I enjoy the irony of reducing a reality to simple terms. For example, a trend lately has been referring to a study, real or imagined, that shows that superrich and super powerful people are inconsiderate of to the people’s feelings, rude, or, as the old saying goes, “He’s ugly, he can’t sing and he don’t love Jesus.”

First of all, after hearing the profile of the rich a famous a number of times, all it says is that the rich and powerful are like spoiled children.

The lesson I am given from this is that this is how people act who are successful. It may be how people act BECAUSE they are successful.

A person with any experience in the world assumes that this is another one of those things one always hears at a party, expressing a trendy opinion and beginning with “They found out that…”

It still seems to work, but one who has been around a while has to be pretty stupid not to note that every time “They found out that…” is an example to reinforce the latest trendy opinion of the party set and that last time “They found out …” something entirely different.

Anyone who has actually been engaged in population-related studies knows how hard it is to get a consistent sample of anything. But “They found out…” about superrich people by presumably getting a statistically significant number of them together, say two or three thousand, and that the sample is not skewed, so they were able to make their selection from say a hundred thousand volunteers.

How do you assemble several thousand multimillionaires? Anybody who can do THAT isn’t doing academic studies at a professor‘s pay grade..

In other words when you THINK about it the whole thing is absurd.

It is useful to make an impression at the kind of parties I went to, that is one reason they are held. So when someone says “They found out that …” I am the only one who asks, “Who are THEY?”

People no more expect that than they expect a conservative accused of racism to ask, “What is racism?”

But I use the question to go ahead and make the points I made above.

Does this fake “study,” whatever its real source, prove what the trendy thing is, that one BECOMES rich and powerful by acting like a spoiled Jewish kid who was raised by a Jewish Mother, or does it simply show that the rich are spoiled?

Does it exist?

Actually, I would be surprised if, in a society which is based on disloyalty, those who made it up the carious ladders today were not largely scum.

If that is true, it might be a good idea to think about how long those ladders are going to hold up.

For it or agin it, everyone admits that Evolution was a major development. In the last half of the last century, we have an equally revolutionary change in our picture of Nature.

But none of it is even mentioned in the social sciences. All of our social theories, from Communist to Libertarian, go back to the 1950s idea that man was his own product, that all social structures were imposed on man by the System.

Karl Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin but Darwin refused. In the introduction to Kapital, Marx recognized advances in science about man, something no Marxist will do today.

I heard that Nathaniel Branden was Ayn Rand’s husband. I heard from their followers that he had himself sterilized and made it his life’s work to prove that man has no instincts.

This is probably true. Marx and Ayn Rand were both trying to prove that the social system and logic made man what he is. Both of them came from Rousseau’s idea of the Noble Savage. Man was Noble until he was corrupted by Private Property or by government that warped him.

This is NOT an exaggeration. This is what we believed in the 1950s, just as we believed that continents stayed in the same place forever. As with the Mantra, you don’t need to be a great analyzer to make everything Intellectuals believe today look as ridiculous as it is.

You just have to state it in plain, uncompromising English.

And that is what respectable conservatives are paid NOT to do. None of them will ever point out that revolutions in science have put every single political and social theory on the Left and on the Right into the dustbin.

Another thing that has gone without notice into the dustbin is the entire theory of psychoanalysis.

In 1950, there was no such ting as schizophrenia. It was called the Schizophrenic Response. Like everything else in the post-Hitler world, everything about the human brain was a response to social stimulae, not genes, which were only mentioned by naziswhowantedtokillsixmillionjews.

Today if you were to state what social scientists insisted on in 1950, you would leave your audience thunderstruck.

Which is why respectable conservatives have a whole industry going built around NOT talking about such things.

One period in the history of medicine fascinates me. With the discovery of bacteria and of blood circulation and about everything else we actually know about medicine today, the Balance of Humors of the Roman Galen, which had been the foundation of all medical education until that time, was simply tossed out the window.

But how could professors who were middle-aged and had studied nothing BUT Galen and astrology and so forth, men who had made it up through the bureaucracy of the medical studies of their time, possibly throw out the old trash?

It would be good to know, because the social sciences are in exactly the same position today. The idea that animals have no social classes, no territory and that male birds tweet to attract female birds is as dead as bleeding to cure pneumonia.

This has happened before, and I am sure the old medical elite tried to restate everything in Galen’s terms and simply put the quietus on what the real world looked like, just as the social sciences are doing today.

Bleeding for pneumonia was still around to kill George Washington in 1799. The present social scientists will be followed by many a president in the next generation.

But all present political theory, in fact all present social science, is as out of date as Galen. The foundation is gone. The superstructure is huge, and has a lot of momentum.

But eventually people get down to speaking English. When people start doing that, Mommy Professor is dead.

We called them Home Truths because they “hit you at home.”

They HURT. A good example is the kid who went out for high school football who was five foot four and barely weighed maybe a hundred pounds. The coach would tell him that there were come unofficial physical requirements that prevented him from giving the kid a tryout.

Of course, the Home Truth, what the coach was thinking, was “Dammit, you know you’re too LITTLE for me to put you out there even for practice. I would be responsible, and you should damned well know it.”

I have found that more Home Truths are funny than they are painful.

We had a Home Truth about our Populist Forum and we had a truly ingenious way to deal with it. But I have never met anybody who didn’t laugh when I described it because it IS funny.

A lot of people talked about an alliance between the grass roots working people who backed Wallace and the regular conservatives, but no one knew how to make a start.

So Bob Hoy, who had press experience, dealt with the press and made the grassroot contacts. My wife, who was a legal secretary did the paperwork and the real organizing, and me, who conceived it and did the writing.

The Communist Party Daily World described us as a “large heavily financed organization” and we loved them for it.

You seem the Home Truth was that we were three people with full time jobs and no budget. Hoy was getting the national news media to our press conferences for anti-busing, independent truckers, national protests against dirty textbooks required by the educational establishment, and on and on.

Let me claim my credit here. Hoy got the press and did the field work, but the people we dealt with were uniformly stunned by my writing. It is really weird for a person used to ordinary language to hear EXACTLY what he said translated into a press release.

They would sit a moment in a surprise and then say, “That’s EXACTLY what I said.”

They were used to their preacher putting God’s spin on what they were fighting for. They were used to conservatives and liberals putting their spin on it. When they heard me say exactly what they would have said if they knew how to write press releases, they were always amazed.

But we usually let them think we represented an Organization. The media would have been hard for Hoy to get there if they had known that, while all the other people vying for their attention were big outfits or Celebrities, we were three people and no budget.

So when Hoy had to deal with the press, he never refused on his own and ticked them off. When I dealt with conservatives, I made no decisions that contradicted them. Hoy said that Whitaker or Brigitte had the decision on this, I said that one of them did.

Sometimes we had what we called “a show call.” Hoy had to turn a group down for our services or refuse to give something to the press. He got on the phone with them listening and called me or Brigitte. If it was Brigitte who was available, he made unblushing use of Male Chauvinism.

You see, on a show, Brigitte became the “supervisor.” Then and probably now, everybody assumed a female supervisor meant that she we speaking for an even bigger Boss who couldn’t be disturbed.

That’s three levels of organization. Obviously we were a large, heavily financed operation.

Or Hoy would call Bob Whitaker, who was up there on Capitol Hill. All of us knew exactly what was going on from the tone of voice we used. Hoy or Bob was obviously talking to his Superior, the Man Who Made the Real Decision. Not just anybody could speak for all the money and organization in The Populist Forum.

So when I got a call, I knew my role. Whatever it was Hoy needed at the moment, he would say the right things to me. If he needed a veto, he would make that clear, and the other way around.

The Home Truth, three overworked people and no budget was never even suspected. I became the official spokesman for the working people for the national conservative movement.

Truth can be grim, but it can also be funny.

Back in my day, the professional commentators never even appeared in public before they had been vetted. Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather went up through the media bureaucracy to get into the small group from which their Anchor Man status was chosen.

Blog audiences are one hell of a lot tougher. You don’t have to complain when I let you down, though I would prefer it. You just don’t show up.

When I was getting dangerously tired, I took some time off and BoardAd, who knows my writings better than anybody else, would put in Blasts From the Past from a decade of writing and my books.

BoardAd called me back fast because our readership from dropping like a rock.

That was an IMPORTANT experience, and unlike the old Commentators, I had to THINK about it.

In the days when ABC, NBC, CBS and “Educational” TV were the only choices, people wrote thousands of letters of complaint. Rather could tell those people to go to hell if they didn’t like his East Coast opinions.

The blog world is, to say the least, a bit different. You have literally millions of choices and more every day. We used to need TV as our one choice for visual entertainment at home. But the blog world doesn’t even have that advantage. Most people use the Internet all the time and never look at a blog.

It reminds me of how Mommy Professor is always praising the Marxist countries because there “The Intellectual” is supposed to rule. A Mommy Professor wouldn’t last two weeks in a real Communist bureaucracy.

Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite wouldn’t last a week on a blog except for their Big Names. Phil Donahue tried a cable network show, Big Name and all, where he commented on politics. He was out on his ass in a month.

Everybody who goes on the Internet, like our White Rabbit, finds that he has to offer lots of news, no matter what he would LIKE to repeat. It is an astounding accomplishment that BUGS gets a thousands of hits and a steadily growing audience while sticking to my strategy advice and commentary.

For me, you BUGSers represent an accomplishment no big blog can claim.

And I LISTEN. Dan Rather could and did ignore thousands of complaints as a matter of routine.

But I don’t get that much warning. One commenter simply mentioned that, “Bob is very interesting when he isn’t talking about himself.”

You better believe I thought about that on and on and on: It warned me about the Old Man’s Disease of ruminating.

In the Dan Rather world, a thousand letters one way or the other didn’t matter much. He dealt in tens of millions and he was part of a monopoly.

In the blog world, you are here because you choose it. The Donahues and the Rathers went down like rocks when cable news came in.

BUGSers compliment me a lot. As I said, keep your mind on the COMPETITION. Nobody is here unless they really LIKE what I have to say. With millions of blogs and all else to choose from, it would be absurd if the people who read BUGS DIDN’T think I was pretty great.

Also, we are a considerate group of people. Psychopaths and sadists don’t show up here. A person who is genuinely worried about the survival of his race is the opposite of the kind of person who is only out for himself, or even the majority whose main worry is Popular Opinion.

So I study your comments. People who didn’t like Rather told him so.

It sounds trite, but it is a profound truth: I am dealing with people who CARE.

Not only do you care, you care about something the entire establishment is screaming at you NOT to care about.

To an old man who dealt in questioning people, you don’t have to shout at me or acidly criticize me for me to HEAR you.

And, since I know that you do CARE, I can dig out stuff I need to think about even when you are barely saying it.

When I say one of my crowd is worth thousands, I MEAN it. I am doing the arithmetic, not flattering you.

The blog market is TOUGH. I LIKE it.

Hurricane Katrina was a landmark that, as usual, no one noticed. It was the first time in history that foreign aid was a major factor in an AMERICAN disaster.

Historically it was the United States that provided aid when disaster struck, even the nan-made Civil War disaster in the Ukraine and Russia in the areas that the Communists controlled in the early twenties, when a man named Herbert Hoover ran the effort. Until New Orleans, ALL such aid was one-way, at least since the saving of Jamestown in 1609.

But when blacks took over New Orleans, it ceased to be what was historically known as an AMERICAN disaster. It became a minority area disaster.

Katrina was a window on the “no whites” future dreamed of by “anti-racists.”

There is, if your mind is broad, a connection between almost every subject, each discussed briefly and alone, in BUGS. I have repeatedly made the point that no one in this generation knows what starvation really IS.

Jane Fonda, who of course was raised in poverty in her father’s house, is constantly talking about starvation.

You may have noticed that not one of the endless “public service ads” demanding private donations for colored countries EVER mentions the word “starvation” any more.

They simply show what wretched conditions the average child in a colored country has to live in. New Orleans was simply this world phenomenon coming to America.

When the colored world includes Europe and America, we will once again learn what the word starvation REALLY means.

But this changeover is not recognized because all people want to talk about is the latest news. When I was young the debate was about how fast each country’s economy was growing. The brilliant Intellectuals and Idealists of the USSR were “catching up” with the United States.

Note the term “catching up.” The United States at that time had 2.3% annual REAL increase in PER CAPITA income. The only debate was about how much faster other countries were catching up.

According to Soviet figures, the USSR was coming on fast.

That was the WHOLE debate back then, how fast America was GROWING compared with the “centrally planned economies” and Germany and Japan.

Once again, the least noticed thing that has changed is the thing that has changed MOST.

All of the old assumptions about GROWTH have been dead for over a generation.

In other words, the predictions of us racists stopped being PREDICTIONS decades ago.

We predicted a decline, but as a matter of simple arithmetic we will learn to take stagnation for granted and then we will learn not to notice decline.

Why should we apologize for being right?

We said that the decline of the white race meant stagnation and then decay.

We were dead right.

Everything is right on schedule.

New Orleans is tomorrow.

It is impossible to keep count, but at least half of the environmental catastrophe’s today are the result of environmentalism. Species got out of control so another species was imported to control the problem and this new type is even more out of control.

People see this all the time but they don’t THINK about it.

I ran into this phenomenon in my early teens, when I had already had history courses year after year talking about the civilization of the Middle East and how each was overrun by a Northern invasion, the how Ionian Greeks were Northern invaders and then Ionia was overrun by the Dorians and how they were taken over by the Macedonians and so on, then how Rome fell to barbarians from the north, and so forth.

So after about five consecutive immersions in this, I said, “History is a series of Northern invasions.”

And all the kids who had been in each of those classes with me stared at me like I had a tulip growing out of my nose and said, “DUHH??”

Likewise, somewhere about halfway along describing an environmental crisis, the narrator briefly mentions it is a result of an earlier environmental attempt at the Final Solution to a problem years earlier.

Hence this extended introduction. If you note that I tend to repeat things, please remember my experience with the DUHH?? Syndrome.

An anti-immigration group in Germany insists that integration, assimilation, is the solution. They mean it is the Final Solution, but they can’t say that.

So if you realize the last generation of environmentalism has caused most of our present environmental problem, it is easy to see how the last generation of opposition to genocide has bred the present genocide.

Taken together, all the assimilationist groups in all the white countries come down to the end of the white race in general. It leads to “the only real solution,” meaning the only Final Solution, “is THE mixing of THE races.”

But “The races” only means the white race. No one is allowed to point out that the REASON Germany must bring in and assimilate tens of millions of colored is because Germany is WHITE. This is an assumption that is so taken for granted that no one mentions it.

Historically pretty well al final solutions imposed as a reaction to a problem have gone on to become greater problems themselves. Nazism itself was a reaction to rise of Bolshevism and the Depression.

It should be part of human wisdom that when any gigantic movement goes out to crush every trace of some problem, it will itself eventually go so far as to create an opposite problem.

The transition of anti-racism to be being simply anti-white was perfectly predictable. There is a lesson to be learned from it.

One good lesson it should teach is how stupid and impenetrable people are when it comes to something popular.

There was a discussion of another book talking about Jefferson’s relationship with his female slave. Ben Stein’s father was a law professor at the University of Virginia, so he dared to defend Marse Tom. He pointed out that the DNA showed he OR one of his male kin fathered the kids.

Of the four discussants one remained silent for the whole half hour. He was the black one. At the end he stated that he hadn’t read the book, and he had only come on the program for one reason, to point out that the female slave was under age and Jefferson was also a child molester.

Nobody showed any surprise. I doubt anybody expected him to read the book.

Back when Jessie Jackson became a candidate for the Democratic nomination and the first debate was coming on, the other candidates OPENLY expressed their concern that if they came on strong they might make a complete fool of him.

But on the other hand, they couldn’t afford to be too patronizing.

This is the attitude of whites towards blacks, and it varies surprisingly little. What makes the difference is not our real belief about the races, but our attitude toward the present perversion of morality whereby, if we’re good, everything whites have is somebody else’s.

That is supposed to represent Self-Sacrifice.

America elected a Negro president. That is, it elected a black guy who talked good and wore a suit, like Sidney Poitiers or Jackie Robinson.

There is a lot of discussion about how he has fallen short. The real explanation is that he isn’t too bright.

Ever since the World War I Betas, we have known that blacks do far better on verbal skills and worse on math or other abstracts. A critical difference in learning is that blacks learn more by ear than by eye.

In short, black guys can talk very well, dance very well, run very well, but they fall short in the department our president is now falling short in. They do a good show, but they are not bright.

The liberal formulae for reviving the economy, the New Deal way, have run out. Normally a president would do what one Democrat after another has done since WWII, he would change his policies.

We run into a problem here that no one dares recognize: Obama CAN’T change his thinking. He has not been doing any.

There is a giant difference between someone who is repeating a line because he believes it and one who repeats a line because he can’t conceive of any other. Clinton could THINK. Carter could THINK.

This is the problem with black elected officials. They don’t have CONCEPTS. They have SCRIPTS. This is racial, no matter how many baths the individual black takes or how well he dresses.

I see exactly what is happening. I suspect a lot of people do now. It has cost us trillions and it will cost us more trillions, but no price is too great to avoid saying what is obviously the case.

At first, BBC programs were on PBS. The accents were so think that Americans usually couldn’t keep up with them. To the British, these think accents were part of the humor. How one speaks was always a hallmark of one’s identity and one’s clahss.

With syndication into the vast American market, these unintelligible accents disappeared. Our British readers would know if there is still a lot of that there, but Monty Python English is as understandable to an American audience as is American programming.

But Monty Python tapes were almost wiped before they were discovered and sent to America. It is my impression that any British show that stood some chance of getting into this market dropped the heavy accents, just in case.

In the case of IQ studies and crime rates, we have the opposite situation. Thinking over my tens of thousands of exchanges with anti-whites, I came to realize that in almost every case there was no FACTUAL difference between what I thought and my opponent thought.

American thought on other races is, in many ways, amazingly homogenous. Barry Goldwater used to joke, “People think I hedge on integration. I am perfectly consistent on it. When someone brings it up, I always say, ‘Where are you FROM?’”

Now we have few regional differences in accent on this issue. A person who is one generation from white trash and has gotten a college degree will be as fanatically politically correct as the British middle class is class-conscious.

The upper and lower classes in Britain are not at all reserved. But the middle class is painfully so. There are exceptions, but you can fairly well make that a rule. Likewise, the way a person talks on race has to do with his background.

But there is very little real difference among Americans when it comes to how they see the races. That is one reason IQ and crime studies are no longer of much use. There was a time when only Southerners had any experience with blacks in general and Yankees believed that they were all whites with paint on their skin.

That time is now forgotten. Today, all Americans know that blacks are different. It is not that they don’t know it, it’s that, as a matter of political correctness, they must deny it as a matter of, if you will, courtesy.

When a pro-white compares black gyrations as animal, he is being evil. But his opposite number will believe deeply that blacks or Indians are not responsible for anything they do that is wrong. They regard blacks and Indians as innocent, and that innocence is of the animal type.
When someone says that we are whites claiming to be victims, it never occurs to us that that is as blatant a racist statement as ever came out at a Klan rally. Why? Because we agree with it. It is part of the pattern of thought of whites, so neither the left or the right sees it as anything else.

Anti-whites talk about minorities in exactly the same way that the ASPCA talks about puppies.

So do we.