Al Parker asked obliquely what my opinion was on White Rabbit. Well, I wear the tee shirt Horus sent me.

Horus, BBG, Lord Nelson, Truck Roy, BGlass, the invaluable Brian, all would have plenty to argue about but all are making their own places in the intellectual job BUGS is doing.

But the problem with FOLLOWERS as opposed to seminar members is that you have to compliment them or be their Grand Inquisitor. I spent a whole career dealing with constituents — followers — and that is a major burden it is a relief to put down.

A person who makes his living the way I did has to come up with an approach to every single issue. But no matter how obsessive compulsive a person may be, can he actually have opinions, or even a point of view, on everything?

If you don’t you are damned with that worst of all statements, “So you just don’t CARE about” abortion/ starving children/ the environment or what ever else was in the newspaper yesterday.

Not only do I care about very few questions, I no longer HAVE to. I spent a LOT workaholic years getting to be retired, and one of the privileges of that status is that I don’t HAVE to act interested in the musings of constituents or congressmen whose entire heads are crammed full of this week’s newspapers.

When I made my living this way I had to worry about giving each person his due. I don’t give White Rabbit his due. I don’t give Trucker Roy his due. I don’t’ give Lord Nelson the praise he deserves. Hell, I can’t even fit in all the people a good PR man or politician or even a good fanatic should note.

Clearly the people who stick with me are not greatly offended. Another thing one is supposed to be is Militantly Modest. But I have retired from the semi sainthood one had to maintain as a Public Figure which required a total abrogation of Self and all that other crap.

Some people give Dave a hard time for praising me so often. Dave remembers that I criticized him for getting off OUR subject and I said that I would be happy if he would just keep mentioning my name. It’s a good trick for forcing yourself back from wandering away intellectually,

But also now that I am no longer a professional politico I can admit that it is not just my constituents’ egos that need a little boosting. I can’t imagine that anyone is so naïve he doesn’t realize that while overdoing it turns people off, everybody needs some ego boost.

I do not want to create a Whitakerism. But in BUGS, I like the way people keep using my name where it fits. This is BOB’S Seminar. We have a VERY wide-ranging set of ages and education and all the rest, so the only point of unity is the Old Man.

And my ambition as I keep repeating, is to have Bob’s Seminar go on long after Ole Bob dies or is put in the funny farm. That will be when your understanding of exactly where I fit in the pattern will be absolutely critical. You are well aware of how groups split when the central character is no longer there.

This is the home of the Mantra. This is the central point of Mantra Thinking. Bob is connected to THAT.

I am not a subtle person and my statements are deliberately about as obscure as a hand grenade. My basic points are few but you can apply them to anything. Nobody has less trouble than BUGS readers in telling when a commenter has wandered off the point and is trying to his own personal world view on things, rather than BUGS logic.

What you can use is my approach, not my opinion. Long after I am dead one should not read my BUGS writings for my opinions, but for my way of thinking.

That, and ONLY that, is the reason Ole Bob’s name is important here.

It is useful to point out to people that the reason Hitler failed to take over Germany in the 1930s was because they had Hate Laws. This is why their tactic was not to say someone was a Jew, but rather to give the entire name to show they were Jewish.

A lot of people back then noted that Hitler was he only major politician who couldn’t say what he meant. Communists could call for blood in the streets but, as in America today, you had to hire them anyway. Today you cannot fire someone for advocating violent class revolution but you can fire someone for having a Confederate flag INSIDE their lunch box.

There were many Jews in the Fascist Party until Mussolini became attached to Hitler about 1938. It was a law and order party, not a racist one. Latins are traditionally only interested in church and language, not race.

The Lega Norda just elected the first black mayor of Rome, her black half being American. She’s an Obama Democrat, but there are precious few Europeans who AREN’T Obama Democrats.

As I keep saying, Canada, Australia and Europe are politically American blue states. The population of the blue states is dropping the way the population of Europe is.

In the immediate future, I expect the European right to get more and more what the Brits call “wet.” This means moderate but with the straight weakness thrown in. Even “wets” like the term a lot less than Republicans moderates like their word.

But in a Europe where the Mantra keeps getting repeated, even though the BNP has lost the guts to repeat it, the goal of saving our race becomes the major target of the rank-and-file. White areas become more militantly white. But only if we keep hitting the rank-and-file with the Mantra.

European media simply cannot BELIEVE that a continent whose whole history for a human lifetime has been HITLER is now voting for nationalist parties again. NR quoted one poll showing that 20% of British voters would CONSIDER voting for the BNP.

They TELL pollsters that! There is a LOT of difference between what people will do in the ballot box and what they tell pollsters who all look like they just stepped out of Political Correctness HQ.

We don’t have resources to put into any politics, least of all Europe’s. But we are also not interested in electing anybody. We have no IMMEDIATE interests, and 99% of all political resources go into immediate or near-term political results.

On the PC side the 1% aimed at the long-term has been co-opted. It now provides jobs for people to get people together for a Revolution. This has gotten so out of favor that the World Council of Churches doesn’t even send supplies to Red Terrorists any more.

We are the only game in town, in the Global Village, so to speak. Anti-shark hunters are out there in multimillion dollar boats getting paid to protect sharks. A million student “radicals” demanding Revolution are old hat and always run into the embarrassing fact that everybody now knows that their only evolution is a bureaucrat-ridden nightmare that will collapse of its own accord.

The Mantra is classic and it is unique. All we need is for a good proportion of whites to become aware of their right to survive. Anti-discrimination will go the way of Prohibition. IF we do OUR work.

An open society is not a society. By definition, a society is defined by its constituting a segment of humanity that adheres to a special set of rules. Those who do not adhere to that set of rules are outside of that society.

One guy I know was talking with a rabbi and said that the Jewish refusal to eat pork was based on dangers they had known about pork in Biblical days. The rabbi replied, “No. We don’t eat pork because we are JEWS.”

Jews are the only group for whom their society is not considered temporary. Blacks can have black identity for now, but in the long run they are supposed to become Multicult. But Jews are expected to go on forever.

Hitler, you know.

Mommy Professor says that Jews will always be a separate people, but the rest of mankind will be united under their Wordist Multicult.

Modern biology shows us that nothing is more unnatural than for an interbreedable social species to become a single society. So as national borders weaken Wordist borders are substituted for them.

As Lawrence Brown pointed out in some detail in Might of the West, this has happened before. In the Levantine Civilization of the Middle East, religions became what we would call nations. The Jews had their own courts and Moslems had their own legislation and the Orthodox Church had its own state institutions.

The Emperor controlled the Church in the East. So the concept of Church-State relations is alien to that society. Until the rise of Islam the dominant nation in that society was the Orthodox Church. But it was dominant in the same sense that a powerful European state can dominate Europe. The smaller countries continue to function as countries.

Islam allowed other Jehovist faiths to continue within its dominion. This was not so much a doctrine as it was a treaty between nations. If a country in Europe is dominant for a long period of time it may absorb other countries around it. But it does not begin by absorbing everything that it dominates.

People talk about the enormous Tolerance Islam has for other faiths because they do not understand history. You may as well give Napoleon credit for his Tolerance in allowing Prussia to remain a separate country after its defeat and occupation.

Like Napoleon, Islam was dealing with the nations of Christianity and Judaism. The cost of wiping them out on the spot would have been enormous. They were absorbed.

This policy was especially obvious in the case of Persia. All of Persia was Zoroastrian, but there were also Zoroastrians outside of Persia proper. Mani was in Iraq. But when Islam conquered the homeland of Zoroastrianism, it had to make a treaty with it.

This caused a lot of trouble. Persia was the first country to go straight to Islamic rule which had not previously been Christian. In every other country Islam conquered, the Church had destroyed the pagans as an organized force. It also allowed Jews to remain. So to that point Islam made a treaty with the nations of Christianity and Judaism, both of which recognized Jehovah.

Iran was a new thing entirely. Islam allowed Zoroastrians, like Christians and Jews, to practice their national religion. A lot of Moslems felt about this the way the Allies at the Treaty of Vienna in 1815 felt about recognizing a former Napoleonic marshal who was heir to the thrones of Norway and Sweden. He was not Legitimate.

But officially Islam accepted the Zoroastrian Holy Book as Revealed Truth, and so the Zoroastrian religion was allowed to continue to exist, and still has a few adherents in Iran today.

But that was not Tolerance. It was a Treaty recognizing the nation as it existed in the Levantine world at that time, as a religion.

We all know about the Khazars. Their pagan nationality was not recognized by Islam and they had to accept some form of Jehovism, so they became Jews. But a religion with two thousand years of dominance in Iran could not be brought down at a cost acceptable to its Islamic conquerors, any more than the Legitimists at the Treaty of Vienna were willing to invade Norway or Sweden to take down the last non-Legitimist monarchial settlement left from Napoleon’s rule.

This was not tolerance. It was recognition that a sovereign if small country had made its choice.

Western historians cannot imagine different nationalities existing inside the same borders, so they glory in the Tolerance of Islam. This is essential to the claim made by each branch of Wordism that it is Universal and will Unite Humanity.

Levantine history shows that Wordism can separate people as totally and far more brutally than any border could ever do.

I feel that I do understand Jesus in ONE way others do not. Jesus was, after all, a man, and as a man I understand how he was frustrated near to tears by his followers’ ability to use his words and completely miss his POINT.

Attention deficit makes coming up with examples on the spot very hard, but I do have a couple and have noticed many more.

For example, the Lord’s Prayer. That section was not about the prayer, it was about the fact that a fish is a fish. The Lord’s Prayer was an EXAMPLE of how one could talk straight to God.

It was not, in fact, the Lord’s Prayer.

The example Jesus gave was a bit of a shock to those who heard it. The idea was that you didn’t just tell God what was on your mind. If laymen cod do that, what would the Priests of the Temple do for a living?

So we Praise the Lord, which is exactly the kind of thing the Lord’s Prayer is a good example of NOT doing. That is probably why the last part, telling God how fine he was, was added to Jesus’ own words.

“The poor we have with us always” is always a favorite for some paid clergyman who wants to talk about Relevant Social Issues. If you read the text, it had nothing to do with the poor or with social issues. Jesus could have said the rich we have with us always. His point was that at that moment, he himself was standing in front of the crowd, and it was no time to get stuck on the State of the Poor or other current events.

When Jesus had the Last Supper, he instituted an entirely new custom just when Jews were supposed to be celebrating Passover. That was an enormous precedent, but I haven’t seen it discussed as such. Like his statement to the Jews that no one cold have salvation except through him, it as not the sort of thing the Society of Christians and Jews likes to dwell on.

If Jesus couldn’t do it, I sure as hell can’t. But it would be nice if commenters would at least mention the point I actually made before going on to their world view. World view is what General Discussion is for.

But it’s not a critical point. I just don’t want comments to be used the way “Christians” use the Gospels to get off the POINT that was made.

I have mentioned before that Dave uses my name a lot and gets criticism for it. He is supposed to be currying my favor.

For WHAT?

No, I encourage Dave to use my name to keep him on the point. It wouldn’t hurt if other commenters used a similar discipline, being sure they give a moment to being sure that they at least read the article they are talking about.

They damned well better, or I will withdraw all my wildly valuable Curried Favor from them.

I have said many times that when a respectable conservative is called a racist, he goes into fetal position and pees on himself. What he NEVER does is ask “What is a racist?”

In fact if anyone DOES ask “What is a Racist?” it will be the guy earning his bread as a professional respectable NON-liberal who will lead the lynch mob against him. There is a commonsense point here. Liberals are not afraid of economic arguments, gun control arguments, or abortion arguments.

But the media is closed to anyone who mentions race. In fact, the word “racist” is used today in exactly the same way “Jew” was denounced in Nazi Germany and Stalin was praised in the Soviet Union.

If you wanted to survive.

When those top trusted “scientists” were sending each other emails about how they were going to withhold any data contradicting global warning, I thought about RACE. When a black reporter won a Pulitzer writing made-up articles for the New York Times, they had memos inside the New York Times making it perfectly clear that they knew he WAS making them up and they couldn’t figure out what to do about it, I thought about RACE.

When the Washington Post featured columns of made-up interviews that won ANOTHER Pulitzer Prize for another black, this one female, I thought about RACE.

And I want YOU to do that before I die.

No one but me ties this to RACE. Each person giggles over how the current craze that makes the current news like global warming hurts, but no one makes it a general question any more than the slavish little respectables do, thought commenters are endlessly beating their chests about how above that league they are.

It is time we went to the words “I don’t believe you.” Instead of ANSWERING what they say a BUGS person, a Mantra person, should ask why he should believe people who keep discrediting themselves.

On the Holocaust, I simply say that I don’t believe ANYTHING a government REQUIRES you to believe. On the subject of race, it is obvious that on a subject which is OUTLAWED, there is no objectivity in the SPIN given to reports.

This is not new wisdom:

Consider the source.

O’Reilly is right about one thing:

A Spin is a lie.

In fact a pathological liar tells the truth more than ninety percent of the time.

It takes a LOT to be credited as a source of information. It takes very little to be DIScredited.

William Rusher, publisher of National Review, wrote that he went to an independent convention and brought back his own observations. His staff did not believe it until it was in the New York Times.

When something comes up like the global warming scam, you can either use it to back conventional conservative policy or use it as a chance to repeat the other examples I gave above. You can say something everybody will forget next week or you can use it as one more nail in the coffin of our enemies, to DISCREDIT every single word they say.

Our radio warriors are finding out first hand that they need to keep up with the news to expand their audience. At this stage, that is critical. It is critical that some of us keep hammering at the basics, develop things like “I don’t believe you?” “What is a racist?” and the presentation of the Mantra.

We have to hammer it down to what WORKS before we can ask our White Rabbit or Trucker Roy to start to use them. They have their job, we have ours. USE it, APPLY it. I have done that with many, many things, and they are USED.

The Mantra was too long for Trucker Roy to use. But he got onto the first sentence:

AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY. Our broadcasters have to REALLY get hold of something. They have to be able to USE it, and that is an entirely different thing from just putting a piece in the comments about how you interpret it.

I can USE the whole Mantra in personal or public debate. But on the radio it’s different.

When people tried to change the Mantra, I warned them that the Mantra was not made up, it was practiced. You are learning that is very different from an intellectual debate about ”hitting those points.”

As The Trucker and the Rabbit will tell you, including our logic in a discussion people WANT to listen to is a lot trickier than preaching from my position here, just as “hitting the points” and expecting people to understand the implications is entirely different from what you learn in actual discussion and press conferences.

We are not trying to revive Traditional Values. We are not in the business of digging up corpses. Our job is to hurt them where they know it is fatal, on race. Our weapons differ so we must each direct his own fire.

Just keep your powder dry and your scope clean.

I was dating a young woman, and, not for the first time in my life among people, I expressed an opinion she didn’t like. She replied, “You know, until now I thought a lot of you.”

My reply was, quite sincerely, “If your good opinion is that easily lost, I’d rather not be burdened with it.” She changed her tune abruptly, but I was not using this as a debate point. As usual, my best debate point is expressing the exact truth in a way that shows how silly the other person is being.

That is one of the reasons I watch out for Wordism. A person whose morality is in a book may read another book, suddenly decide he has misinterpreted the one he already worships, as Bob Jones IV declared when he abandoned the Confederate flag at just the right time financially.

Remember, this person has no loyalty to you or yours whatsoever. To anything but his words, be they a set of books or Mommy Professor or a single book, he is a psychopath. Like a sociopath, his word means nothing.

The Word is everything, HIS word is nothing.

The Constitution was once a contract. With a contract, you either go by the original intent of the wording or you change the wording. But in our terms we have gone from a constitution to a Constitution, from something which means what it says to something that means what someone is assigned to interpret.

So what is the Constitution? Does it guarantee us anything, the way we use the term? No, it is now Wordist.

Hitler and Stalin both simply interpreted their respective Constitutions. Hitler invoked the Emergency Clause in the Weimar Constitution. He simply said he emergency was permanent. That is what Franklin Roosevelt did when he ran for a third term. Like Hitler, he said that it was up to him to decide when the emergency ends, and it didn’t end until he was buried.

As for Stalin, I keep repeating that the Soviet Constitution of 1936 made that written at Philadelphia look like totalitarianism. Very few people really knew what was in it. Among other things, the Soviet Constitution of 1936 gave every Republic the right to secede peacefully.

If you can imagine Stalin’s reaction if the Ukraine tried to seceded in 1937, you realize that he put a somewhat different INTERPRETATION on that clause.

But when republics began to secede, practically nobody realized that that right was included in the Soviet Constitution that was still in effect. Cartoons made fun of independence movements in the Republics, showing Estonians singing “Dixie” and wearing Confederate uniforms, making fun of the whole thing.

Then they ALL seceded.

This shows the essential difference between a constitution as a contract and Constitution as a matter of “interpretation.” Under Wordism, all that matters is who has power. When Stalin ruled, we all know what his perfect Constitution meant. When the Republics got the upper hand they “interpreted” it for themselves.

That is how Wordism works. That is how good the word of a Wordist is.

A constitution is a contract between honest people. A Constitution is five of nine people in dresses and a president willing to follow orders.

We have a Constitution. The constitution has long since been repealed.