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.”