We are on our way. You should be able to get my whole way of thinking in the thousands of words that are already here.

The articles here will be becoming sparser, partly because any new piece risks damaging what we have done so far.

For example, I made the point many times that in my professional days I had to work with the problem having MY NAME associated with any idea prevented that idea from being spread.

As a direct result of this, over the years I evolved means of getting others to use my ideas in their own names. The result was that I had an enormous, incalculable influence on what happened in the real world.

For example, while someone like Kemp would dedicate his entire political life to promoting The Laffer Effect — the obvious reality that the right tax cuts could produce more rather than less revenue — the basis of Reagan’s successful tax cut policy — I could spread concepts just as important, one after another.

The whole idea that my name was SUCH a negative factor sounded strange, even to me, when I heard myself say it.

So I was relieved to find that this “Bob” problem continues today with our pro-white allies. The point FOR ME is that this proves I was dead on that subtle point of basic strategy.

So I was delighted when David Duke was honest enough to reject what he specifically referred to as “Bob Whitaker’s Mantra.”

Dave is an old friend, and Dave doesn’t do things behind my back.

That is what I WROTE. What did you READ?

“Infighting against other pro-whites!!!!!!!!!”

It is a damaging charge, and accusing me of infighting is also a great way to miss the point entirely.

But no one contradicted the commenter.

If I say something about one of our few allies, no one should conclude I do it just to attack them, and if someone indicates I DO, YOU should point out that I WOULDN’T.

Or you can just leave the harm to be done.

Which means the article should not have been written for THIS audience.

You have to actually READ what I write to know what I am getting at, and it is getting harder and harder for me to write.

I wrote a piece about my conclusion that respectable conservatives are routine traitors and liars.

A basic rule of interrogation is that a person who uses the word “liar” frequently is ALWAYS a liar.

For me, treason is what it was to Dante when he gave the entire Tenth Circle of Hell EXCLUSIVELY to traitors. Long before Dante, it was an honor to our ancestors to die fighting beside the leader they swore allegiance to.

Lie and Treason are big words to me.

So it was not easy for me to come to those conclusions.

I have said this many times here: It is not easy for me to conclude people are liars and traitors.

That’s what I WROTE.

What did my readers READ?

“Well, Bob, it’s easy to accuse them of that, but have you considered any alternatives?”

If you have read me regularly and are capable of asking that, more articles are a waste of time.

You see, a mathematics professor proceeds to ever more complex equations, BASED ON WHAT HE HAS TAUGHT ALREADY.

If you can only see the possibility that I am just criticizing my allies or shouting liar and traitor mindlessly, writing here is a mine field: These half-wit, UNCONTRADICTED comments are a risk to everything we have done so far.

“Even his readers are tired of Bob’s attacks on Dave.”

“Bob has started calling everybody a liar and a traitor.”

I cannot give advanced lessons in political math if I have to keep going back to the multiplication tables.

So the articles have to be more and more careful, and harmless ones are harder and harder to write.

Besides, who needs harmless articles?

“Economics is Soviet leadership and electricity.” ~ V.I. Lenin

Here in a single sentence is the key to the success of Communist economics.

The problem is that Wordists use endless books to cover up the fact that this is ALL there is to Marxist economics.

You really, HONESTLY, HAD a bunch of self-selected “Intellectuals” who tried to run every bit of production and distribution from the Berlin Wall to the Pacific Ocean.

So no one besides Lenin ever stated it in plain English.

NeoMarxism gets by by never stating ANYTHING in plain English.

So, putting it in plain Mantra English, what is neoconservatism?

Neoconservatism means making a living by keeping up to date and only arguing about those neoMarxist programs which you are still allowed to debate.

For a long time I was genuinely puzzled that professional conservatives were such groveling cowards. Many older people today noticed nothing else, but they do remember how the National Rifle Association would never defend the Second Amendment with anything but the Right to Hunt.

We thought they were just salivatingly stupid, but after years I realized they were being professional conservatives.

NeoMarxists are as stupid as Lenin’s definition of economics. Neoconservatism is an “opposition” paid to block telling the simple truth.

We are well on our way to being the first people to die out because we pay people to be too cowardly to tell the truth.

I used HD’s comment as our latest article because it was an actual, honest-to-God ARTICLE.

Each of the people who takes the helm for me here at BUGS soon learns what the above sentence means. They deal with a number of people who do regular, self-motivated, disciplined work on their own, i.e., actual BUGSERS. So soon they begin to talk with BUGSERS about BUGSERS possible articles to take the pressure off Ole Bob.

Why does this so seldom work out?

Writing is simply DIFFERENT from debating on the net or commenting.

That is the reason I have so often mentioned talking with people who say, “I cannot understand it. I can talk about a concept perfectly, but I can’t write it down the way I want it.”

My reply was, “Can you fix a TV set (or now, a computer)?”

They reply, “Of course not,” while they quietly ruminate if I have at last lost the few marbles that remain to me.

I then try to explain to them that professional-level writing is like professional-level anything else: You don’t just DO it, you LEARN it.

Writing is no more talking on paper than portrait-painting is just doodling more carefully.

When I see a comment that amounts to an article, which is very, very seldom, I use it here if I can.

HD’s article was a very, very thoughtful critique of one of our very few heroes, David Duke.

I was more interested in the thinking and writing involved and how HD handled it than in what it says about Dr. Dave himself.

This writing reflects something BUGSERS have developed that I am very proud of: The very practical Art of Disagreement.

Our big advantage in this is that we are NOT Wordists.

With Wordists, disagreement has to turn into enmity because you judge a person entirely by what WORDS he is loyal to.

A person who will give his life for a set of words simply cannot be truly loyal to anyone who disagrees about the WORDS.

Our disagreements with Dr. Duke involve a matter of technique, not of loyalties.

All those millions of Only True Faiths that make up Wordism lead to the Religious Wars, Marxist dictatorships, theocratic despotisms, and wars that on a scale no national or racial interests could ever be considered sane.

Wordists say that, “If everybody would just agree on my One True Faith, and STAY agreed, we would have World Peace.”

My answer to that is thoroughly redneck and absolutely true: “If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn’t bump his butt every time he jumps.”

Dave said flatly that the Mantra does not WORK. HD and I disagree strongly.

But to pro-whites this is a matter of TECHNIQUE. We take it seriously, but we can debate it and keep our full respect for the one genuine celebrity pro-whites have.