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 BoardAd. 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.