You can sure tell when a pro works on something the way our pros redesigned BUGS.

One thing I want you to understand is that I have no idea who the pros were, and this makes a very happy old trooper.

I have spent my whole life on the very, very front line or on the edge, but not because I enjoyed it. I did it because I was the only out there. To me the ultimate luxury is to delegate. So BoardAd told me one of our senior folk — and “senior” here doesn’t mean age — had some talent himself and had found someone to redesign BUGS.

I said Okeedoke, stick it on there and we’ll see what the reaction is. That was the end of my involvement with the entire thing.

I fully expect to be given full credit for doing it all, of course.

I don’t know who put the little bug up there in the first place. I don’t know who put the Santa hat on the bug when Christmas rolled around a few years ago. In every case I appreciated whoever had done it. And in every case I appreciated that whoever did it felt so much a part of our team he didn’t have to check it with Headquarters.

Everything here, except a little matter of, as BBG points out, over 4,000 articles, was not done by me. The BUGS you see was developed by others, people who volunteered to take over the technical work, which includes the visual setup.

They cannot give themselves credit because the other thing I give exclusively is the willingness to put my name out for everybody to see.

We are, as I have said before, samizdat.

In the Middle Ages a lord’s life depended on how many men he could hire to defend him. But that same lord spent more on his finery and obvious, let me repeat that word, obvious, luxury, he had around him. There was nothing frivolous about this. It was, to say the least, not a frivolous time.

But looks count for so much that in the hard calculation between more soldiers and more finery, lords chose so much finery.

Looks count. Looks count a LOT, and I am not the author of the professional look BUGS has steadily acquired over the years. I pity the business that has to put up its own website from scratch.

We look GOOD.

I hate traitors.

When someone accused a Southerner in my youth of “hating” blacks, his reaction was complete puzzlement. Nowadays nobody is allowed to say, “Some of my best friends are blacks, but in the 50s Deep South it was simply the case.

Some people you like personally and some you don’t, in many cases for no reason you can explain or even understand why, that’s just the way things are.

And, of course, there was paternalism. Blacks had looked to the better class of white folks to go to when they got into trouble since before the Pilgrims got to Plymouth Rock. We had some sixty black families who derived their living from the brick plant and came straight to us for everything from legal trouble to medical emergencies.

In other words, my attitude towards blacks was exactly the same as that of the modern liberal. Nobody else seems to notice that when liberals speak of white guilt against other races and human guilt against animals, the language is precisely the same. Animals and non-whites cannot be guilty, because they are not mentally capable of being responsible for their actions.

Anything bad an animal does is the fault of the humans dealing with them. Anything bad a minority group does is the result of some evil thing a white person, a real person responsible for his own actions, did to them.

One is not even allowed to mention that we had the same attitude. To put both the liberal attitude and the old Southern attitude into plain English, to hate a black was like hating a wildcat or, Heaven forbid, a monkey.

The fact is that an intelligent white has difficulty hating blacks because we all, from the KKK to the NAACP, assume they are inferior beings.

I hate traitors. I am fully aware that Jews routinely hate the society around them.

Please understand that I am aware that in today’s lingo liberals are incapable of regarding minorities as inferior and that Jews are capable of hate. We are told that Jews have been driven out of every country on earth and subjected to horrible persecution all the time and everywhere: “Two thousand years of SUFFERING!”

There was only one human being who could have spent one day SUFFERING on the Cross and not hate those who had done it to him, but he was not a typical Jew. Two thousand years of being hated and driven from land to land, which is how Jews describe THEMSELVES, is going to build up a lot of hatred in any human being, though to the person himself it will all be Righteous Resentment.

I am puzzled why people have to produce whole volumes of details to prove something they could explain in five minutes in plain English. The simple fact is that Jews hate those around them as naturally as the Poles hate the Germans or the Germans are assumed to have a hundreds of years old grudge against the French.

That grudge, in 1940, was freely called hate.

Yet here we have a group of people who meet every Saturday to talk about how the People of the Land, the goyim, have killed them and tortured them and driven them out for no reason whatsoever, in every country they have ever dwelt.

In the case of Jews this is called Righteous Resentment, not hatred. But if you know anything about human nature, you know that in every case in history the people who are described as “hating” are absolutely sure that they are merely expressing Righteous Resentment.

Jews hate us. That is because they are Jews. It goes with the territory. I do not hate blacks. Like all other whites, I see them as an inferior group. In my upbringing, a black who commits a crime is somewhere between a dog that kills human and human being responsible for his own actions.

Oddly enough, the way I was raised in the most reactionary Deep South is precisely the same view that the most progressive thinker of today insists on.

But I do hate.

It is an emotion I reserve almost entirely for traitors.

It is true that one should look at what the other side does when it is successful. The problem with that advice is that it has been used by respectable conservatives so much to prove their respectability. So a John McCain has a lot of widely touted “new ideas,” but every one of his “new” ideas is a liberal one.

This is particularly loved by our rulers for the same reason Republicans going for the black vote is ridiculous. Those who, defeat after defeat, said Republicans could get the black vote pointed to Republican landslides, like Ike’s wins in 1952 and 1956, when some 40% of blacks voted for the GOP.

In the case of landslides, those who own the black vote do not put out the voter lists every black has when he goes to vote.

And the bottom-line, in a landslide, the black vote makes no difference. The voter list goes out in the ones where it matters, so every time a Republican believes that 40% myth will help him win a tight race, he gets trounced and blacks vote over 90% against him, as instructed.

The same thing is true when a McCain decides to be “flexible.” McCain decided to work with the Democrats on some “reasonable” gun controls bills. The tendency has been so strongly against anti-gun bills that this one was watered down to be one that might be passed in the present state of public opinion.

So this gun bill was to give the anti-gun lobby new life by getting something minor. Since it was so watered down, McCain decided it was part of his New Image to support it.

It is Republicans who want this New Image who actually pass marginal things like that. There’s nothing minor about them. They don’t waste their time on anything that doesn’t matter. McCain gave the anti-gun lobby a victory when it was about to go down for the count.

Just as the blacks only bother to boss their votes when it COUNTS.

So the cliché that one should do what the other side does when it is successful has a very deserved bad name. It has been routinely used by Republicans who rejected the Wallace vote for the hopeless pursuit of the black vote and by other outright traitors like McCain.

But the simple fact is that we are in this corner largely because somebody found ways to destroy us. Even in the 1950s, if you had described the present situation, integration would have been resisted nationwide. Our position was that integration was step towards a program of intermarriage and of doing away with the white race.

Half of the people who denied that would have switched sides if they had seen today. Those who denied it then embrace it today, but of course they talk about a “multiracial society” as if it applied to nonwhite countries as well as white ones. But people back then would have seen it for what it is.

The other side took the line that advanced their cause at the time. They never discussed what the logical continuation of integration was. They just kept to their line about how blacks were discriminated against.

Today, we are trying to make genocide against our race a legitimate issue. We refuse to discuss what exactly will be done about it until the other side stops using intimidation against us for talking about it.

Those on the other side insist that any discussion of the issue will lead to some specific Evil End.

They never let us talk about that Evil End on integration. They would have been fools to do so.

We honestly don’t know where policy will go when the simple survival of our race is accepted as something that can be discussed without thugs throwing a riot or our careers being ruined.

I have been in active politics since I campaigned for Strom Thurmond’s write-in campaign in 1954.

The reason you read is largely because I have been there and done that. Most of us don’t feel hurt when I criticize you because you are making a mistake I made, not once but over and over and over.

Which is why it is so unique that there is actually a very popular error I never made. That was failing to learn from the other side. But before you pin the medals on my shirt that I so richly deserve, let me point out that one reason for this was that in all my reading there was almost nothing BUT the other side.

That was when any debate on television consisted of liberal Republicans as The Other Side against the Democrats who represented what was declared openly to be “mainstream opinion.”

Back then all Civil Rights legislation was stopped by a Southern filibuster. Conservative Republicans simply would not vote closure on debate, which required the vote of two-thirds of the total Senate membership, 64 senators at the time.

Southerners would take turns talking. But it was particularly hard on advocates of the legislation, since they had to sit it out, day and night, while all but one Southern senator stayed away. If at any time there were not 48 of them sitting there, the Southerner talking would simply ask for a quorum call.

The media all declared that these Southerners and Northern conservatives were stopping legislation “mainstream opinion” supported.

My brother gave a very good ironic explanation: “The South, the Midwest, and the West are combining to thwart the National Will.”

One lesson I learned from this was that the side that says it’s the National Will, or anything else, is likely to be seen as doing so. When several leftist women, each of whom had been the serial rapist’s best friend in the most extreme period of “Criminals are innocent, it’s society’s fault in the 60s, held a press conference in the 70s to declare themselves The Women’s Movement, they were accepted as such.

One of their first big issues was how many serial rapists a male-run society was putting back on the streets.

I was not surprised that the Women’s Movement had almost no popular base at all. Hundreds of thousands of women joined women’s groups with a conservative, anti-Women’s Movement agenda. But they got no notice at all.

When we set up our highly-publicized Populist Forum, we set up press conferences for genuine ground level anti-textbook movements, independent truckers, and anti-bussers, wildcat coal strikers, farmer’s groups and lots of others. Since my press releases said exactly what they wanted to say without subordinating it to any spin, we simply had to turn down all the dozens of requests for our help because we had no money.

But the media did call us the Populist Forum, a name liberals would die for.

In fact, though he doesn’t know it, we secured that title so that James Edwards can use it now.

The other side gets out in public and claims things. But it also gives the press something it can USE. You write their articles for them and they will use your title. I once made the front page of the New York Times doing that.

Conservatives expect to lose all the big titles. The conservative women with larger outfits could have called themselves the REAL Women’s Movement, but they always used words like Christian or Traditional. if they had come to me I could have helped them take over the Women’s Movement title.

And if a bullfrog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his butt every time he jumped. Conservatives didn’t like me because I COULD do things. That is NOT the way you become a respectable conservative and earn money to pay for your suit and tie.

I would like some comments on whether we always assume everybody is against us when we go into our debates. It is the ones on the other side who do all the talking because they know what to say. Who doesn’t? For one I can say we have heard it a thousand times.

But what if we go in there knowing that there are a lot of people out there who are on our side but not only fear to say it in their own names, but who have no idea how to say it at all?

I have fought many, many battles watching conservatives cringe away and standing there alone. My boss in congress, John Ashbrook, did it all the time. He and three or four others would keep congress from adjourning and get huge concessions for it, while conservative congressmen around him bitched at him.

They hated him more than the liberals did for that because they knew he was right and didn’t have the guts to do likewise.

The PC crowd always assumes it is the major, if not the only, point of view. This can be done if 1) yours is the only point of view allowed and 2) no one knows how to get snout-to-snout with you and tell you yous is not.