To rest my eyes, I need something simple to listen to music on.

Sounds easy in the Days of the Internet.

But a Google search assumes I am interested in iPods. There are ads for iPods. There are no doubt interesting discussions of the latest in iPods, what is going on in the World of iPod.

I have told you a number of times that my siblings are even older than I am. They are all able to use the Internet ONLY because I stayed a night with each of them and showed it to them.

I EXPLAINED it.

I explained it, not as entertainment or The Latest Thing, but as a wholly new and different thing.

The first thing I taught them was control-alt-delete. Back then it just plain got you out of anything you were doing, and that is what they wanted to know first.

When you get on a plane, the first thing they tell you about is the escape hatches.

Once they knew how to get out, my siblings were ready to go in.

VERY carefully.

In an age when Kindergarteners use computers, introducing people to them who used to wear earphones to hear crystal radio requires a thousand tons of empathy.

Our job is different, but the problem is the same. We have to talk, not about the best way to put things that a real person in a real world would naturally want to hear. We have to go where THEY are.

Stormfront can talk about the latest in racial solutions and news. That’s where their audience is.

We have to go out into the instantly hostile world where the general population is.

They have no interest in our iPod, they have no idea what it is, and they have a suit of armor on against having it explained to them.

It’s sort of like teaching a math class to a roomful of juvenile delinquents who still have their handcuffs on.

In the article, I discussed how there might be a sequel to White Rabbit’s great “AntiRacist Hitler.”

The discussion following was my dream.

Asgardian explained how I was probably simply wrong:

“Coach, some things aren’t MEANT to have a sequel. I feel ARH is probably best as a standalone entity. It will be that “singular reference.” I believe we can build off its momentum, but we need to look to another “property” to use as a spring board. ARH cannot have a sequel. It said everything it had to say. It GOT THE POINT ACROSS. A sequel to ARH I fear would have negative, unintended consequences.”

John White and others keep asking me to be more clear on my points.

But if you read Asgardian’s quote above you will see that we hve something unique here, but it is not a Chinese-type – The Way.  It is an Aryan type “direction.”   It does not surprise me at all that you have a problem with that.   I don’t fully understand it myself.

Let me say this: What we  are looking for is not Perfection.  I defined Perfection, which is the ideal of Oriental Philosophy, as “A 100 in a second grade spelling test.”

Mommy Professor has developed a wall against the Aryan mind.   That wall is a kind of Perfection called Progressivism, which moves toward Perfection.

A STATIC Perfection.

It is a world in which Mommy Professor sits under a banyan tree and is worshipped while children faint from hunger around him.

That is where the Church has gone.

What Christ said  was, “Do unto others are you would have them do unto you.   That is the Law and the Prophets.”

But one cannot build an overwhelmingly powerful, continuing Church, an institution, on that.

Institutions  survive with Oriental Rules and Regulations.   All institutions go Oriental.

The best example for me is The Lord’s Prayer.

The point Jesus was making when he composed the “Our Father” was that you should only pray for what you need, and quit.  He said, “It is enough to call a fish a fish.”

Jesus noted that some people think they can attain salvation by “much speaking.”   So he gave them an EXAMPLE of how to ask God for what you need, an unbelievably short prayer.

An unbelievably short prayer in the eyes of every priest-laden religion of Jesus’ time.

And of today’s’.

Today that short prayer is the epitome of attaining salvation by much speaking.  Penitents repeated it thousands of times while they starved and whipped themselves in the name of the Golden Rule.

That’s what institutions do.   That’s what Mommy Professor does.

So when I talked about the “sequel” to AntiRacist Hitler, which is what an institutionalist does, it would be the natural blind alley he would go into, Asgardian pulled me  out.

That is what a real seminar is all about.

            While White Rabbit was formulating AntiRacist Hitler, I heard something familiar in his voice.  It was the same as I had on the Mantra.  It was simple inability to explain a concept that was so powerful.

The ending is a great example.   It ends with Hitler having a wry smile on his face and saying, “How could that have happened?” and fadeout.

Only a BUGSER would understand what that ending entailed.   Others would feel they had the audience and it was time to smash the point home.   The Torchlight Parade, the BBC-like Social Message.

If I had had the slightest idea that White Rabbit would do anything of the sort, he would have called the South Carolina psychiatric board and demanded they get to me before I actually harmed myself.

Like that ending, our genius lies in getting it just right, like that ending.   But how could White Rabbit EXPLAIN such points to me without sounding like he considered me an idiot?

The problem is that anyone outside BUGS ACTS like an idiot.   Since that is  certainly understood by WR and by me, an explanation of subtlety is made difficult to state reminding the other BUGSER about the “Duhhhs.” which is always right on the edge of an insult.

“How Europeans Took Over America” has shot upwards since “AntiRacist Hitler” came out.  People are beginning to realize that a WR  YouTube will be FUN to watch.   The beginning of “How Europeans Took Over America is longer than the entirety of many of the most popular YouTubes.  People who go there from ARH will be willing to sit through that now.

How in the HELL can anybody raised in our numbskull days make a SEQUEL to ARH?

One thing that is sure is that WR will not only have trouble making the sequel, he will have an impossible time explaining it.

Some commenters have asked for comments to stay open for each article.

We should develop something, so to begin with, those who wish to comment on earlier articles, all the way back to 1998,could put in the LINK to that page under their screen names, and nothing else, in the current article.

I would like that.

  One thing I want to get you doing is to stop looking for brilliant plots and rethink the basics.   You are about the only ones left who can.

For example, what if the son of an US admiral crashed during WWII and did the following :

“He sought out the enemy.”

The first  thing he said to them was. “You give me medicine and I’ll give you information.”

He told an American magazine that was exactly what he did, with the NAZIS?”

He would have faced at least a hearing for treason in any real army.

But the man I am taking about was not in WWII.     He was in Vietnam.

He was awarded a silver star, became a Republican senator, and was the  respectable conservative nominee  for president in 2008.

This is Rule One of Mantra Thinking:  While you communicate the  same message over and over your mind does the opposite.   You step out of the box and rethink the thinking which got us here.

This is desperately needed, or Bob would not be the only one to repeat the above  incident in its NAZI context.

I would not have been alone during the Cold War in pointing out that the Berlin Wall was built because  every other People’s Democratic Republic always did the same  thing.    East Germany  made  the New York Times because it, alone of all Iron Curtain countries, did not routinely shoot all escapees until 1961.

Because the New York headlined the Berlin Wall, National Review had to talk about.   National Review never  mentioned the kill on sight rule that surrounded the one third of humanity before and after 1961, before or after.

I was the first and only economist to state in a seminar before Nobel Prize winners, that a country is rich or poor, not because of its territory, not because of pieces of paper like the Constitution, but because of the PEOPLE who inhabit it?

My point was fully accepted and promptly forgotten.

That’s the kind of thing I was a professional in doing.

I am the Semmelweis of politics.

But Semmelweis died insane.

It made me a good living, but I did not enjoy feeling like the only surviving  political mind on earth.

Iceknight comments:

” As a thirty something, I always find it such a fascinating contradiction how Bob shapes most of his ideas from a bygone age long before the internet revolution – yet these same ideas represent the revolutionary cutting edge of today and will completely redefine our future.”

It’s not a contradiction. One of my most fundamental messages here is and has been how to tell the future, and how NOT to tell the future. I was READY for the computer age or whatever else happened.

In fact, by definition, if one can see how to prepare for the future from experience in human affairs, it should make little difference WHEN he got that experience.

That is the reason I keep warning you about how slippery planning for such and such in the future can be. I was warning people against waiting for “Torchlight Parades” over a decade ago.

That is why I read so much old science fiction and do my Futurology “3-D.”

One gets PAID to be a Futurologist exactly the way one gets paid to be a respectable conservative or the way one gets research grants: You deliver the message money-people want delivered.

Futurology grants are not granted in the future, and no one keeps track of the billions given to Sovietologists for total failure or for absurd Futurology.

We depend on the future. It is our whole concentration. “Experts” are playing a game in which the bigger a crisis they cause, the quicker they get promoted.

Nothing matters less to a Futurologist than the actual future.

The future is our ONLY serious concern.

Is what I just said “esoteric”?

Not at all. It is exactly what Iceknight is pointing to.

“Torchlight Paraders” will TTGH if I tell them that genes are likely, in the not too distant future, to become a matter of choice.

If our Mantra Movement had not occurred, the open statement that one wants white genes to save the white race would have become more and more a matter of extremism.

Whatever happens in the future, the attitude we set is critical. This worked in the Past Ages when I had my experience, and it works today and I would have concluded the same no matter what age I lived in.

Thanks, Iceknight.

I read a lot of old history books. The fascination of this is its 3-D nature. The writers are talking about people in their past, and what I am getting is a view of what they thought in their time.

One writer wrote that something was “as modern as Marx, as timely as the Webbs.” The Webbs founded the old British Labor Party, with its absurd nationalizations. Even neo-Marxists look upon Marx as ridiculously outdated.

But that was the future as a very mainline writer around 1955 saw it.

I am now watching episodes from “Science Fiction Theater,” a TV show from 1955 to 1957. See a few of those or read some old history books and you will laugh out loud at the “inevitable future” on race or anything else.

But SF Theater was a good show and it tried to be realistic.

As I have pointed out and from my experience will have to repeat a dozen times before anybody starts thinking about the point, membership organizations must say what people want to hear. Their assumptions about the future must jibe with what their members want it to be.

From all my thought about the future, the only thing that one can implant that will definitely affect the future is an attitude. It is hard for most people to believe how firmly the idea that the white race had to be wiped out was implanted.

Now, due to us, this attitude is largely exploded. We are well on the way to making the preservation of our race one of the givens of the future.