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.

As usual.

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.

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.”

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:

As TRAITORS.

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.

Why?

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 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.

The damage from Climategate has been stupendous. The whole foundation of our belief system has been based on Science hurrying to endorse anything Political Correctness needed.

I have a feeling that the release of the information about Neanderthal blood being in all but blacks has to do with it. The whole Genome Project consistently declaring that there was no difference between races was based on the same thing the Green Tyranny was based on: All Established Science backed Global Warming.

That makes life a lot easier. You just accept what Science says. And the establishment controls science. You do not need a Conspiracy to control Science. Any establishment routinely controls Science.

Competition for publication is fierce in academia, a matter of life and death. Competition for grants is also fierce. Everybody knows that.

So anything that will get you denied a grant or publication is automatically weeded out.

AT THE OUTSET.

This is obvious to anyone with the slightest experience in academia. There are lots of subjects for research, so you begin by weeding out the ones that are in touchy territory or if they begin to reach conclusions that could endanger your career.

This is routine. But people don’t THINK about it.

The problem is that in the competition those rise to the top who are dedicated to the establishment’s opinions. As Ben Franklin said, two people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.

Until the Obama campaign, people were able to deny liberal bias in the media. After all, it was the media who did the denying.

I did not know whether respectable conservatives would even mention Climategate, but they are doing so. They certainly do not hint that the race campaign in the Genome Project might contain such bias, but even some conservatives have started to question whether Official Science can be so blatantly partisan only on Global Warming.

Screwtape, Hell’s Senior Tempter, pointed out in CS Lewis that “People are always talking about how we put ideas into people’s heads. Our biggest job is to keep them OUT!”

The Genome Project is unlike any other scientific project in that we constantly hear about it. But all we ever hear about it is when they find something that seems to confirm Political Correctness.

Bill Clinton announced that the Genome Project had proved that human beings were all “99.999 percent the same.” This is now in the category of “I never had sex with that woman.”

A person who has a fatal melanoma is 99.99 percent healthy.

I have NEVER heard two official scientists give the same figure for the percent humans have in common with chimpanzees.

And until Climategate, I never heard anyone announce that one race has genes others do not.

In 1950, in reaction to Hitler, the Science Line was that “Modern anthropology has proven that all races are the same in innate abilities.” It was a LONG fight before the other side just gave up on proving innate racial IQs are the same, some forty or fifty years.

The Genome Project is the “modern anthropologists” of our day. But information was hard to get out back then.

The Established Foundation of “Modern” Science is already shaken.

About a decade ago I pointed out in Whitaker Online that our long political future will be as spokesmen for whites.

People on or side talked only of restoring White Supremacy. This is Temporal Provincialism. Let me give you an example of where their thought was stuck.

Mark Twain would say something like “All people hate noise.” A few pages, to repeat the point, he said “all white people hate noise.”

His assumption that so few non-white people would be reading his book that there was no distinction at all, he was just saying the same thing in a different way. That was a VERY different world, and it isn’t coming back.

Whites were never Supreme in the way that word is used. Non-white countries let the white man set up governments which the white man considered necessary, but the union of what we call Iraq was utterly meaningless to them.

Today’s United Nations is famously a collection of colonial administrations out together by and for the European countries.

Whites were Supreme in the colonial world because they needed the labor and raw materials that were in colonials lands. But those materials were used for purposes the colored man did not understand and a major purpose of the whole exercise was so that European countries could compete with OTHER European countries.

White Supremacy was a term developed to indicate that what we needed came first. But the life of the colonial peoples was not, certainly outside the cities, wrapped up in the white man. The world in which every colored man devoted is entire thought to what whites told him was invented by Marxists.

At least half of the colored world had never SEEN a white man.

To Mark Twain, the white world was THE world, though he groveled over the recent existence of black slavery with the best of them.

White Supremacy is the echo of the Marxist outlook which is now in control. White Supremacy is an expression of the Mankind World View.

But the world in which THEIR White Supremacy ruled never existed. There is and never has been a single world of all races, either for the Marxists and the “Christians” to unite with their respective Holy Writs or for the White Man to rule over.

As a practical practitioner of power, I see what the Marxist, the Christian and the White Supremacists do not see.

I see a people without a voice. That is what any political practitioner looks for.

In the real world of power, White Supremacy makes us not only silly, but powerless.

The South was destroyed by a simple arithmetic change in the American electorate: There were four major parties instead of two in the 1860 election. Lincoln got forty percent of the popular vote, but total towered over each of the others.

Whites have no potential if they keep trying to be the majority in a field of White Supremacy and anti-whites. But, like the Republicans, our position changes entirely if we become the largest and richest minority.

The importance of this simple piece of arithmetic is never mentioned, but it is the most important thing in the world today, just as it was 1860 and at many other times.

We are not Time Provincials. We want to represent whites as whites become inevitably more and more self aware while they become a set of islands in a colored sea.

The entire two generations of Northeastern rule, of Northern industrialists and rail rates set to keep industry out of an impoverished South, began with one small statement: “No more slave states.”

“No more slave states” was as defensive a slogan for the North as the Mantra is for whites today. It did not jump into instant popularity. The Free Soil Party got less than one percent of the vote at its best.

But “No More Slave States” was a radical slogan, one which was clearly used by spokesmen for the North. The Mantra is a now-radical statement of exactly the same kind.

Comments on my demand that we hit the heirs of anti-whites forever, the way the left chases ex-Klan and Nazi people forever, have concentrated on the justice, aka, revenge aspect.

There is nothing wrong with that, but that is not the whole picture. Revenge is a part of human nature, simply because any social animal that does not revenge itself for its wrongs is unlikely to survive.

Jesus denounced human revenge, but the revenge for sinners that he counted on made the human sort smaller than an electron compared to the sun. If you had faith, justice would be done, or overdone.

I would find it hard to take property away from young people who were themselves dedicated pro-whites. I find it hard to remind people who have seen the genocidal program for what it is that they STILL were dedicated to parts of the worse program in human history.

But there are a lot of things I have had to do I didn’t like. I am not Jesus, and even his “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is very much a part of THIS world.

I have suffered a lifetime standing alone against these people, and revenge is not my motive. But I admit that, as a human being, I would feel better when I have to leave this fight, hanged or committed, if they had to PAY for it.

Having said all this, let me remind you that this program is a PRACTICAL matter. We have seen this method of never forgiving action, and it WORKS. We face it every day, but, as usual, we LEARN nothing from it.

Rounding up people and punishing them for political crimes lasts until the government ceases to be an absolute and open despotism. But having people get rewards for looking up what well-to-do people did that requires fining their offspring will last forever.

Meanwhile, the idea that these people’s actions will be regretted as long as human beings want rewards makes it more worthwhile for US. I want the person who defended genocide of our race to have his words and acts looked up and regretted until the end of time, because this is not a disease that will go away on its own.

I cannot imagine any other method that would do the job.

This is quite a switch from usual thinking in such matters. We always think of the Holocaust as being perpetuated by Jews with a grudge. In the real world there are vanishingly few who lived through the Nazi period.

If someone belittles the Holocaust they do not get a letter from a hundred-year-old man, but from a person who makes his living in some branch of the Holocaust Industry.

That is why nobody ever gets a letter when he ignores the millions who died in Stalin’s War Against the Kulaks. Stalin himself told Roosevelt that that was a more vicious war than the one he almost lost against the Germans!

But there is no Kulak Industry. Both Hitler and Stalin are eclipsed in numbers by the Chinese who starved and were exterminated in things like The Cultural Revolution. But even if that were not exempted by the fact that it was left-wing slaughter rather than a right-wing one, who would bother with it?

There is no Chinese Peasant Industry, either.

The only thing that works is PAYING people to be Professional Never-Forgetters.

For once, let’s use a lesson from actual history that actually WORKED.

National Review had an article on Cuba in which it mentioned that about 75% of that country’s population has Negroid blood. A Cuban American wrote them to say that it was more like 65% or less.

In answer, the writer of the article pointed out that the 65% figure and lower related to pre-Castro Cuba. He actually used the term “white flight” in relation to what had happened since 1959!

I remember it very well in its first stages at Fort Jackson in Columbia, where we were used to Puerto Ricans in uniform speaking Spanish. But it caused a lot of comment when people began to see people who looked like us, including a lot of blonds, who were in uniform suddenly starting to speak Spanish to each other.

The first wave was very white indeed.

In Cape Town it was very hard to tell many Coloreds from many classified without a score card. But up in Trek Country, Transvaal and the Orange Free State, the whites were very white indeed.

Oxford Geneticist CD Darlington, F.R.S., pointed out to me that even in the 1960s, Californians tended to be blonder than people in the East. This was the kind of observation he was condemned for, despite his membership in the Royal Society.

Hence, as David Duke points out, the old term California Girl.

The same man who is fanatically anti-white, if he has been in Spain, will talk about the beautiful women from Scandinavia.

This is what anti-whites mean when they say ours is a racist society.

Unless they are kooks like the Carter daughter, females almost never get their hair died black.

Including black women.

This is a lot like the death of the assumptions on which all legal thought today is based. Wordists are enormously powerful, but their assumptions about social animals having no territory or wars or class systems are dead and that takes its toll in the long run.

The natural fact of white supremacy also wears away even the seemingly unassailable power of anti-whites. Whitening creams still sell in India. No one has bought a darkening cream since we discovered that tans cause cancer.

Many blacks have admitted they were naïve about integration. They honestly believed that it was only official barriers that caused “racist” attitudes. And of those, few actually ADMIT it.

Those who moan realistically about how racism is endemic are right. They moan because they see their effort as, in the long run, doomed.

Because I am not a temporal provincial, I see what they are looking at. Those who spend their time wallowing in what we have lost and how things are now can raise money because most people are like them.

They get big organizations, and they are welcome to them.

BUGS is aimed at the future. As in any war, defeat is the lot of anyone who cannot think of anything but the present losses.

Wordism cannot allow freedom of speech because Wordism is based on a particular set of opinions. That is what Wordism IS. Discussion of differing opinions makes a Wordist society unstable.

A society based on loyalty to race can allow freedom speech. But it cannot allow freedom of LOYALTY. In America before the Slave Generation a person whose basic outlook was a hatred of his own kind was considered sick. Now it is considered the highest morality.

That is because we are now a Wordist society.

Ardrey destroyed the whole basis of Wordist society in African Genesis. His basic thesis is disputed, but the points he made about natural behavior destroyed he Rousseau’s view of the world forever.

The idea that animals have no property, no borders, no wars, no territory and no class system would be laughed at by any literate person today. But our society is based on those exact premises.

The right set of words will unite all mankind. The right of words will remove class distinctions. The right set of words will remove borders. The right set of words will end conflict. Every debate is about the right words we should use to reach those ends.

It follows from these outdated premises that America has nothing to do with the people who happen to be here. What America is All About is American Principles.

Principle is the code word of Wordism.

As Ardrey pointed out, loyalties in all social animals are complex, and man’s is the most complex of all. He described a normal man from Georgia in the 1960s, who would have loyalty to his state, his country, his race, his family, his college football team, his high school team, and on and on and on.

Wordism says a human being should have NONE of the feelings a social animal is born with. He is only interested in Principles.

Our society is based on ideas that are as dead as a Flat Earth.

When you suppress any instinct it comes out another way. Whites are not indifferent to their own race, they can’t be. So whites HATE their own race. There is every bit as much awareness of race today as there ever was. In fact white countries that never thought of race before are now obsessed with it.

So the first question is, why is our entire world view based on assumptions that died two generations ago?

People who write news and commentary always miss the point.

Which makes me feel funny when I read over what I wrote and wonder why anybody had to SAY that.

I wrote a piece about how environmentalists are trying to stop the development of fusion energy. As I think about this the point becomes more and more obvious:

Those who want a planned world don’t want changes. This becomes obvious to the point of absurdity as one thinks about the word “planned.”

You can’t plan anything that keeps changing.

In the 50s and early sixties, the United States could have closed its borders at very little economic cost. We produced what we consumed, and what we imported was just a little cheaper than what we produced.

So it was natural for there to be no question what the USSR had to do to “catch up” with the US. They tried to replicate our production, sometimes in a very humorous way.

But then the US began to import a lot. Worse, countries like Japan and Germany prospered by producing what they could use or sell and importing what they needed to do it.

Soviet planners had nothing they could replicate. Americans and Germans produced what their market wanted so the same goods were wanted by other countries. Soviet planners never produced a single consumer good anyone would buy anywhere else.

Pretty obvious, eh?

Don’t look for this in any other place.

So environmentalists want to stop fusion. One of the reasons is that all that collider money could buy more fifty million dollar yachts for Whale Wars and the poor, but the other is that planners don’t like change.

If you want to know what people are really thinking, look at what they denounce. One who says liar all the time is a liar; one who says “hate” all the time is a hater. The standard word Political Correctness uses is Change.

Until very recently about ninety percent of the population everywhere lived on the land. Cambodia went Communist and outlawed cities. Mao didn’t like cities either.

Now why was that?

Because a planned economy requires stagnation. Back to the definition of the word “planned.”

If socialism had taken over in 1800, it would have addressed the wood shortage. All the wood was being used up. So coal started to be used.

Why?

Because wood, being used up, got very expensive.

Skipping lightly over a hundred other examples of the obvious, we come to environmentalism. Ninety percent of the population used to live on the land so they could eat. Then the population moved to the cities where industry was.

Socialists were ready to plan the Permanent Peasant Society, as Pol Pot did. They were ready to plan the Modern Industrial Society. Those are gone, so now they want Mommy Professor to run the Save Surface Earth.

But with fusion energy or whatever develops next, we won’t need Surface Earth. Underground or in space, people will move, as the white world always has.

I cannot tell you exactly how that will come about, but the point is that I cannot tell you and that is the way it should be. Mommy Professor cannot say that. Mommy Professor has to know what society is and forever will be, or it cannot be planned.

Exactly the same is true of those who demand Traditional Values.

Fining race traitors’ fortunes keeps up the punishment and provides its own incentive.

We could even give some of the heirs a chance to make up for what was done to get their inheritance, to some extent. I don’t want to bankrupt those who were not in on the actual crime, but no one should benefit from their forebears without paying out of that sum for their crimes.

I do not want to live in any kind of police state. I doubt that Kennedy wanted to live in a Communist state. I would have stayed out of World War II. The disastrous policy was fighting Hitler and allying with Stalin.

You don’t have to be Communist to be pro-Communist. They used to describe a Communist as “a liberal in a hurry.” Liberals used the Communist Threat exactly the way they use the Holocaust today, to argue that if we didn’t give blacks all they wanted they would go Communist.

The South would have been in a lot better bargaining position against integration if the Nazis had ruled Europe.

The Genius Conspiracy buffs never take this into account. Ted Kennedy’s father was Ambassador to Great Britain and he openly praised the Nazis. He was a right-winger and he thought that would push the whole world to the right.

As a man who made a lot of his fortune selling liquor during Prohibition, Papa Kennedy certainly had no use for a police state of any kind. It was strictly politics.

At the end of World War II, the only loudly anti-Communist voices were those of democratic socialists.

The American right was not really anti-Communist for a couple of years after the War. Their leaders like Robert Taft wanted a return to Normalcy. They wanted the United States to get out of foreign affairs. Their leader in this in the Senate, Vandenberg, famously changed sides after a couple of years when he saw the Communist threat.

So, in this forgotten period of history, why was it the democratic socialists who were fervently anti-Communist and the Taftites who wanted no involvement? That violates all the rules historical amateurs have set up.

The American right did not see the Soviets as a threat. After all, it was couple of years before Roosevelt’s agreement at Yalta to give half of Europe to Stalin became reality. For a couple of years after Castro took over anybody who said Castro was a Communist was ridiculed.

That is forgotten now. The accusations that Roosevelt had given Eastern Europe to Stalin were considered near treasonous. That is forgotten now. The desperate all-out effort to save the Soviet Union with a Nuclear Freeze is forgotten now.

Robert Taft was not pro-Communist. He just did not see the USSR as something we should deal with. The War was over. We should come home.

So why were social democrats so loudly anti-Communist?

Because the social democrats believed that revolution worldwide was on its way. They were social democrats because they believed that. So the choice was between a democratic socialist world or a Stalinist world.

To understand this odd anti-Communism on the left and isolationism on the right, you have to have NOTICED it. Then you have to have some idea about how real people think without building a Conspiracy around it.

A world view based on Conspiracy is a form of Wordism. You start out with good observations, get caught up in them, and then everything has to be squeezed into a fantasy world where everything has to fit inside your Book.

To put it bluntly, a Wordist is a nut.

Many times when the South was being invaded by Federal troops I wished fervently that Hitler was still in Berlin. But I never had the slightest wish to live UNDER him.

Most of the people who used swastikas on Stormfront never spent a single day under an authoritarian, much less a totalitarian, regime.

One the other hand, Mommy Professor WANTS Communism, because he think people like him rule it.

He wouldn’t last a week.

None of this fits into a Conspiracy Book. To deal with reality, it helps not to be nut.

In the real world, there is a saying, “If you want to drop a subject, appoint a committee on it.”

It is VERY important to me that when the Mantra takes hold, you will NEVER let them forget the anti-white campaign.

Right now the Internal Revenue Service pays a reward to anyone who exposes tax fraud. For the least indication, like where to look, you get one percent of the total take. If you put the whole case in their lap, you can up to five percent.

Before the Libertarian howl goes up, let me remind you that police cannot work without informants.

People do not write letters blaming ninety year old men for Nazi atrocities because a committee sends them to do it. They do it for MONEY. Norman Finkelstein coined the term The Holocaust Industry, but it is not news to any of us.

And it WORKS.

I will be dead long since, but this is critical to me. I am trying to save my race, and if you are not practical about it, you will be heading down the old respectable conservative “Liberals are fine people, honestly mistaken“ line.

We have lived our lives under the anti-white regime that never takes that attitude toward any pro-white.

And it WORKS.

The active anti-whites will be mostly dead by then. But their hundreds of billions or trillions in assets will still be here. For the next century and more, anyone who looks up and finds racial crimes the way Wiesel does with Nazis will get his percentage of the take.

Above genocide against US will be a crime that will be paid for on and on and on. Informers will be looking this up pretty well forever.

And that money pouring in will be used to tell about it, to warn against it, to encourage whites to have children.

We learned NOTHING from the Cold War, because it is militantly forgotten and forgiven. We live in a post-Hitler world pushing white genocide because it was NOT forgotten.

If white leaders can refuse to use the Mantra, I can easily see them taking the easy way out and joining the establishment with all forgotten and forgiven. They would be happy there and join in the steady slide back into anti-white action precisely as post-Cold War America is sliding back into socialism.

Like America, we might not lose a war, but we ALWAYS lost the peace afterwards. There is a reason for that. Don’t do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

When you win the war is the time you must continue it, or you will lose it again.

PAID informers for traitors.

NEVER FORGET!

During the 60s the crime rate was going out of sight. Even media people in New York City were exposed to it. But the fact that career criminals were being dumped back on the street by leftists, and John Lennon is famous for having helped a murderer get out and kill again, were never cited as the cause.

Something had to be done. So whoever the subject came up, the media would say, “Yes, violence is increasing, but we still have done nothing about gun control.”

Then respectable conservatives would argue that gun control was bad because hunters needed guns.

The whole soft-on-crime legal policy was not addressed until George Wallace ran for president in 1968. Goldwater did not address it.

As one leftists put it, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” So when something obviously needs doing, liberals say what needs doing and conservatives debate it. You didn’t become a professional conservative, and there was a lot of competition for the few jobs as token conservative in the media, unless you clearly would not bring up alternative solutions.

Saying something must be done is the equivalent today of saying the choice is between a liberal policy or doing nothing.

I was talking to an outright socialist years ago about price fixing. Instead of standing up for Holy Business, I said that there should be no special law for that. Businessmen who cheat and steal should go to prison.

The socialist was actually shocked. He squealed like a Libertarian. To him as to others there is a class distinction between fixing prices and proletarian crimes like an employee cleaning out the till.

To him, any discussion of corrupt business fell into the category of showing that Intellectuals and Idealists, like Mommy Professor, should run things. If I just put the business thieves into prison with the other felons, it would completely ruin his whole agenda.

This is Mantra Thinking. No one but BUGS questions that the Final Solution to the Race Problem is the Final Solution to the White Problem. This could be a lot of things, but what it is NOT is conservative.

My solution to business corruption would make conservatives shriek.

The oil spill problem is now a debate about how to treat Big Oil and how to advance environmentalism. Obama’s whole committee on it is drawn from academia.

I just did an article on Islam. I pointed out that the one thing nobody talks about when addressing Islam, from Obama to Nick Griffith, is ISLAM.

I used to write speeches on this stuff for policy-makers. I don’t need to listen to anymore about the oil spill because I could write the speeches both sides are going to make.

When you read BUGS, you will hear every little about the Latest News, because all the stuff that is said or reported is predetermined. Not only have I heard it all, I’ve WRITTEN it all. I spent a hundred hours a week for years in that stuff.

I am SICK of it! I am TIRED of it!

There are actually hundreds of thousands of what passes for adult Americans out on the streets screaming that Obama is pushing bigger government and more Mommy Professor rules and regulations.

Well, DUHH!

If I ever do get wrapped up in crap like that, I expect our BUGS crowd to be sure the institution I am put in is a nice one.