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.