We know nothing about the Druids. In fact the one thing everyone agrees on about them is untrue. Nobody has any idea of their rites or their beliefs, but in every book I have read involving Druid priests, they wore robes. The self-proclaimed Druids at Stonehenge in modern England wear robes.

Nobody questions this, After all, priests wear robes.

In our society priests wear robes while we wear regular clothes.

But Celts did not wear robes, they wore pants. So did the Saxons and other Northern peoples. I doubt if one person on BUGS, or anywhere else, can imagine a group known to us as priests doing anything ceremonial without robes.

But then again, who else points out what an embarrassment it is to have fake “Classical” buildings all over Washington that a peasant in classical times would have laughed himself sick over?

For two thousand years historians took Caesar’s word that Druidism was destroyed because it practiced human sacrifice. We are talking about Rome, the city whose main amusement by far was the practice of the kind and gentle arts that took place in the Coliseum.

You know, the guys who nailed people up on crosses so they took two or three days to die? You know, the country that required Caesar not only to defeat the enemy, but to kill a specified tens of thousands of them if he was to celebrate a Triumph?

The most likely reason human sacrifice went out was the same reason it went down in Africa: You could SELL those slaves.

Normally Rome would have bought off the people with status in an occupied society. Apparently they couldn’t do that with the Druids. Had they sold out their considerable influence they would be part of history.

The Druids probably came from the same Indo-European base that resulted in Hinduism in India, and the group of the Iranian intellectuals and priests Zoroaster apparently was part of.

To become a Druid adept — we don’t know if they were called priests — you had to go to seminary for a number of years. Young men from Britain went to France before it was conquered and a while after. When Caesar took Gaul and the Romans massacred them, the young men in Gaul who wanted to belong to their underground faith in Gaul went to British seminaries.

Etruscan was the Latin of Roman society. That is, until Greek supplanted it, it was used in the Roman upper classes for some time after Rome tossed out their Etruscan kings. But no one can read Etruscan because it was allowed to die.

Etruscan was the dominant language of Italy for centuries while Rome grew. It was written, but all we have is a few tomb writings and no Rosetta Stone. The only reason we know that they wrote at all is because of their tombs.

Banned Druidic writing is not preserved. Big surprise.

Therefore it is agreed that Druids were illiterate. There are no Celtic books in Roman libraries. There are also no Etruscan books in Roman libraries.

In the near future, people are going to laugh their asses off at what we call history.

Brian came across a site that quoted the Mantra and then went off into pure anti-Semitism. Now that the Mantra is beginning to be used, it is time for us to talk about the usual fear of its being MISused.

Respectable conservatives were worried to death about being called racists, and this was a major argument against the coalition of Wallace and conservative voters that won a solid majority in 1968.

Yes, there were a lot of Democrats who would back a fight against liberal policy but they were Wallacites, and what would that do to me at the next cocktail party I attend.

When Reagan used this coalition and won, all anyone heard at the cocktail parties was that he had WON. The “Wallace vote” instantly became the very respected “Reagan Democrats.”

Wallace ran as a segregationist in 1968. In the polls, which I remember distinctly, the Nixon vote stayed fixed and pasted between 41% and 43%. The majority was equally constant, dividing between Humphrey and Wallace, in other words, Democrats.

The undecided vote was as astoundingly constant as the Republican vote was. It stayed at 7% for months. What moved wildly was the division between Humphrey and Wallace. Humphrey got down to 29% at one point. As the election neared, all the Wallace Democrats went back to Humphrey.

Nixon won with the same 43% he had had the whole time.

To get a majority, Republicans had to convince  up to 22% of the total vote that they were entirely different from old Republicans on basic questions.

Jimmy Carter did that for us, but respectable conservatives could have prevented us from making that coalition. They were terrified of what limousine liberals would say.

So am I worried about people who associate themselves with the Mantra?

No way. Politics is a rough business, and any message that can’t survive being quoted correctly is dead on arrival anyway.

“Just spell our names right.” “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”

The only way someone can associate with the Mantra is by stating it.

People will then go on to their own world view, which will often waste effort or make people disagree with THEM.

By then the person has read the Mantra. He has received an introduction to a world view which is poison to our established religion.

Each person has his own reasons for stating the Mantra. We are not worried about facing a bunch of New York Media personnel at a cocktail party because of it.

There is a huge variety of world views inside BUGS. But we get along fine precisely because we know that what is important is our basic message.

The invention of the Romans and Greeks is not lost on us. It matters not a whit whether you admire or despise your comrade, or how many differences you have with him.

The only thing that matters is that, when you go into combat, your shields remain locked together and your whole force is aiming for the same ground.

In their desperate attempt to separate Christianity from its roots in Zoroastrianism, Christians say there is no relationship because Zoroaster is “dualistic.” This doesn’t wash.

This dualism means that Zoroaster had two EQUAL gods, one of This World, the Evil Ahriman, and the God of the Next World, Ahura Mazda. Then, they tell us, the rest of the Middle East came up with religions several centuries later that had an Evil One and a Good God, but this was entirely independent, because the versions we have make God superior to Satan.

So, see, there’s no relation.

CS Lewis did not compromise his Christianity. He said, as Zoroaster and St. Paul did, that this whole universe is an illusion. He also made a major point of the fact that only two Beings would ever be able to say Mine about anything, and those two Beings were God and Satan.

Making Satan inferior does not hide this equality: there are two Eternal Powers. A lot more was added by Christianity to Zoroastrianism than Satan being a rebellious angel.

“Dualism” is one of those words used, like “Gnostic,” when someone wants to sound like an expert rather than simply one who doesn’t like what is being said.

Our whole idea of morality comes from the concept that this world is an illusion. This means that this world is coming to an end. Jesus declared it once, and later he said there were people listening who would live to see this world end.

The impressive thing is that these predictions were not erased, as our established religion today and the ancient Egyptians would have done. They believed Jesus said it and they wrote it down.

In this sense Political Correctness is a step back toward the Ancient World. Political Correctness is a Marxist term, as anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of Marxist speech would know if he wasn’t trained not to, and Marx said, “Truth is a bourgeois concept.”

Jesus’ erroneous prediction that the world was about to end has driven theologians nuts. There are tens of millions of words devoted to saying he did not say what he is quoted as saying. Christians quoted it because it was the truth, and they did not compromise it.

As Lewis said in his Forward to The Screwtape Letters, it made no difference to his faith whether or not Angels from Heaven and the Tempters From Hell he was writing about in that particular book existed or not.

This is a reason Lewis was able to reach many people no other Christian writer could.

He said it was a matter of faith. Too many Christians say it is faith, and then try to prove that the Bible is exactly true in every word. The next step is to try to prove God through the world, or to justify God because “I could not live if I didn’t believe there is More.”

One fellow was a guest on Christian religious show years ago and he was trying to sell his book which gave the exact SIZE of Heaven. These are the people who Lewis tried to counteract.

Why did Jesus say this? BBG uses the same term the Orthodox Church does: It is a Mystery, and the only real question is Faith.

And the Faith is not in quotations or a Book. The Faith is in Christ.

We have the same problem in our own attempt to spread racial morality. We go off of the core and into books and endless attempts to make the world conform exactly to whatever each person who enters our new world of thinking gets obsessed with.

We lost people that way, the same way so many skeptics were turned off by attempts to prove the world is less than seven thousand years old and the Bible tells you how big Heaven is.

But what does this do for the Faith? You don’t help those who agree with you and you alienate those who think you are getting silly. You undermine their Faith.

And when you throw all your efforts into proving details about a Jewish Conspiracy, you lose those who don’t agree with your facts. All of us have had the experience of thinking that someone was making statements which had no use but to be quoted by our enemies to make us all look silly.

Disabuse yourself. These are not ADL plants, they are simply repeating the same error so many Christians have routinely made and other surely made thousands of years before Christ.

When my father went to brick maker conventions, it was understood that ANY discussions of prices was grounds for an antitrust investigation. Adam Smith, the chief originator and advocate of the theory of free enterprise, wrote that any time those in a trade get together, it ends up as a conspiracy against the public.

I have been to conventions where those who held a monopoly of buyers consorted freely with those who produced the product, and I have never heard Mommy Professor give the slightest hint that anything could possibly be going on there.

These were economics conventions. Professors who chose the textbooks and those who wrote the textbooks were all there. This is a gigantic industry, but for some reason it is the one exception to the rule of Follow the Money.

It is breathtaking how much a student has to spend to get the textbooks required for his course, and there are many millions of students. On each campus there is an official campus book store. In any other industry a tenth this size Mommy Professor would be pointing to the deals being made in the background between authors and book stores and at conventions.

It is an ironic tribute to the thorough brainwashing on campus that students hear endless lectures on who anybody dealing in money OFF CAMPUS is cheating his tail off, but no student will EVER think of college textbooks, one of the most restricted products on earth, in this way.

Once again, they hear it, but they don’t THINK.

What is amazing about Selective Scandal is not that it happens, every power group practices it. What is astonishing is how, without specific guidance, every single college graduate is so trained that he never begins to think of any of the out-of-bounds ones.

A great example of this is when I mention that there is scandal and abuse in every place where there is power and money, except one:

The press.

The reaction I get is 1) the person never thought of that, and 2) OF COURSE the press doesn’t print scandal about the press.

Both.

With all the powerful multimillion-paid productions on national TV, I never heard a hint of scandal about a single one of them. There are lot more of them than there are members of congress.

But you won’t read about this anywhere but in BUGS.

Well, there is another exception.

There were the two blacks who made up their stories and were exposed because each of them was awarded a Pulitzer and had to give it back. The one at the New York Times has a paper trail of memos discussing what to do about him long before he had to be exposed because of his award.

Then there is good old Mao. On record, even OUR record, Mao killed a lot more people than Hitler did.

But they weren’t Jews. They were just a bunch of Chinks.

My business is finding good, short ways to express what everybody knows. The problem is that to do this, I have to write an article. One good term to express what people already know is worth any number of articles.

Wishtory tells us that George Washington cut down the cherry tree. No one can read history with any accuracy if he is not always aware of wishtory. You simply cannot understand any history at all if you do not realize the reason the information in the history book is produced.

The moment WWII ended there was a huge demand for African Great Civilizations. Before that, it was generally agreed that there weren’t any.

So suddenly books poured out about Great African Civilizations. Somebody was writing Wishtory, either those before or those after World War II. But this is the only place you will hear it discussed.

The first thing any writer, academic or popular, does is to figure what will be published and what will sell. It really is publish or perish in academia, and the number of editors is very limited and they all think exactly the same.

By definition, publish or perish means that those who publish determine your fate. If you even suspect that that group does not have a lot of common points of view, you are a fool. Every daily newspaper has almost exactly the same items on page one and page two and so on. Every journal is edited by someone who, like newspaper editors, came up in the same school.

Everybody knows this. Nobody SAYS this.

The line above should be very familiar to BUGS readers.

An editor of an academic journal dreams of having one of his articles published favorably in a national magazine. Every academic writer dreams of the same thing. So when Time had a front page story about the African Eve, those who wanted to publish turned to anything they had to back that idea up or copy it.

As I said, when the first quick look at KGB files did not show any reference to Alger Hiss, it was a front-page story in our local liberal chain newspaper. A little later extensive files were found on Hiss, but they were not mentioned in the paper.

So if you were in a publish or perish situation and you had information on Hiss, which part of the info would you send in?

I have known men who fought for at least thirty countries in World War II. All of them agree that, if it were not for the Italians, American soldiers would cover the pavement as the jokes of the War.

You won’t read that, and you know WHY you won’t read that. But nobody THINKS about a thousand things like that.

Every Soviet documentary ended with a statement of why everything there proved Stalin was God. Every BBC documentary ends with a sermon about how all that has been said can be fitted into Politically Correct Wishtory.

If you publish or perish, you either don’t get tenure or you learn what will be published. This is life or death.

In a perfect society what would be published would be what is true. People who believe in a perfect society are normally given Prozac and if that doesn’t work they are sent somewhere quiet for the protection of themselves and others.

Someone said in a forum that the one argument anti-whites had that he might consider is that pro-white statements might cause violence. Meanwhile the same anti-whites insist that the only way we can have peace is for the history of white oppression be a major topic in our schools.

When Kelso and I and others were visiting New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, the police were in force. When we spoke in a old church where an ex-cop on our side had raised the money for pro-white meetings, there were hundreds of threateners across the street.

I’m used to that.

When we speak on a campus, we are often blocked by ”a threat of violence.”

But the whole situation was summed up by one of the cops who showed up: “We aren’t worried about YOU.”

The “threat of violence” ALWAYS comes from the anti-whites. The question is not whether they will act like the thugs they are, but whether public officials should allow any point of view to be shouted down.

During the Cold War liberals always insisted that “We should settle differences by discussions, not by violence.” But every university prevents any discussion of white genocide by talking about “a threat of violence.”

What do you do when one side wants to speak out and the threat of violence comes entirely from the other side? Is this a key to a peaceful society? Is this a free society?

As usual, I am stating what everybody knows but nobody, including our side, ever SAYS. Why do our people dummy up all the time?

Speech is the human ALTERNATIVE to violence.

This is another reason the Mantra is so critical. The one barrier we have is that respectable conservatives have joined with liberals in saying that any questioning of anti-white views is to be met with violence.

Outside the United States, in fact, the government provides the violence. William Buckley endorsed Europe’s sending people to prison for denying the six million figure for the Holocaust. This is not even Holocaust denial, it is arguing the NUMBERS.

The Soviet Union sent people to the Gulag for any criticism of Jews. In Battleship Potemkin, a Soviet propaganda film, you will see a heroic mob beating a man to death for an anti-Semitic remark.

John Adams risked lynching by successfully defending the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre in court. He is considered a hero for that.

In fact, in every single case in history those who defended the right of speech against violence, especially the Communists, are declared heroes.

Except us.

But, just as in the case of all immigration and assimilation policy applying only to white countries, we dummy up about it.

By now, the anti-whites are terrified that something like the Mantra will be recognized as a legitimate point of view.

That is our job, and that is why it is so HARD.

And that is why all the time we waste on crime rates and US immigration policy and criticizing affirmative action is a boon to the anti-whites. If they can keep all discussion of white survival off the table, and in the Forbidden Zone, they will own the debate.

Another fact we never mention is that Hate Speech Laws didn’t stop Hitler.

The American position has always been that free speech is the only human alternative to violence.

Our side seems to have forgotten that completely.

I spoke of earlier of how the selection of winners is different from the selection of Spokesmen. The Republican Party went without a majority in either House of Congress for a generation. In fact, from 1931 to 1995, they held a House majority for four years.

Yet the same leadership stayed at the top of the Party.

Those who were at the top of the Party all that time obviously did not care about winning. They had jobs based on their filling a place in the system. As soon as they DID win, the Reaganites came pouring in, and a lot of the old leadership lost their jobs.

Rush Limbaugh scared the diddly out of the media at first. The established media, including respectable conservatives, are always afraid of new people and new ideas.

We are not talking about their cause, but of their livelihood. Every successful movement has to deal with those for whom that movement was a comfortable niche.

It is easy to forget that “survival of the fittest” is a misleading term. Some animals do evolve to rule over and eat others. But most animals do not. Most evolve to fit a humble place where they do not compete. They develop camouflage.

So if you understand survival of the fittest to be the survival of some ideal, you are wrong. The same is true of institutions as of animals.

The REPUBLICAN Ohio legislature tried three times to get rid of my Republican boss, John Ashbrook, by changing his district to include Democrats. In his final run before he was murdered, the district that had been changed three times to add more Democrats had about a 65% traditional Democratic vote.

But in the 1980 election, John got 73% of that vote!

Obviously, what John was doing WON. Equally obviously, the Party leaders were desperate to get rid of him.

Nobody was less happy at Obama’s election victory than Jessie Jackson. In South Carolina, an obscure Black man won the Democratic Senate primary and nobody was more infuriated about it than this state’s lone black congressman.

If you devote your life to a cause, this is a very practical reality. I have always shown my approach wins. People saw me prove it in my confrontations. Obviously, winning was not the criterion, the usual meaning of “survival of the fittest” did not apply.

In the real world, every group has its own evolution. I found that I had to deal with those whom their organizations had put at the top of political and media outfits. They evolve, not so their group will win, but to FIT.

John Ashbrook won and won and won. He was not the slightest bit surprised that his Party tried desperately to get rid of a winner.

Groups that have been constantly losing will tend to develop a selection process that favors people who fit in with losers. I don’t know of any examples of a group that has lost for decades becoming a winner without major personnel changes.