE to rule by single bullies, single killers, Darwinist animals of “nature red in tooth and claw.”

Nothing is more natural than that a single interbreedable animal holds its territory against ITS OWN KIND. Every social animal down to the ant is involved in war against groups of its own kind. The survival of the fittest is entirely a GROUP effort within the Family of Chimpanzees or the Family of Lions or the Family of Ants.

An orangutan is allowed into chimpanzee territory because it does NOT interbreed with them.

This is what every Wordist philosophy is, wholly unconsciously, BASED on. You form groups based on the Word, not on nature. The Marxist kills the Orthodox within his territory. A religion does not care what color you are, but it will kill you if you try to cross yourself the wrong way inside ITS territory.

Killings in the wars of feudalism were child’s play until we started getting wars of Religion.

Humans will always be divided. But each form of Wordism will declare, in the midst of a bloodletting five centuries from now, that they are Universal, that they make a Family of Man. When two Family of Man Universalisms go to war, there is no compromise possible.

But Wordism is a parasite. The fighting between two groups in nature is for one reason: the survival of the part of their kind which smells like them in the case of animals who are smell oriented, the survival of those who LOOK like them in cases, like man, where they are sight-oriented.

Non-racism simply means you adhere to one of the tens of thousands of forms of Wordism which exist for a Book and which takes all your efforts away from where nature PUTS them all, your genes. Wordism is pure parasite.

This is something you will have to deal with, so let me talk about it. Since you deal in the Mantra, unapologetic repetition is something you get used to.

I looked at the reviews in of my last book on Amazon. The only person who gave it low marks was the one who said he hadn’t read it. But almost everybody who reviewed it favorably complained that it was very repetitious.

It was repetitious as hell.

Look, gang, when you are writing a book to point out what a blind man should be able to see, how do you avoid repeating the exact same thing over and over? To me, someone like O’Reilly who just can’t understand why professors, who consider themselves Intellectuals and Idealists are leftists is an idiot.

I use the time advisedly, because idiot is technical term, legal, not medical. A moron is one who tests 50 to 70 on IQ tests. An imbecile is, legally, one who scores 30 to 50. An idiot is below 30.

Here we have a grown man who is being listened to respectfully by millions who cannot understand why a clique which defines ITSELF as Idealists and Intellectuals goes all out insisting that Idealists and Intellectuals, instead of businessmen or working people, should take over the world.

How can anybody but an idiot not SEE that? But when I pointed it out for decades, all I got was the cowlike look from whoever I was talking to, and then a comment on recent comments on recent events. Then they would completely miss the basic point.

So the book sounds a lot like the way I felt when I wrote it, like a person shoving a puppy’s nose in its poo, trying to say, “This is what it is.” You have to do over and over and over and some puppies NEVER get it.

The puppy wants to make up for it by showing you how much he loves you or how cute he is.

And all puppies, by definition, are idiots.

Now that BUGs is giving me some MINDS to talk to, I would do the book better.

I am always concerned about being repetitious here. If I knew that everyone here had been reading this blog for years it would move much faster. But we are in the opposite position. Not only am I dealing with new readers, my regular readers are themselves involved in missionary work.

And the repetition keeps ME on track. Writing is, when you come right down to it, talking to yourself. One of the sure marks of a beginning writer is that he misses steps. He goes right on and you wonder what the hell he is talking about. He is writing about something that seems obvious to him, but took him YEARS to figure out, and he expects the reader to follow right along.

Our work is a bit like math. You have to go all the way to the basic assumption and go through the basic stuff each time. But God knows I don’t want to make my stuff as boring as math classes!

We don’t have compulsory attendance laws to allow us to make our teaching a torture they have to sit through by law. Math could be made interesting, but, as with all monopolies, the product just gets worse and worse. We don’t have that luxury.

I think the reason you don’t complain about my going right back to repeating the assumptions and the instances is because you have to do it yourself. A good writer, like a good preacher, will tell you that the audience had better know at least 95% of what he is telling them. The reader or listener should go back through the basic stuff effortlessly, and be willing to do it because he want to know where you are going THIS TIME.

New preachers have a way of telling their congregation the stuff they learned in theology school. As one old guy complained, “All I heard was a lot about the Nebadrezzers and the Whoopdedooinites and I didn’t understand a word of it.” It takes YEARS for a young preacher to learn to talk to PEOPLE, and most of them never do.

You go into a big church packed with people and the young seminarians will think the preacher is an old ignorant buffoon, “THIS guy has a DOCTORATE in Theology?” But they couldn’t get twenty of the thousand people sitting in that church to come back voluntarily after their first sermon.

The old preacher spends almost all of his time reminding people of what they are familiar with. As CS Lewis said, “Prophets do not come into the world to tell us new truths, but to remind us of the old ones.” That couldn’t describe BUGSers better.

We are here reminding people of what simple loyalty is, how stupid a person looks when he is repeating nonsense and thinking he is being smart.

Successful preachers, like prophets, go back over what the listener is familiar, but they also know he is GOING SOMEWHERE with it. He is tying the old strings into a new knot. Prophets tell people the old truths, but they remind them of how those old instances apply to the new situation.

My political specialty, which no one else seem to be able to do, was getting into grassroots movements of working people, the ones later called Reagan Democrats.

Truck Roy is too young to know about my work with the Independent Truckers, when we shut the whole Washington, DC area down. He is an actual, honest-to-Betsy Trucker, so he knows ABOUT that. I personally got it going, but, as Ben Franklin advised, I let others have the “credit.”

It was easy to do. I did the press releases. But by then I was already famous among grass-roots protestors.

I was happy to note that a Stormfronter who is a member of the Electrical Workers International HAD heard of my work with them in Louisville, where he resides.

Pretty good for something I did almost three decades ago.

Conservatives were always talking about REACHING The Working People. They would ask me what The Secret was. I told them, “We found out what they needed and provided it.”

They KEPT asking me what the Secret was. Then they would meet with each other and talk about Reaching the Working People.

Then they would once again ask me what the Secret was.

The Communist Daily World, organ of the CPUSA, denounced my Populist Forum as a huge, heavily financed organization. Part of the huge right-wing conspiracy, you know. There were three of us, and we had no budget. The CPUSA always claimed it Spoke For the Working Class, but they didn’t know any more actual working stiffs than conservatives did.

Our Secret was safe from THEM.

The conservatives would ask me once again what the Secret was. Then they would go back and meet on the question of How to Reach the Working Class.

Does this begin to sound familiar? Does it make it clear to you why I am not exactly stupefied by the fact that I keep winning battles in front of them and people see me do it and then never follow my example?

Well, I had learned the why of this before I started getting into the grassroots revolts of working folk.

My formula was, “Find out what they need and provide it.”

Provide what?

Well, the problem was that the people who wrote and spoke for a living couldn’t reach the grassroots protests of working people against things like offensive textbooks and busing.

What WAS this unbridgeable gap? It was the fact that they didn’t know any working people and the working people didn’t know any people who were on their side and who could write and speak professionally.

So our press man would call up grassroot groups and ask if they could use us three people who spoke and wrote for a living. Once they found out we really would, we got more calls than we could handle. In other words, if the gap is between people who can do public relations and working people, you can bridge it by offering your work TO the working people because it is just what they need.

Find out what they need and provide it.

I got some writing money from National Review and a couple of other conservative publications, but we never charged a nickel and we never had a budget.

Conservative money was going into financing huge conventions dedicated to discussing How to Reach the Working People. At one I happened to attend, a woman I met had just attended a large seminar discussing — guess what? — my own first book.

I didn’t know about that seminar or the many others like it, though there were a lot of them at those Seminars about Reaching the Working Class Protests.

It never occurred to me that the convention-holders, who knew I was there, would even consider having ME address the group at all. Have you ever heard of a group that had seminars on a book in a place where they knew the author was and didn’t ask him to sit in?

The point I am making is that I not only didn’t resent it, I would have be flabbergasted if they had asked me to be there. They were raising money on DISCUSSIONS on how to Reach the Working People, not on someone who was DOING it.

Does any of this begin to sound familiar, Mantra-Folk?

The next person who comforts me with the words. “You’re only as old as you feel,“ I am going sucker punch.

I am an old Southerner. This makes me a complete alien to the Youth Culture. I have gained many years and much experience and that is one reason I presume to speak.

It makes me SICK to see someone older trying to fit in with the young folks, to be cool, to use the lingo. It reminds me of a transvestite.

In fact it only recently occurred to me that almost nobody today would call his statements “porch talk,” because that means he is definitely older. I suppose they’d be rappin’ with the other young folks, as young as they feel.

The world NEEDS older folks. You don’t hand down your experience and your culture by acting like it’s the same thing every young person hears regularly from other young people. Why the hell would they want to hear a bad imitation of their friends?

BGlass was a little put out with me when I described her as he. I also had no idea that she was so young. Neither makes any difference. In this case, though I am loathe to admit it, I am really not prejudiced. BGlass impresses the hell out of me, and would do so if she was a 50-year-old he.

Most of the people who talk endlessly about “reaching the young people” have the sort of exchange with young people that I have with BGlass and the relatively aged Brian. In BUGS you make sense or you don’t.

To me, being older is a QUALIFICATION, not a handicap. There are a lot of things an older person can tell you that a younger person can’t. There’s damned little that an older person who is trying to be hip can say that would be worth a young person’s time to listen to.

I don’t know if SF still has a photograph section any more. I thought it was a wonderful defiance of the Thought Police. I would also comment on the pretty girls. Several people, male and female, enjoyed my jokes.

I said, “I LOVE Stormfront! Where else can an old man drool over pictures of pretty girls and get COMPLIMENTED for it?”

I was raised in a society where old folks had a place, a very GOOD place, a very HONORED place. In a society, I mean in a REAL society, we have always been a critical, indispensable part of the continuum. I can’t think of it any other way, and I’m glad of that.

It must be AWFUL to think that every year you live makes you less qualified to Fit In. I am being one of the old folks I admired and listened to on the porch, and it is an honor.

When I first went to London in 1959, Hyde Park was a unique place in the world. It had been set apart as the one place on earth where a person could get up and say ANYTHING.

The ONLY place on earth where there were no obscenity laws, no bans on preaching violent revolution. Inciting to riot was Ok in Hyde Park, and the result was that no one ever rioted there. The English were very proud of it.

You can still be obscene in Hyde Park, but that does not violate Political Correctness. To a member of the Church of Political Correctness, obscenity IS free speech.

But if you are not a Wordist, you look beyond some Words to explain titanic national differences.

The point is that those who say that the American Bill of Rights is what protects free speech here is Wordist nonsense. Britain has a Constitution, too, though it is not written. That Constitution became as committed to free speech as the authors of our Bill of Rights.

There was not a single Hyde Park anywhere in America. Before the Crown versus Joseph Pierce, British Courts had repeatedly ruled that if what one said was true, it could not be outlawed. In an early Hate Crimes case the deciding Opinion said, “There is no law against an Englishman telling the truth.”

This was based on the English Constitution.

An amendment makes a huge prop for a Wordist, but we have seen what the courts did to the Second Amendment. The first amendment is no bar to anything.

The reason became subject to the Thought Police is because it is Europe, a category in which I include Canada and the blue states.

A Wordist says a country is made up of its words. So naturally they stop explaining the difference between England and America by quoting the first amendment. If you think about it, if you understand like any literate person what a court can do to a few words in the Constitution, this is laughable.

But nobody laughs.

Even Wordists know that if you took the entire population of Mexico and put them here, and moved the present Americans, we would have a Mexico here. But they declare that if you do it a little at a time, it is Bigotry to say the people make any difference.

The people make the country, not the words. There lies is the fundamental error of Wordism.

Wordists cannot fathom the basic difference between Americans and Europeans. They certainly cannot deal rationally with the concept of race.

Ann Coulter was shocked when she tried to speak in Canada. She had thought American Universities were bad, but the howling mob that greeted her in Canada was something else. Before this a professor at that same Citadel of Free Speech had warned her that she might end up in prison under Canada’s Hate Speech laws.

Yes, Virginia, it really IS different here.

There is a basically genetically different American population. In 1955, the last time it was allowed, it was estimated that over fifty percent of the blood of white people came from people who were here before the Constitution. And at the time of the Constitution, “we the people” had a higher percentage of native-born whites than we have ever had before or since.

Today this percentage is probably about the same. Why? Because areas of heavy immigration at the end of the last century have not been having children. This may seem strange given the idea that Catholics have endless number of children, but that has not been true for some time.

If you have an idea what the word “Catholics” means today. Names in the Northeast do tend toward “Catholic” names, Italian or Polish, but precious few of them are still “Catholic” in this sense. They belong to Mommy Professor, not the Pope.

Population in the “blue” states is dropping like a rock. Thee is no way to be sure, but I have a feeling that the population descended from the pre-1787 Americans is still in the habit of having more than one child, often three or more.

How does this relate to Ann Coulter’s shock in Canada? It has to do with the population only Eric Hoffer ever talked about, the Americans who in his day resided in what was called “flyover country.” I understood what he was talking about, but you can get lost in definitions.

Hoffer said that the Kennedys were loved in Europe because they were Europeans. New Englanders generally are. There is no difference in the thinking of Canadians and the thinking of Brits.

There is no difference in the thinking that dominates the “blue” states and the thinking of Europeans.

If you don’t understand that, I’ve lost you.

Michael Novak wrote the book Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics in which he coined the word WASP, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. I had lunch with him once and pointed out that I got along with “ethnic” Catholics, who actually often chose me to speak for them, better than I did with New England WASPs.

I pointed out to him that what he meant by WASPs was “Yankees.” HE AGREED. But Novak is a theologian, and therefore a psychopath. He had not the slightest difficulty in admitting he had lied because he could not have been published if he had said the real thing.

I was able to speak for the “ethnics” because by and large the ones who went to college have gone from total obedience to the Pope to total obedience to Mommy Professor. The steel workers and Southies I dealt with had become Americans.

Meanwhile a major portion of “ethnics” and “WASPs” had gone to college and became Europeans.

I wonder if readers understand what I am talking about.

This understanding which no commentator would understand — if he did, he wouldn’t be allowed to commentate, as Novak well understood — is the basis of the politics of the last half of the twentieth century.

What elected Reagan was the old combination, Southerners and Northern Irish and Italians and Poles, who moved from being the base of the Democratic Party to the Republican base. In order to put them all in a Wordist framework commentators call them “cultural conservatives.”

This is a combination that goes back before Andrew Jackson. In commentator terms there could not be a less possible combination than the Bible Belt Southerners and the Catholic ethnics who almost WERE the Democratic Party for over a century.

They certainly were not “cultural conservatives” in the 1850s. Midwest Republicans were as glued to their Bibles as any O’Hara in Chicago was to his bishop.

This coalition was WEIRD, but when I talked to a Chicago steelworker I didn’t need a translator the way I did in academia. That’s why they had no trouble with me speaking for them.

Let me end this excursion by going back to Ann Coulter’s experience. On campuses, the Beast is loose. But its power is limited by a lot of old Americans, Southern and ethnic and survivals like backbaygrouch.

What Ann Coulter saw, but could never understand, is that when she went to Canada, it was not just the Constitution that made the difference. What she saw was what happens when there are no Old Americans around.

So if the nationalists are going to wimp out on us the way respectable conservatives did, what is our hope for the future, and why does Bob root for them so much?

In order to save our race, we need two things: 1) a desire to do it and 2) a means to do it.

A BUGser just got 2800 hits in one day on the Mantra! More and more SFers, I am told, are making the Mantra THEIR Mantra. No matter how their leaders cower back, the MESSAGE that any Nationalist Party advances in Europe helps the Mantra hugely.

It makes the unmentionable come true. The Parties are likely to fail, not least because they are not smart enough to use the Mantra. But the more the old political certainties are violated, the easier spreading the Mantra becomes.

And there are a LOT of violations coming. Like “liberal,” the word Diversity is rapidly becoming un-chic.

And that is more important than any election.

It is not political policy that will save our race, it is the OPEN DESIRE to do so.

I have been writing my fingers off about the future, so maybe someone noticed. With fusion power and space-based solar power or whatever else is coming along while they show spacemen writing on slates and solar wheels spinning, if we make saving our race a legitimate priority, it will happen.

Attempts to build all-white communities repeatedly fail because they are a major effort. But new communities will be a matter of choice with an advance of technology. Already BUGS is more of a community than most of us have with our next-door neighbors.

We must get rid of the taboo on saving our race.

The problem with predictions of the future is that they assume they know HOW things will go. That is fatal, as, if you want to read my articles then read what I write about the future again with this in mind, as I keep saying.

Have you ever noticed something about white flight? It is not conservative flight. It is not Christian Flight. It is not liberal flight. Despite the fact that many of the Negroes believe in the Book just as much as the Christian who would love to have a nice, Christian black man for his daughter’s husband, white flight never checks to see what Book a guy drools about.

It is national policy not to search a young Moslem for boarding a plane any more than an eighty-year-old white woman. But everyone knows this is insane.

In 1950, at the beginning of the Korean War, the congress debated a provision that draftees be allowed to choose all-white units, mixed units or all-black units. It was defeated for a very good reason: All the whites would go to the all-white units.

Precious few of the whites who SCREAM that the color of the skin is nothing refuse to join in the White Flight.

One of the absolute requirements to be a respectable conservative is to deny that white people would not choose to live in an all-white society. This is especially required if you want to be a respectable libertarian.

If the liberal media require something for respectability, it is sure to be what Screwtape called, “A good, solid, resounding lie.” Actually, C.S. Lewis was referring to “equality” in that passage, but it is the same thing.

People used to live where they worked. Technology is making it more and more a matter of choice.

It takes a LOT of DAILY pressure to keep ANYONE from having ANY openly all-white community. The Mantra legitimizes it.

And once White Flight starts,, it doesn’t stop.

One guy in the 60′s read an article on Nazi Parties of the world. One was in Latin America, and it pushed assimilation, including interracial marriage, the official policy of ALL Latin countries for centuries. A guy summed it up nicely, “All they’ve got in common with the German Nazi Party is a stiff right arm.”

Most fascists, like Libertarians, are fanatically anti-white. Like Heinlein, who touted anything with uniforms including the Boy Scouts, they are obsessed with shiny boots and a police state. In short they have a Wordism of their own and race gets in the way.

The actual German NSDAP made race treason a very minor crime. As with all anti-Left Wordist, any racism they showed was incidental.

The same is true of Nationalism. Many a European Nationalist would be offended if you divided Frenchmen or Swedes along color lines. Nationalist Parties are the enemies of our enemies, but they are NOT part of us.

And as one who has practiced politics for decades, let me assure you that the closer they come to becoming part of a ruling coalition the less racist they will be. Those mythical minority votes they are trying to get by denouncing racism are a hypnotic lure that the media know how to dangle.

There is also the matter of government. Fascists and nationalists tend to identify their “nation,” not by its race, but as their government.

If there was one thing all the Founding Fathers did NOT want to do in 1787, it was to found a NATION. If
anyone had said they were founding a nation, not a single state would have put the Constitution up for ratification.

If this was true in 1789 it was even more true in 1776. When Lincoln said that the Declaration of Independence “founded a nation” it was the very essence of the Big Lie. NOBODY who signed the Declaration thought of the United States as a NATION. Until he became President, Washington referred to “my country” as Virginia, as did every single other Signer.

The Declaration of Independence, contrary to what Lincoln said, was a Declaration of INDEPENDENCE.

Lincoln declared that a new nation based on equality was founded in 1776. The World War II Generation declares itself “one hundred percent American,” which to them means exactly what it does to a fascist, a bunch of guys in uniforms worshipping the Constitution. One hundred percent Americans cannot be divided by race.

National Socialism has the same problem Parkinson pointed out about Democratic Socialism and Social Democrats. You have a name which includes both a means and an end. If socialism is not good for the nation, what will the National Socialist choose? This conflict was one of the reasons for the abolition of the SA and the Night of the Long Knives.

What if, as has proven to be the case, the democracy does not WANT what you choose to call socialism? The Labour Party in Britain now rejects the government ownership of the means of production and distribution with the fanaticism of a respectable conservative rejecting anything anyone chooses to call racism.

What does a Democratic Socialist DO when he can’t GET socialism through democracy?

No one asks that except me and the long-dead Parkinson.

People do not THINK about it. They don’t think that democracy is a means and socialism is an end.

People assume that anyone who dreams of shining his boots and marching in the streets is racial because the media says so.

The media do not always tell the exact truth.

Even the media are aware of “slow news days,” but it will be a long cold day in the The Bad Place before someone who gets paid to be obsessed with the Latest News understands that there are always slow news DECADES.

When we look back on history slow news years are easy to see. Before the railroad, the bit news was internal canals. You can still those canals with historical markers on them. They were the “internal improvements” Hamilton wanted to hurry onto.

When I was studying the third world, then “underdeveloped countries,” in the fifties and sixties, the big deal was building dams. The reason for this was that a dam was something that could be planned by planners as one giant project.

The PROBLEM with dams was that it could be planned by planners in one giant project. Like everything else planned by Mommy Professors Little Professors coming out from Harvard and Cambridge, they didn’t do anything. If you take a mass of unskilled poverty stricken people in an economy of planned stagnation and build a dam, you get a country that has poverty stricken people with a dam.

Back then, all Mommy Professors talked about Liberation coming to Africa and how the underdeveloped countries were becoming the Developing Countries.

You simply do not hear about Africa today, and the obsession with economic statistics has totally ended. Today, with a price system and exploitation, under developing countries are developing at a rate that would have front page news if it had happened under Mommy Professor’s socialist graduates back then.

Like the end of starvation, you can tell something is happening by the total silence of the media.

Back in the canal days, finished canals were treated the way dams were in socialist tracts. But with the exception of the Erie Canal, they had as much effect on the economy as the dams did. With dams and canals, the news was touted because big interests were tied up in them.

But in the real world, transportation in the early nineteenth century was a slow news time. In 1830 the same transportation system existed that had existed in the Roman Empire, though the roads weren’t as good.

Likewise we are in a slow news time which is filled up by gurgling praise and pictures of wind power and earth-based solar power. It reminds me of the old science fiction stories, where astronauts traveling to Mars sat around and took notes on clipboards.

Fusion power is on its way. It will make this wind and earth-based solar crap as out-of-date as the canals when the railroad hit. Solar power from space is a likely competitor.

I used to enjoy reading back issues of the London Times. When the French Revolution came on, they had a Giant Leap Forward in communications technology. A tower was built on the French side and semaphore signals got the latest news to London in four days.

But very few people are aware of that Great Leap Forward today. Ben Franklin was the one great expert on electricity at the time, and he laughed when people said it might have practical applications someday.

Most people dedicate themselves to what is on the news. Commentators make the news sound as important as they can.

I gave up on the Mantra on Stormfront because everybody wanted to talk about Iraq. I did my programs and quit because whatever was on the news was what they wanted to talk about.

The London Times’ Great Leap Forward is forgotten. No one refers to the Third World today as underdeveloped or developing.

They weren’t wrong. They were worse than wrong. Everything they talked about was totally irrelevant, like those clipboards in space.

But the fact that current news is out of the ballpark has been the case for centuries, and nobody seems to notice.

Anyone who is not a liberal in our society is a “conservative.” There is the Established Church and there are the Others. This can get confusing.

If you are the sort of moron who is easily confused.

The fact that there was an Established Church and Others in England does not make a Baptist the same thing as a Catholic. But if you are a truly dumb rube of the kind Cambridge pours out, you could easily not know the difference.

They used to turn out Established Church Anglicans who thought that it would be Lowah Clahss to know the difference between a Baptist and a Presbyterian. Established Church Political Correctness has the same attitude.

You are either Us or you are Them. If you are Them, the only distinction is between those who know how to grovel to their Betters, now called respectable conservatives, and those who simply don’t know their Place.

This is not a special observation. One reason I see the world so clearly is because I recognize that some things represent no change at all. It is part of the Established Religion to really believe that people in 2010, Modern People, are really different from those in 1910.

The most common argument for Political Correctness is simply to say “This is 2010.” That fogs your mind, it draws a curtain over a simple understanding of humanity.

Yesterday’s self-styled Better Clahss thought of themselves as Aristocrats or Captains of Industry. Today’s think of themselves as Idealists and Intellectuals. Your mind has to be pretty far gone in the “This is the Magic 2010” not to see that nothing has changed.

The Propah Attitude of the Uppah Clahss has changed. Now to prove you went to college you have to have the propah outlook. If you really think that because the propah attitudes have changed this is a New Age, you really have to have your head in the sand.

It has been truly said that a major reason so many Southerners are liberal is because they are one generation from white trash. At least Mommy Professor defined their parents as white trash, meaning they did not finish college.

So the guy rejects Mommy and Daddy’s ideas for this big, smart Mommy Professor’s. Mommy Professor has never been anywhere or done anything, but he tells them he’s Educated, just as the Slave Generation’s Sergeant told them he was Tough.

Man is a very suggestible animal. Morons are the most suggestible of all. It is more interesting to talk with a tape recorder than with one of Mommy Professor’s Southerners.

But he really thinks he’s being Uppah Clahss.

Mommy Professor, like their ideals in New York City, call all Southerners “hillbillies.” I remember one referring to CAJUNS as “hillbillies.” Most Cajuns historically lived and died without SEEING a hill.

Not only does the Uppah Clahss not know this, they are PROUD of not knowing it, in the same way their direct forebears would be proud not to understand Cockney. A Southern liberal is proud to pretend not to know the difference between a hillbilly and a Cajun.

As usual, the way to deal with them is to show them how silly they look. That is, after all, all they care about. And it’s FUN!

No matter how creative you would like to be, you simply can’t say, “Well, that IS the standard opinion” often enough. They got those ideas from Smart People whose ideas are original, not like their white trash parents who never went to college.

They really BELIEVE that. But when you burst their bubble, they know enough now to know what your attitude toward them is.

And, to repeat, that is all they really care about.

PCs are very often reduced almost literally to TEARS when you insist that everything they say is what it is, pure standard and packaged Yuppie stuff.

And the truer what you say is, the more it rocks them.