When I was organizing conservatives in college it surprised nobody that the two biggest groups against the left were mutually exclusive.

The Young Americans for Freedom went by the Sharon Statement and allowed huge differences in how it was interpreted. The one thing they required, though, was that one believe in God.

Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged was at the top of the charts then, as it has been recently. They called themselves Objectivists and claimed only one point of view, but their arguments were as furious as any other group’s.

But the one thing that you could NOT do and claim to be an Objectivist was, of course, believe in God.

On the left there are differences of means but not of ends. If you are a Christian Socialist your ends are the same as those advocated by Communism, Social Democracy, and Marxist Anarchism.

The end is “from all according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The left agrees this end is difficult to the point of near impossibility, but it IS the end of the entire left.

No one was surprised that the fundamental credo of the two anti-leftist groups were exactly opposite. It was taken for granted that the ideal society of the young, Catholic backbaygrouch would be a shrieking nightmare to the Objectivists, and vice-versa.

I have said before that you have to disconnect your Knee Jerk Button when you read BUGS. Whatever else may be said of Randian Objectivists, they are NOT conservatives in any reasonable rendering of the word.

I formed an anti-leftist coalition, and in that time and place any anti-leftist was a conservative, just as in a European country where 99% of the population are either Catholic or Lutheran, all the other denominations are called “sects.”

On campus all opposition to the aims of the left came under one label. The fact that the two main groups were mutually exclusive did nothing to the fact that they were automatically classified together in Mommy Professor’s domain.

This fact, which we never THINK about, is proof that the campus is, indeed, Mommy Professor’s domain.

The left does, indeed have a single aim. Its ideal is “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” A leftist priest and a Marxist have no difference on this goal with an agnostic social democrat.

We accept that anyone who does not accept this goal is classified, without question, in the media and on campus, as a “conservative.”

It is sitting there like an elephant in a living room, the assumption that there is one Direction, one Faith, toward which our society aims, and all opposition to the One Direction has been openly classified as a single Heresy all our lives.

But nobody notices.

A writer in National Review was talking about books about alternative futures. He was puzzled that every alternative history showed either 1) Any deviation from our history ends up in disaster or 2) things come right back around to where they are now.

Or both.

It is interesting that this puzzled statement should appear in National Review, because that is how National Review makes its living.

National Review says exactly what the left does. The only difference is the time line. So if the founders of that publication, with their statement in 1955, were to appear t today, National Review would disagree with them on almost every issue.

The 1955 heroes of the conservative movement are either forgotten or denounced by NR today. This is the definition of respectable conservatism. It is also the REAL definition of neoconservatism..

I always have to use words two ways, the media definition and the real definition. In a seminar I expect commenters to recognize the difference. I was proud that, when I mentioned neo-conservatism and defined it, only one BUGS commenter went into Knee Jerk Mode, ignored the point I was making, and talked about the Neoconservatives as a variation on the Bilderbergers which David Duke and Pat Buchanan have exposed.

The rest just read what I said and got my point.

The term neoconservative means one who is a natural product of our literary market. He is easier to explain as an economic unit than as one holding any beliefs.

Periodically our established religion redefines what may be discussed. These guidelines are never spoken, and I have pointed out that talking about them would be a big help in exposing them.

We all know what the hierarchy of minority groups looks like, but none of us ever TALK about it.

To be a respectable conservative, one fills a slot in our society. He is against what is proposed now, but he is, above all, not an extremist. Like the minority hierarchy, no one ever mentions what an extremist is.

But everybody knows, to coin Talleyrand’s phrase, that extremism is a matter of dates. The Extremist label goes back to about 1970 now, and no one is more furious in denouncing anything advocated before the present date specified than the Respectable Right. That date is the entire story of their industry. That date is their SOLE means of livelihood.

The respectable conservative doesn’t just accept the date now specified to avoid extremism, he is militant about it.

Now let’s go back to that puzzled question in National Review about how all “if” histories wind up showing that We Live in the Best of All Possible Worlds.

Other writers have to make their living in exactly the same world that National Review does. If you say that history could have been better on some other path, you are an extremist. This is the year 2010 on the Path to Progressivism. To make a living or even publish at all, that has to be your guiding light.

Meerkat Manor was one of those programs everybody knew about. It was popular. But it was not unique. Many books and documentaries have been written about the rigid class systems and border wars of all social animals. This was just one of the better ones.

The real lesson of Meerkat Manor, though, is precisely that. In the 1960s Meerkat Manor would have caused a revolution. Back then it was assumed that birds sing only to attract mates, that social systems were totally absent in the natural world.

Therefore Rousseau and Marx and the libertarians assumed that all human social systems, all class divisions, all wars, all divisions between different people, are entirely the result of which system we adapt.

In other words, which Book we build our society around.

As usual, the real lesson here is so basic no one gets it. Every social and political and economic ideology which existed in 1960 should have disappeared without a trace, like the Humor Theory of Galen did in nineteenth century.

But not a single iota has changed. Everybody debates the same old crap. Marx is still a Great Philosopher.

Let’s take a look at one aspect of Meerkat Manor, the struggle for the all-important top meerkat in this matriarchal society. When the old leader died of snake bite, who would take power? We could make a number of guesses, since the old leader was so powerful that she had bred a troop of over fifty.

In meerkat society, the stronger the leader, the bigger the group becomes. With Flower’s death, the troop split into sections, a lead in each.

Another possibility would have been that Flower had bred one of her many offspring that was her equal

But the real lesson here is that we all know what could NOT happen.

What could NOT happen was that the overwhelming majority of the meerkats, who were kept sterile since only the leader was allowed to have offspring, would rise up and take over.

This is the critical point, so no one sees it.

Social animals do not have revolutions.

In nature every revolt is just like what REALLY happened with Communism everywhere. The dissatisfied lionesses might join an intruding male in killing their present mate if they have grown tired of him. Then the new male takes over.

A Communist “Revolution” immediately produces a new ruling class which effectively owns all the property and uses most of it for themselves or their projects. What people do not realize is that, due to our nature, it can’t come out any other way.

Instead of looking at what we now know about animal and human nature, every system that collapses is declared by its proponents to have been somehow “imperfect.”

Mommy Professor will tell you that Socialism would work, that Marx was Great Genius. The rulers of the Soviet Empire and Cambodia just “got it wrong.”

You’ve hears that from the left a hundred times.

Every form of Wordism we have today was written when it was assumed that natural social animals had no property, no territory, no class system, all of which we now assume is impossible even in a society made up of meerkats with brains measured in milligrams.

But the instant we begin to discuss social systems, we go back to a way of thinking a person would be ashamed to take to a discussion of Meerkat Manor.

I spent my life trying to get people to see the obvious, to think about what they already knew. I am always afraid if I talk about anything but the basics, reality will slip away from them.

When he got into the spirit of the Mantra, even Lord Nelson found he was more and more slipping away from it. He found he was very successful when he talked about white countries being “overrun.”

So he went that route, not considering what was happening, until I reminded him of it. If Lord Nelson can make that mistake, the average joe will veer of in the wrong direction and STAY there.

“Overrunning” can be accepted. It does not criticize the Reverend Martin Luther the King or the Holy State of Interracial Marriage. It does not attack assimilation.

The only signal Lord Nelson got as he slid down this oily path was that his argument was suddenly much easier to make. When I pointed it out to him, he recoiled from it like it was a cobra. But who else would mention it to him?

There are no sign paths. World War II vets didn’t become deadly enemies of their own race because they MEANT to. They just found that the more they did it the more their papers hats were praised by the media.

So I stick to repeating and I am very encouraged when I see, especially in General Comments 4, you remind each other of the basics. You MUST learn to go back to the basics again and again and again and again.

We are always looking for ways to get our message across. But we must constantly ask ourselves if we are not succeeding by not saying what they don’t want to hear.

Too many people hack off pieces of the Mantra and seem unable to get my message: I developed the Mantra from PRACTICE, not from a committee.

The Mantra is not a Declaration, it is a TOOL. It cuts them off from each pass, like the Nazi label, I know from a thousand arguments they are going to get off on. “Anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews” is extraneous to someone ticking off the points as if it were an English exercise.

The only short Mantra I have found is “Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White Countries for Everybody.” But that is because I USED it.

The Obedient Generation shows us how easy it is to slip, ever so slowly, into accepting the Party Line. Principled conservatives didn’t do it purposely. They don’t even KNOW they’re doing it.

This leftist-respectable conservative duo was never thought of by anybody. It EVOLVED. Nobody talks about it but me.

The world is much clearer to me, people who never forget the basic principle of supply and demand or Occam’s Razar or other basics. If you get off reality like that, you have to be able to do your usual review of basics and laugh at yourself and correct yourself.

If someone slips, catch him quick.