Archive for July, 2010
Years ago, an interracial couple started writing a book on slavery. It was called “Time on the Cross.”
Like the WPA interviewers who talked to actual slaves in the 1930’s, the couple ran into a problem. They were doing a study to show how hard the system was on blacks as a losing economic institution.
Just as those WPA interviewers couldn’t find the hatred they were looking for because they were dealing with reality, the studies in that book destroyed the most potent myth about slavery: that it was not only evil and cruel, it was inefficient.
This is sort of like adding the outrage one gets when he says that someone was killed, AND all the killer got was $20. Somehow that makes the murder secondary.
But the actual econometric studies, the first ever done on plantations of the Old South, showed slavery was not only efficient, but that most of the product went to the slaves.
It is as the black comedian George Wallace says:
“Oh, yea, I know about slavery. That’s the last time all the black folks had JOBS.”
China is now making heavy investments in Africa. They are likely to make a lot off of them, as the West could not.
Other do not invest in Africa because it is unstable. The Chinese will not allow any instability that affects THEIR investments.
Black working habits in Africa tend to be childlike. They leave the job before they can be fully trained, so you can’t invest in training. I doubt seriously that that will be a problem for the Chinese.
To boil it down to Whitakerese, the Chinese have bought Africans from their chiefs, the way we did our own slaves. The Chinese make Simon Legree look like a wimp.
It is likely to WORK and be announced as a Great Victory for Socialism and African Genius. Everything is either ignored or announced as a Great Victory for Mommy Professor by the media.
For two generations, China was the North Korea of the world. It was the one place where people died of hunger and it was not getting better. China is still very low in per capita productivity, but that is not what QUOTED statistics show. QUOTED statistics show that since they abandoned the Great Leap Forward and so forth and started selling Chinese labor abroad, they are not starving now.
In fact, the Chinese are eating almost as well as the slaves in the Old South did.
From actual starvation to meat once a week shows up on the graphs as a giant jump.
And China has the most effective Fugitive Slave provisions on earth.
Why didn’t WE think of that?
After Churchill’s War Churchill was crushed in the British election of 1945. The democratic socialists went in. They set wages and prices and made the whole economy, already on its ass from the War, worse.
One particular piece of genius was an act trying to be sure that all post-War building would be planned by Mommy Professors who owned the Labor Party. With a major part of the country in ruins, anyone who rebuilt anything was charged a flat thirty percent tax on the total value of that construction. Payable up front.
It is never mentioned, for some reason, that the German inflation of the 1920s was the result of a similar act. The ruling social democratic coalition set out, purposely, to destroy the price system. So, though no one mentions it today, the inflation was a piece of Mommy Professor strategy.
Did I say that no one mentions it today?
This thirty percent up front tax on all rebuilding made in post-War Britain as much sense as the German inflation did. Did I mention it is not mentioned today?
In the 1950s, when all of Europe was flatter on its face than Britain was, the Labour Party of Britain was Mommy Professor’s ideal. That was the Future.
But during the 1960s even the media began to notice that Britain was replacing Turkey as the Poor Man of Europe. I met British workers who had flooded into Germany, where wages were twice as high. Britain was a stagnant wreck.
Did I say that no one mentions that today?
Another things that is not talked about is that the Labor Party was defeated in the elections of 1950 and 1951. The Conservative Party took over and ruled almost continuously all through the ruin of the next twenty years.
But it was a RESPECTABLE Conservative Party. Almost all the Labor Party’s program was left intact. They did what the Contract With America conservatives did in congress after 1995.
Respectable conservatism is not new. Nor are its results.
In fact, respectable conservatives have always been an integral part of the strategy that leads to collapse. Leftists make policy, then respectable conservatives endorse it in a couple of decades. National Review has become a worshipper of everything it opposed in the 1960s.
This is the reason the left finds respectable conservatives so respectable. It is like the King signing legislation in London. It isn’t necessary, but it makes the stuff more untouchable, traditional, you know,
And above all, one can say that “both sides in America” agree with what has been done. That makes anyone who opposes our national direction an extremist. You can’t have “both sides” without respectable conservatives.
The far left is seen as wanting the same future liberals and respectable conservatives eventually agree to. As they used to say, “A Communist is a liberal in a hurry.” He is a radical but not an extremist. He is pointed in the direction the Nation and National Review agree on.
Only those who challenge this whole direction are extremists. Respectable conservatives are essential to endorsing this whole national direction.
No one SAYS it, but this National Direction is based on the proven fact that respectable conservatives, therefore “both sides,” will always end up denouncing their earlier delays in the National Direction, as the British Tories did while Britain collapsed economically from 1950 to 1980, and as conservatives can be counted on to do today.
Whenever National Review announces, once again, that it was wrong in the past, the word “again” is always missing. Everybody knows it, but even their worst critics on the left will never mention it.
Everybody knows the old restaurant joke: “the three things you need for a successful restaurant are location, location, and location, in that order.”
Everybody has HEARD of it, but nobody THINKS about it.
When I was coming up the most obvious thing that affected wages was location. In 1960 the per capita income in India was $70 per year. It was well over 2000 in the United States, and double that in the big cities.
The one thing that was precious to workers was their largest piece of actual property, which everyone knows so well the restaurant joke is old hat: Location.
So the labor movement joined the “America is a Land of Immigrants” Movement. In terms of straight economics, it is hard to imagine a stupider move. But Labor Leaders were joining Mommy Professor and his fellow Intellectuals and Idealists in a solid front against those capitalists who had all that money and a few degrees.
In Whitakerese, labor sold out its location.
In fact the first national legislation that represented a major victory for the new lobbying forces of labor unions were the Naturalization and Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1923. That kept the immigration flood from pouring in for over forty years, and American labor unions and their members have never thrived the way they did during that period before or after.
But Labor joined Mommy Professor proudly, in its leftists solidarity with civil rights groups and the laboring masses of the world — the ones who wanted to get into those locations — in tearing up the 1921 Act and opening the floodgates.
Then the industrial labor movement died and its former members are out of work in their fifties.
Couldn’t happen to nicer guys. When Wallace offered them an alternative, most of them stayed loyal to their beloved union bosses. If you read my first book you will see that I showed the choice labor had then. They took a choice, and they will and their families will never cease to pay for it.
Union workers, who know the importance of unanimity, split between Mommy Professor Labor Leaders and Wallace. The coalition they joined got rid of those racist acts which had protected them.
People have heard that location, location, location joke a hundred times, but when you apply it to politics, they are totally clueless.
Knowing my interest in Temporal Provincialism a commenter sent me a link showing predictions about 1950 from the view of 1925:
The predictions of 1925 were largely still current in 1950. Even when I was in grad school, the ruling Mommy Professor phrase was “Modern Industrial Society.”
Marx had predicted socialism as class differences grew and the peasants left the land to become part of the proletariat. The Future was already laid out, the farm was the past, the city was the future.
As in the 1925 layout, as people left the only place they knew of at the time as an alternative to city life, people would cram together in the city. I believe it was in the 1950s that Frank Lloyd Wright became Mommy Professor and designed a mile-tall building in which people could live their entire lives.
You see this in the 1925 model of 1950. It is one enormous city center, with everything from grocery stores to shops stacked on top of each other.
When I got to college in 1957 this was still the view of Mommy Professor and Frank Lloyd Wright was his Prophet. I was sixteen and I saw the cities were failing fast, their crime rates increasing geometrically, Social Progress was already devastating city centers.
But that 1925/1950 model was still firmly entrenched on campuses. It had been Marx, Wright, and Progressive Theory for a generation and it was held truest, like most predictions, right when it was visibly failing.
Visibly, but only if you LOOKED.
This is the usual conservatism of Progressivism. From the Marxists down to the democratic socialists and the openly liberal voices, it takes a long time for a given Inevitable Future to spread through the entire giant complex.
Nobody seemed to notice this inertia but me. The Sun Belt was growing by leaps and bounds, but nobody on campus noticed it in 1950. The Future was The Modern Industrial Society, as Marx and the Webbs and the Intellectuals and Idealists, i.e., Mommy Professors, had said for over a generation.
That 1925 model could have been presented to a class in 1960 and been endorsed.
Every single trend was going on in places Mommy Professor simply didn’t look at.
It really cripples you if you have an Inevitable Future firmly in mind, because an Inevitable Future must proceed from an Unchangeable Past. The word “progressive” means that thing can only go one way.
And if you think that things can only go one way, you’re always wrong. You regularly get hit in the back by the historical equivalent of a Mack Truck.
I suppose we have all been through the agonizing process of explaining a joke we wish we hadn’t told to a person who doesn’t GET it. There is no possibility it will be funny after an explanation.
The last sentence is important. A joke must be gotten quickly or not at all. We don’t know exactly what humor is, but we do know the connection has to be immediate.
If you are doing political analysis, there are an endless numbers of endless clues which make an instant chain. If a person refers to “THE National Review” he is not a regular conservative, if a person refers to “a socialist country” he is a Marxist.
When I hear a speech, I don’t hear what other people hear. This is one of the reasons. If a person can hear “politically correct” and not understand its Marxist nature, he is as out of it as a person who hears a Communist country referred to as “a socialist state” and doesn’t INSTANTLY understand the person is speaking in Marxese.
I am bad at giving examples, but these appear all the time. I can very often tell you what a person’s political views are by his language. We all know where a person who uses “undocumented aliens” stands.
It can be amusing. I saw a discussion the other day about race relationships and “the South African Americans.”
No one should get away with saying “mixing the races,” but we will have to push the Mantra until it is understood that “THE races” only refers to getting rid of one race. “Mixing THE races” is as instant an identification of an anti-white as “socialist country” is of a Marxist or “undocumented workers” is of an open border advocate.
Note that you will hear as many conservatives using the term “mixing THE races” as you will leftists.
Knowing all these cues is part of being a professional political analyst. But it also makes it very hard to talk to people outside the field. It is like one having to explain one joke after another, after another and on and on.
When an economist reads a speech by the Pope about how “the land produces abundant food in the world” he simply stops reading. If an economist wrote that The Immaculate Conception had to do with Children’s’ Hospital, I doubt His Holiness would read any farther.
“The land,” by itself, would produced food for a few hundred thousand hunter-gatherers, like it used to.
The Curia knows that. They are saying something they know to be untrue.
In laymen’s terms, they’re lying. I seldom use that word, because liars use it all the time. In fact, you can tell how much a liar a person is by how often he uses that word, as you can tell who regards hatred alone as a motive for human action by counting the number of times they use the word “hate.”
“Hate” is not a special word for a hater and “liar” is not a special word to a habitual liar. Others use such words only when they mean it.
But simply using the word “the land produces” is a lie. One may assumed that everything else in the document based on that is an INTENTIONAL untruth, or else the Curia has the average IQ of a thermometer reading when one is freezing water.
You may want to give some examples of how a person’s words identify him this way in the Comments.
Jesuits referred to Buddhism as very strange, “a religion without God.”
Buddha believed in what we call a state of Afterlife. But the word “believed” is not accurate. Buddha and his fellows took it for granted that the Self, which cannot be explained in any physical terms, was independent of the body.
We take our idea of death from our times of unconsciousness. When we awaken from anesthesia we awake from nothingness. Our ancestors took this same idea from their form of anesthesia, which was usually some blunt instrument.
Both these are assumptions, not beliefs.
Buddhism was a late development of Hinduism, just as the death wish in Christianity is a development of late Zoroastrianism.
But Buddhism aimed at the same thing that Zoroastrianism, produced by his Indo-European kin, aimed at: ending life. Buddhism is not a Way of LIFE, it is a Way to get OFF of the Wheel of Life. The Buddhist idea of Hell was simply being reborn again and again, which is what we mistakenly think of as the reward of Hinduism.
To Buddha, unending life was a given, a HORRIBLE given, and he was trying to END it.
When Buddha spoke of something bad, he would say, “It leads to rebirth.”
China’s titanic population is the direct result of the INDIAN development of aquatic rice. “Arabic” numerals are entirely Indian, but no one is anxious to correct that particular error.
Buddhists say that the Buddha had “eyes the color of blue lotus.” The Indian who brought Kung Fu to China was said by his followers to drill a hole in wall with his BLUE eyes.
Historians and documentaries repeat everything about Egyptian or Chinese history to the point where it is tiring. But they NEVER mention White India. There is certainly never a close-up on it, because that might bring up the point that, like all societies, it went down when it went brown.
The History Channel presents Egyptians as black. They portray Hannibal as black.
I understand Tutankhamen, who was portrayed as solidly black on the History Channel, has recently been discovered to be of “Northern European,” which probably means Indo-European, stock.
The Hittites were a whole Indo-European nation that settled in the Middle East and brought iron with them.
I don’t expect to see a lot of discussion of Tutankhamen’s origins from documentary makers who want money from today’s media. I expect all Egyptian Pharaohs to remain black on the History Channel.
History is a series of northern invasions. Whites enslave non-whites, get rich, then eventually the racial barriers break down.
Then the new brown population is enslaved in its turn.
Every time this happens somebody tries to explain it “as a breakdown of traditional values.”
BGlass used this term, and it is a humdinger.
Put it in your arsenal.
A few years back I would have been the only person on BUGS who would have leapt on this point.
But now Ole Coach is dealing with a college team instead of high school. Let’s get some good GC 4 feedback on how “genocide by assimilation” works.
From now on nobody will be able to used the term “assimilation” around me without my saying, “genocide by assimilation.”
“Every white country on earth is supposed to become multicultural and multiracial. EVERY white country is expected to end its own race and end its own culture. No one asks that of ANY non-white country.”
When most people begin to write about politics they are talking to themselves. They think of a chain of logic and then follow it. But they assume the person reading it has a mind like theirs and, once they read a sentence in the logical chain the new writer is building, each point will weld itself into their minds.
A new writer produces a set of quick statements that the reader cannot follow and is mystified that the reader gets lost fast. Young people tend to be impatient, which makes slow writing even more alien to them.
I finally got the fact that people wouldn’t understand point two until I had slowed down and repeated point one. My writing at that point was actually funny. I said the same thing over, then said it and the next point over, and then three, and then four.
The point is, of course, that you have to repeat your original point, but not make it too clear you are repeating it. Repeating your basic point also gives the reader different possibilities of understanding it.
You use examples to repeat a theme. You make it as entertaining as possible. I had done all that on thousands of pages before I finally understood the teacher’s constant use of the word “theme.”
So if you see a church sign about the week’s Bible quotation you do not expect to hear it repeated verbatim for half an hour. Every kid saw those all the time but the teacher, trained by Mommy Professor, would never connect THOSE dots. That would have explained to me what a “theme” was long before I ever started my own writing.
Teaching the word “theme“ is what school teachers do. Making a theme part of your writing or speaking is what a professional does.
Then you get to our level. After working your dingus off learning to say things in long form, our political specialty requires us to get BACK to short punches to get their attention.
This is VERY hard work. This is ADVANCED work. It is like learning to use a left jab in boxing.
In a professional bout, you’ll get killed if you don’t know how to jab.
And in our political arguments, we watch our side getting killed. They have a knockout blow, a book that if memorized might put the enemy down, but they have no jabs.
BUGS includes complete explanations, but it is also studying jabs. The other side is WINNING on jabs, using the word “racist” as soon as they see every conservative wet his pants when they use it, talking about “mixing the races” as if it were an equal opportunity morality for all peoples while aiming it ONLY at white countries.
We know what we are talking about. But we won’t be able to deal with their jabs until we learn to use our own.
The national debt is not a debt. It is a rented commodity.
For the time it faced the crushing debts accumulated during the revolution, the United States has always been in debt. The only exception to this rule is so surprising it is excitedly discussed by people who run across it.
The biggest way for the United States Government to take money from the South and give it to New England was by tariffs. Tariffs allowed New England to sell industrial goods to Southerners at a much higher price than they could have bought them abroad.
It was also true that tariffs brought money in to the United States Treasury. During the Jackson Administration the Tariff of Abominations was passed. It was total robbery from the South by New England to such an extent that Southern “Leaders” actually objected to it.
What is not mentioned is that a BY-PRODUCT of this robbery was a flow of money into the Treasury. For a couple of years, unique in our history, there was no national debt.
This is not 1834. We no longer misbelieve that animals have no territory or property or class system, although every single ideology today takes that assumption as its basic
The national debt is no longer a promise of “real money.”
We all know what a bankrupt man means when he says, “My signature is worthless.” It means we expect a person in ordinary circumstances to have a signature, a mere scratch of the pen, which is worth money. You pay for something with goods, money or a signature.
The national debt is similar to the tariff example. From 1789 on the Great Southern Leaders allowed the federal government to be financed almost entirely out of their own DIRECT taxes, tariffs actually paid, and at the same time they let New England rob them by charging higher prices for its untaxed goods.
By the time the South became a conquered province in 1865, New Englanders quite reasonably thought that was the natural way of things.
Since 1939 the United States has made it clear that it has the right to defend Europe while Europe has little military, to give foreign aid, to impose democracy on anybody it feels like, and to have some lawyers in robes tell every branch of government what it can do.
It is a little late for the country to realize that the government has taken the powers the Greatest Generation was too weak to deny them.
And no one would ask the Greatest Generation to pay for its own war, its own decision, much less for its own benefits.
So the national debt is not a debt, and it is not a separate issue.
By the way, until very recently most of our debt was the result of World War II. Each good year until the late 80s the deficit was about ten percent of the budget, and the interest on the national debt was abut ten percent of the budgets.
Interest rates on the national debt were higher than ten percent in the Carter Administration’s inflation, but on the average a dollar debt in 1940 is ten to twenty dollars now. Selling that debt anew each year or two also drives other interest rates up.
No one has mentioned this, because no one has noticed it.
The problem is not “the debt.” The problem is that the vote is either bought, that is, the owners, the chiefs, of the non-white tribes are bought off, and the white voters are cowards.
Even respectable conservatives are allowed to shout Zowee at the sheer numbers of the so-called national debt. But the problem is special only in that respectables are allowed to talk about it.
The Democratic nominee for the United States Senate for South Carolina would normally be given great respect by liberals. He spent years accumulating a lot of money to pay for his place on the Democratic primary ballot even though everyone agreed it was a hopeless cause.
He carried through.
But he is being pronounced a fruitcake by liberals. Why?
Because he is totally “unqualified.” They had a white candidate who was a regular politician, with a law degree. South Carolina’s sole black congressman denounced him more loudly than anyone else.
To put all this into plain Southernese, this guy is Uppity. In a movement based on Mommy Professor, he dares to demand high office without an Ivy League degree.
He is an insult to Democracy. This is an interesting charge, since the reason Democrats think he got elected is that their piece of property, the black vote, got its signals mixed. when the black churches told their congregations who to vote for, the regular white Democrat was at the top of the primary ballot, so they just told their congregations to vote for the one at the top of the ticket.
The switch was one of those glitches that happen in any operation, and at the last minute they discovered some detail that made them change his name to the top of the ballot, and he got all the votes Democrats had bought and paid for.
So they attacked HIM for being nominated. There has been no criticism of the majority of voters in the Democratic primary who voted for him.
There has not been a word about him since, during an election period.
This whole uproar about an uppity nigger reminds me that the Democrats are practicing another old tradition. John Wayne movies made some of the worst troops ever sent into action into the Greatest Generation. When they came back from the War they were known as the Silent Generation. They didn’t want to talk about it when they remembered themselves rather than John Wayne movies.
John Wayne movies also give us a very unbalanced perspective on the Winning of the West. The tiny United States Army out there is given all the credit.
But the West was taken, not primarily by fighting the Indians, but by buying the chiefs. The very first thing that came up in about all land grabs was gifts for the chiefs. Since no one knows any history, I cannot explain how critical that was in less than a book.
This is poison to Mommy Professor, because it destroys the whole nobility and innocence of Indians our national guilt trip began with,
All this is blamed on white ignorance because chiefs were not our own kind of high officials. They couldn’t sell the land to anybody. It is not true, as Mommy Professor says, that Indians had no concept of land ownership. They knew exactly where their field of corn was, and if other Indians hunted on their land, they were given much the same treatment we just discovered that chimpanzees give chimpanzees from another group on their land.
If a tribe wanted to hunt on another’s land, the society of Indians was as sophisticated as that of chimpanzees. The whole crap about Indians had no sense of ownership came from the time, very recently, when we thought that only man, and only some men, were territorial.
Whites bought Manhattan from the wrong Indians. But they soon came to know the Indians very well. They learned to buy the chiefs. They then announced to tens of thousands of whites who wanted to live on the land a few hundred Indians occupied that it was open to them.
It seldom took more than the onrush of settlers to secure the land, and whites had perfectly valid agreements to prove it. It is true that the Indians were tricked, but they were tricked by their chiefs, not by the white man.
So the black preacher getting orders from his chiefs about where the black vote should go is a continuation of a basic American institution.
They just bought this particular Manhattan from the wrong Indians.
In Dante’s Inferno, the worst part of Hell is solid ice. Those sent there are buried to their necks or completely in the ice.
Larry Niven wrote a wildly successful novel which was absolutely faithful to Dante’s version. His central figure was a science fiction writer who had gone to Hell, the real hero of the novel was, of all people, Benito Mussolini!
If you read a description from literary types about who was consigned to the Tenth Circle, the bottom of Hell, it sounds complicated. They use terms like “People who betrayed their patrons.”
Niven described them as exactly the way Dante thought of them:
The modern literature professor’s problem with this concept is, like so much else here, a conflict of which only BUGS is aware. Our whole societal tradition is NOT based on Traditional Values, it is based on Loyalty.
The first thing someone preaching Traditional Values will do is to say that betraying one’s loyalties is the greatest virtue of all, rejecting race and nationality as “tribal loyalties” and becoming a part of the Book in which Traditional Values are writ.
So to plainly describe what Dante was saying, what everyone around him took for granted was the worst of all sins, is a literary no-no.
All of our high-points of valor go back to the Alamo, to the Three Hundred Spartans, to the chief’s men who fought around his dead body until they were themselves killed, “faithful unto death.”
Our central figure went onto the cross. “Greater love hath no man than to give his life for his fellow.”
In Dante’s time, wise men were reverenced, but it was the bones of MARTYRS that were collected.
In Dante’s time, when loyalty was to cities or tribes, men were united under a single master. “I will not leave you masterless,” many a dying chieftain assured his people, National or racial treason, especially since most people had never met another race, can be twisted into meaning something it obviously does not.
Or at least obscured.
Though he is never called upon to look at why, loyalty is a concept that a Wordist instantly dislikes. His only loyalty is to his Book, which is beyond all other loyalties. The more you reject your country or your race in the name of Universal Truth, which means one of the tens of thousands of doctrines that different Wordists subscribe to, the better person you are.
This is a very practical matter. A society based on loyalty naturally thinks the way Dante did, that treason is the worst of crimes, allows people like Dante to write. Dante wrote his version of Hell, and Luther followed the traditional method of nailing his Propositions to the church door.
Compared to the age of the religious wars which followed it is staggering how much freedom of speech and thought was allowed in Medieval Europe. When those religious slaughters got under way people began to identify themselves by the exact words they spoke.
The practical point is axiomatic: people united only by words and doctrine cannot allow freedom of doctrine or speech. People like Dante or those who wrote the US Constitution assumed that society was based on a common set of loyalties. They could allow a great deal of free thought and free speech, they assumed there was room for different thoughts and a lot of free speech.
But just as the Wordist cannot allow any real dissent, a loyalty-based society has no room for treason. When a Mommy Professor of Literature runs up against Dante’s Tenth Circle, he begins to do a dance which is very familiar to one who has dealt with Communist censorship. He does the same dance on the ice of the Tenth Circle that we normally associate with standing on a hot stove.
Erasmus was a good example of Dante’s thought. He backed Luther when Luther attacked the Church’s abuses. Wordist History then says he deserted Luther when he “went too far.”
This implies that Erasmus remained a loyal Catholic when he backed the Church against Luther’s separate Evangelical, now call Lutheran, Church. To the few who know about it, it is strange that, a loyal Catholic like Erasmus refused the one thing that even the most agnostic Catholic insists upon: Last Confession and Last Rites, Extreme Unction.
Erasmus broke with Luther because Luther began to threat the unity of Western Christendom. In Erasmus’ mind, Luther had gone from a change of doctrine to a change of LOYALTY.
Mommy Professor doesn’t like the smell of that, and lets it go as being “puzzling.”
On the debate over the new Arizona law, it has been assumed that the Federal Government alone should determine who is a citizen.
The Fourteenth Amendment says that a person is “A citizen OF THE STATE in which he is born or NATURALIZED.”
There is more to be learned about history by reading those words than most professional historians know about history.
It would be interesting to know when the Federal Government took primary responsibility for naturalization, but beginning in colonial times a person became a citizen of a colony and after the Revolution a person became a citizen of a state.
How can a person have been “naturalized” in a STATE? The Fourteenth Amendment’s wording makes it clear that for the three generations it had been taken for granted that states did the naturalizing.
If you are an American residing abroad you cannot vote in the American elections as a “United States citizen.” You vote for the electors of your state on and how ITS electoral votes will be cast. You vote on YOUR STATE’S senators and representatives in congress.
In case one thinks that this distinction died out after 1868, it took an amendment to the Constitution itself to get electors for the District of Columbia not that long ago.
Can a state determine that someone who has no right to be in the United States has no right to be in that state? No one in 1868 would have written that a person born or naturalized in the United States was a United States citizen. In the sense of the word as it is now used, there was no such thing as a “United States citizen.”
What the Fourteenth Amendment said was that states had to recognize people born or naturalized in them or in another STATE as citizens.
It did not occur even to the Radical Republicans jamming through the Fourteenth Amendment illegally that a state could not decide to kick somebody out who was not born or naturalized in SOME state.
As with the War of the Preambles, the Marxist worship of the Preamble to the Declaration that makes a roaring statement about “all men” and the United States Constitution which makes it abundantly clear that their document was only based on their right to legislate for “OURSELVES and OUR Posterity,” present discussions consist entirely of Temporal Provincialism.
The word “progressive” means that one has accomplished what Merlin did, but in more detail and over a longer period. The English language allows to you to “move” in any direction, but “progress,” by definition, is toward a very specific goal.
In the literal sense, to be progressive means you are accepted as a prophet who knows exactly how history is going to turn out. If you accept that Political Correctness is our national religion, you will never question this.
And the fact that this is never questioned demonstrates how totally we have accepted that religion Our idea of religion, faith in things unseen, includes prophets as routinely as a Catholic accepts Mass. That faith includes belief in prophecy.
But since it never occurs to us what our established religion is, we never call it prophecy.
But that is the essence of our established religion. It sees “religion” as something that either agrees with the True Faith or does not. But the essence of Political Correctness is that, unlike “religion,” it needs no faith.
Political Correctness does not say that it is religion. It assumes that every sane or decent person is politically correct, whose job is to chastise and, if necessary, to punish those who stray from the path.
A Politically Correct person believes that “his truth is marching on,” that it will trample out the vineyards where the grapes of wrath — Hate — are stored.
But no one mentions that it would impossible to pass a thread- let alone a camel, between that and religion.
No one simply says, as they did in the old movies, “Father, I am not of your faith.”
Or the equivalent, “I don’t believe you.”
In the case of Eastern Europe, when right and left ask routinely whether Eastern Europe “is ready for immigration yet,” absolutely no one asks WHY Eastern Europe should be “ready” for it.
Everybody takes the reasons for granted and we LET them. Eastern Europe is WHITE, therefore mass immigration and assimilation of nonwhite races is its Inevitable Future.
One does not question the prophecies of one’s established religion. In fact, one is not even AWARE of them. We could use the same words Jesus did for our unthought-of prophecies: “it is Written.”
OUR prophets do not rely on faith. Their words are in the Books and no one questions them. Who could confuse that with a mere religion, a mere opinion?
William Rusher was publisher of National Review from its beginning in 1955, for three decades. It took him twenty of those years to bring back some news from the political front the staff had not heard.
Then it appeared in the New York Times. Once he noticed that he began to see it again and again: “No one at National Review believes anything until it appears in the New York Times.”
In fact, they call the New York Times, “The Medium of Record.” It is absolutely impossible to distinguish that title from Jesus’ words, “It is written.”
But nobody mentions that. In fact, nobody but BUGS even KNOWS that.
The only way to prove that one is truly free from adultery is not to THINK of adultery. The only way to be truly clean of heresy is not to THINK of heresy.
I am smarter than the average politico. I need you to understand that because I need you to see how important my explanations on how to do things are.
There is a competitive explanation for my success: Bob is just plain a finer fellow than all the others. My ego likes that just fine, but I object to it for a reason. It comes from the way people think.
I want people to concentrate on how great the Mantra is. I want them to recognize it is the product of a unique mind and unique experience. The more you concentrate on what a goodie I am, the more you are moved to act in terms of Good Intentions rather than following what I really have to offer, which is my practical strategy and how to develop a similar practical strategy for yourself.
So when people say that the space lobbies would have lost the space telescope in 1977 because their interest was in fund raising, you are right. They, or more correctly, their contributors, were looking in the wrong place.
When I say movement people are doing wrong because they concentrate on their movement goals rather than the big picture, you are right.
A person who has a lot to learn about the human animal would draw one overwhelming conclusion from all this: Bob is a just plain better guy than all those with ulterior motives.
My ego certainly agrees with that, but it is something I don’t want to see.
Because deciding that BUGSers mission is to be NICER than everybody else is a total waste of time and effort and our limited resources.
It was very idealistic of Bob to represent real grassroots protests all over the country, but it had to end because I couldn’t raise any money for it, so I had to concentrate on PAID advising. We had to stop.
Raising money is essential to DC political activity.
Likewise, if Truck Roy is less dedicated to our cause than I am, I certainly have seen no sign of it. But he is building an audience, and the Mantra is presently too complicated and obscure for that audience, for which he has fierce competition.
When one is dedicated to a strategy hears “You are nicer, therefore righter,” he feels tired all over. It is hard enough to get a basic approach across without the person you are trying to talk to counting how many angels are standing on your particular needle point.
There is an old North Carolina expression, “You’re ugly, your feet stink, and you don’t love Jesus.” Only a person with Porch Talk will understand that expression.
What that funny statement really refers to is the human tendency to assume that a person you disagree with is evil, bad in every way, including personal hygiene. You then begin to concentrate on how BAD a person is rather than why he is WRONG.
And our SOLE interest is showing where they are WRONG.
I said that the first thing they always asked people who were applying for Capitol Hill jobs was “How much Hill experience have you had?” There were about twenty thousand staffers on the Hill at the time, so it was an industry in itself.
BoardAd and I have been talking about the NASA budget. There were huge lobby groups paid handsomely by people they impressed with their activism.
The problem was, having no Hill experience, their money sources didn’t understand where the problems were.
First of all, practically nobody knew what an Appropriations Committee was. As you know, all real legislation is hammered out in committee and then passed, with a few amendments from the Floor, in the House itself.
Committee assignments are critical. Each congressman gets to be on two committees. This, as I say is critical, so the competition for certain committees is fierce. These are the two most critical decisions a congressman makes.
But to be on an Appropriations Committee, you have to give up BOTH of any other. You can be on only ONE Appropriations Committee, and that is your ONLY committee assignment.
Only a handful of people, outside of congressmen and SENIOR staffers, seem to know this. A congressman who dedicates his whole career to being on only one committee makes a huge decision. A congressman from Charleston spent his long career on the Military Appropriations Committee, became chairman of the naval appropriations committee, and the Charleston Navy Yard thrived.
NASA’s appropriations were handled by a an Appropriations Committee called “HUD-Independent Agencies.” A congressman who dedicates his entire career to getting more HUD appropriations is not going to like spending the money to go into space that could be building low-cost housing for the ghettoes in his district.
They HATE NASA.
The chairman of HUD-Independent Agencies was an inner-city Democrat, the Republicans’ Ranking Member was an inner-city “moderate.” Both of them had to split a budget between building houses and space exploration, and they didn’t get elected by getting money for space exploration.
Normally when the budget is endorsed by BOTH the Democratic chairman and the Republican Ranking member, it is a done thing. In 1977, they cut out the space telescope and the Jupiter Orbital Probe and the House leadership agreed to jam the vote through before the weekend and before the space community could launch a protest.
The space lobbies were all focusing on having generals speak at their luncheons and so forth. I found that the essence of the strategy was to ram it through before the space lobbies and scientists got wind of it and launched a grassroots protest.
As I have said before, what I did was to get John Ashbrook to delay the vote over the weekend. Filibustering is routine in the Senate, but you have to have a couple of old hands in the House to jam up the works for days.
That weekend would have been major news if it had been a liberal grassroots movement. Four hundred thousand telegrams came in. Almost all of America’s top aerospace experts, not to mention science fiction writers, were in the galleries by Monday.
Edward Teller came to John’s office personally to thank him.
As I said, normally a cut supported by both the chairman and the top Republicans on a committee is passed with maybe a few objections from the Floor. On Monday, with almost every single member there voting, we beat these changes about 350 to 80!
The congratulations were pouring in. John got supporters in areas he had never even looked for them before. On the Hill, it was well known that I was the staffer who did it, which took nothing from John. That’s the kind of thing he hired me for.
When people dedicated to NASA like Bob Dornan’s staff or a big space lobby congratulated me, I used the opportunity to explain to them what the big problem was with NASA money.
Now we get back to Bob’s Old Story. I had found the problem, I had made a solution that WORKED. And nobody had the slightest interest in any of it.
And NASA got shafted each year, regular as clock work.
If you will listen to me trying to recite the Mantra on the first Truck Roy interview, you will hear the reaction my complicated explanation on NASA’s money problem got. Compared to having some science fiction writer talk about the Future of Mankind, it was tedious.
I explained how I reached the grassroots protests on busing and other issues conservatives always talked about. I explained how I did it and they went deaf about halfway through.
I developed and used the Mantra and everybody saw me defeating the opposition, but they went deaf shortly after my explanation began.
This is Bob’s Old Story, the story of my political life.
I drove my doctor brother on some of his trips some years back. He was working a geriatrics unit in the mountains. Two terminally old women in wheelchairs were navigating down the hall straight at each other in a narrow hall.
They looked each other straight in the eye and played chicken.. Each refused to pull to the side. They collided.
Neither had backed down in life and neither was changing their style at the end. They were pre-Slave Generation country women. We laughed, but it was a laugh of admiration.
There are no more grandmas on the porch with a shotgun waiting for them to try to tear down her house. We were all proud of her, She was a part of Americana, stirring something deep in OUR roots.
Hers was the blood that took the land. Hers was the blood that defied Indian attacks and whipped the British at King’s Mountain. The Watauga settlers in East Tennessee had settled on land the King had set aside for the Indians after the British had won the land from the Mississippi to the Appalachians in the French and Indian War.
Watauga simply and officially signed a declaration of independence from His Majesty’s Government years before the Declaration signed in 1776. If it had happened in New England, everybody would know about it.
Watauga had nothing to do with the War of Independence or anything else that happened to their East. But in 1780, Colonel Ferguson decided he would take care of that bunch of rebels while he was marching into the upper part of South Carolina after the fall of Charleston.
Ferguson sent a message to the Watauga settlement that they had better not interfere with him or he would cross the mountains and destroy them. The Wataugans, like those old grandmas, met him with their guns and destroyed his army at King’s Mountain.
His threat had been his suicide note.
It says something about our “nation of immigrants” that the only person in almost four thousand men engaged in that battle who was not born in America was Ferguson himself. He was leading Tories.
That’s several historical distortions shown up in one example.
King’s Mountain is the only battle discussed in classroom history, except Yorktown, that happened south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
They can’t avoid mentioning Yorktown, since the real war ended there. But why King’s Mountain? Because it was a victory that was praised throughout America. It occurred when, as we are constantly told, “The Revolutionary cause was at its lowest point in 1780.”
I was always confused when they talked about how the American cause seemed lost in 1780. All I had been taught about history gave not the slightest indication of any special problem then.
By 1780 we had several European allies. The war had been won at Saratoga in 1778 when France came onto the American side after the British army there was destroyed. The war had begun in New England.
The entire history I had been taught in the years between 1775 and 1781 was about Washington fighting in New York, Philadelphia and New Jersey when he crossed the river against the Hessians.
The only thing accepted history said about anything that happened south of Pennsylvania was the final surrender at Yorktown, Virginia.
Valley Forge in PA was the only low time I knew about.
I had never been taught anything about WHY everybody was so depressed in 1780.
Even in South Carolina.
The worst defeat ever suffered by America in the Revolution was the loss of Charleston in 1780. Everything Americans couldn’t afford was lost there. The entire Continental Army that was there was taken.
But I had never even read that there WAS a war in the South. I certainly knew nothing of the giant Continental army and naval forces that were there.
But to discuss the Charleston defeat opens a can of worms for historians. One would have to realize that while New York and Philadelphia had fallen, Charleston had defended itself.
The idea that a shot was fired south of Philadelphia is unmentionable.
They do mention how King’s Mountain came as a relief in a period of collapse in 1780. But they don’t talk about anything else down here.
Cornwallis’s army tried for a year to get from Charleston and take over South Carolina. It is astonishing that Mel Gibson made a movie about this otherwise totally forgotten part of the Revolution. I don’t think he did that by accident.
One’s impression is that the war began and was fought entirely north of Maryland. Then all of a sudden Washington and the French flew down to Yorktown, at the southern end of Virginia and took Cornwallis’ surrender.
The army they defeated had been badly beaten up by guerrilla warfare in SC.