One of my themes is that no war hero in all of history ever made the slightest difference in a real war.

In my day, at least, basic training contained no lessons about how your particular weapon fit into the General Picture, the Strategic Picture, of the war being waged and guided at the level of national strategy.

All wars have been won or lost on the basis of a very, very, VERY simple strategy: Everybody shoots at the enemy.

You wouldn’t be under fire and say, “Well, why should I shoot unless I understand how my particular weapon fits into the General Strategy?”

I personally saved the Hubble Telescope in 1977 when the Carter priority was defunding the space program. In the political wars, how did it happen that I was shooting in that direction?

I knew that our race could be saved by space colonization, BUT ONLY IF PRESERVING THE WHITE RACE WAS MADE AN ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION AFTERWARDS. So I made contacts in the space colonization/science fiction constituency.

I personally stopped a ruling by the IRS to dictate racial quotas for each PRIVATE school. One writer in the New Right Papers pointed to this action as the active beginning of the New Right which elected Reagan.

For the moment, space colonization is considered passe. But getting the “Reagan Democrats” into the 1980 election was a direct result of the New Right, and it brought down the USSR.

I was a major obstacle to the attempt by “Pro-Life” groups to outlaw in vitro fertilization, which has since led to births of tens of thousands of White children WANTED by Whites who wanted to have children. I risked my job by telling my boss on Capitol Hill that I could not work for that, which is something you only tell your boss once on the Hill.

I think he refused to support it, despite his heavy dependence on Pro-Life for support, because of my political instincts. And, an odd thing to mention in the context of Capitol Hill, on my morality in risking my job to take that stand.

Now here is the second half of this article:

Can you imagine trying to explain these interconnections on Stormfront?

What in the HELL did saving the space telescope have to do with JEWS?

I would have had to devote more time to EXPLAINING my actions than I spent SAVING the damned thing!

People who raise money were also flummoxed by what I spent my time and nerves on.

So far I have been on the losing side with space colonization. To use this to save my race would require a COMBINATION of space colonization and legitimization of the discussion of White survival.

Bringing down the USSR not only required a combination of the Reagan Democrats with Republican conservative voters, but it also required the Reagan Administration to expose the true primitive state of the Soviet Union, which would require the thinking up of a whole program which would do that.

That last part would require a separate article to explain it.

Jerry Pournelle came up with Star Wars and put it directly in Reagan’s lap.

In a last desperate move, the USSR demanded a Nuclear Freeze and the entire political left came out demanding it. Among other things, Teddy Kennedy was reported by the CIA as meeting with Soviet agents in South America to STOP SDI, which HE labelled Star Wars.

I was essential to these things in ways that are impossible to explain, just as you will never see Pournelle connected with the Star Wars strategy.

Which bullet will win the war?

What will the war lead to?

Ask THAT question in the middle of a firefight and you will be lucky if your sergeant does not shoot YOU, but just fill out papers for this nutcase to be hospitalized under the old Section Eight.

The things I did were not the result of Anti-Communist Strategic discussions. Those happened at conservative lunches while we did the jobs ON THE FRONT.

Cut the crap and JUST SHOOT!

Audio Bob

If you ever saw the movie of Arthur C. Clark’s 2001 AD you see it begins with two groups of monkeys battling at their border. An extraterrestrial thing comes down and inspires one troop of monkeys to grab the first weapon, the horns of a dead deer, and win the battle with it.

This is puzzling now, but at the time it was understood by the whole audience. It was based on a book called African Genesis by Robert Audrey.

It is important to realize that the point Audrey made with that book he soon declared to be absurd. The idea that some African apes who first used deer horns as weapons were the direct ancestors of man was incorrect.

No one but Audrey himself even noticed that error.

Before African Genesis became a runaway best seller among the literate – especially the science fiction nerds – Mommy Professor’s enforced doctrine on animal behavior was so clumsy and stupid that it I have now forgotten.

Militantly.

One Soviet newspaper in the 1950s had a picture of a workers’ riot in Chicago. All that Soviets noticed in the picture were the fine clothes mere workers in America were wearing.

Audrey’s book had a similar totally unexpected effect: It showed those trapped in the Intellectuals’ Paradise what serious thinking about animal behavior LOOKED LIKE.

Before African Genesis became popular, animal behavior was just a subtitle of Political Correctness. Political Correctness has the Innocent Animal to compare to the Evil Man, and the Evil White Man contrasted to the Innocent non-Whites who live WITH nature, not AGAINST nature.

No one dare mention it, but there is really no difference whatsoever between Mommy Professor’s image of a Native American and his image of any other wild animal.

Audrey, who got rich as a Hollywood writer, populated his anthropology with fascinating animals, each of which had a personality and motivations no academic could have imagined. He was a trained anthropologist, but he had spent his time in the field.

Like the failed Soviet propaganda picture, what Audrey brought out had absolutely nothing to do with what it was intended for. The Soviets wanted to show American worker discontent. But in doing that they also showed the living standard of American workers.

In exactly the same way, the point Audrey was aiming at was absolutely forgotten as he took us through the world view of a real, honest-to-God anthropologist.

“Modern anthropology,” as only National Review still calls it, was the social anthropology of Franz Boas and company.

Social anthropology is not very interesting, but we all know it. Social anthropology says that animals and Indians are, though it is not stated that way, mindless innocents.

In Modern Anthropology, White supremacy is debunked by a declaration that all men are exactly alike. No race is unique.

At the same time a main theme of Modern Anthropology is that White people are UNIQUELY evil.

Everybody has been coached in these conclusions so often that they can repeat them in their sleep.

The result is that, since we all now the punch lines, Modern Anthropology is very boring. The history of life Audrey discussed was totally fascinating to those who had been bored sick by tome after tome of Official Anthropology.

That picture of an American labor riot was supposed to show Russians how angry American workers were. But what the Russians saw was that under Communism they were in rags that no American worker would be seen dead in.

Audrey wanted to put forward a new theory on the origin of man, but what his readers saw was the lost world of real anthropology, how fascinating the world of real evolution can be before the Marxists make it straight doctrine and, just incidentally, boring as hell.