December 18, 1999

The Citadel Board has now joined the State newspaper in its campaign to take the Confederate flag off the State House dome. A short time ago Bob Jones joined the State in its campaign.

When Beasley turned on the Confederate flag, every single statewide Republican official backed Beasley. Seventy-five percent of Republicans had voted in a recent primary to keep the Confederate flag atop the State House. One politician, without consulting with anybody, had reversed that stand all by himself.

Given a choice between the politician and the conservative grassroots, the Republicans had, as always, backed the politico. They say they love us dearly, but when push comes to shove, the first thing any Republican does is spit in the grassroots conservatives’ faces.

Obviously, they fear no conservative backlash. It never even occurs to them to fear such a thing.

The Afrikaners” Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa stood for apartheid as long as it was profitable. Then, when the pressure was getting really strong, and the Boers needed its support as never before, their church turned and snapped at them like a snake. I remember the same thing happened to us Methodists as the integration movement grew. Our church turned on us like a snake.

When the present Bob Jones turned on us on the flag issue, he, like every conservative when he turns on us, thought he was being Shrewd. He is probably bragging about how he has proved to liberals that he is not unreasonable. Actually, the State is happy to use him. After the flag issue, it will continue its war against Bob Jones University (See March 13, “The State Newspaper Begin to Use Pro-Miscegenation Vote”)

But, for the moment, Bob Jones thinks he is being smart. After all, he can count on blind conservative support, no matter what he does. So he is using this cheap trick to get liberal approval.

Conservatives invest everything in institutions they trust. In the meantime, leftists work at taking over or subverting those institutions.

Somewhere in his public statement, every conservative spokesman always includes a knee-jerk demand for more uniforms, more soldiers, more sailors. If a bunch of men start making loud comments about how they love a guy in uniform, you have to look carefully to see whether they are on a San Francisco street corner or a conservative convention.

Conservatives fell in love with uniforms during World War II and the Cold War. Leftists were all for World War II, and they loved the military then. Even the Communist Party of America was totally in support of America’s fighting men until the middle of 1945. After all, those troops were fighting on the side of our Glorious Ally, Joseph Stalin.

But the second the military ceased to serve the purposes of the political left, the political left ceased to support the American military. When the military stopped supporting leftist purposes and was used against Communism, the left became anti-military. With the left, its principles come before loyalty to any institution.

Not so the right. Since the end of the Cold War, America’s military has consistently been used for purposes no conservative could support. During the Cold War, the left had extended its control over foreign policy and the military. Today, any leftist initiative can count on the support of America’s generals.

The right continues to worship generals, so the left continues to use them.

The blind conservative backing of institutions over principles encourages institutions to back the left. After all, any institution like
the Citadel has the right in its back pocket. It’s got uniforms, and rightists will sell out any principle if someone in uniform asks them to. Any institution that’s got uniforms has rightist support sewed, so they seek the backing of the left. If you want broad support, the ideal combination is uniforms and leftist principles.

So when Clinton made enforcing racial and ethnic balance by military force America’s official doctrine, he got a general to declare it (June 12, “Busing By Bomber”). McCain, an ex-uniform wearer, is his Republican spokesman for this policy of ethnic balance.

And how does the right react to this? The Southern Partisan editorial staff split fifty-fifty on whether to support McCain for president!

The same rule applies in institutional politics that operates in electoral politics — anyone who can take you for granted is not going to do anything for you. The Republican Party kicks conservatives in the teeth on a regular basis. Its excuse is always, “Conservatives have nowhere to go. They HAVE to support Republicans.”

I talked about this blind, completely immoral backing of institutions by conservatives on June 5 in “Blind Loyalty Is the Real Treason.” It was obvious to me when I first got into serious politics in the 1950s.

In the 1950′s, Northern conservatives blindly backed “The Party of Lincoln,” no matter what it did to their principles. At the same time, Southern conservatives just as blindly backed “the Party of Jefferson Davis.” While these dodos were blindly backing their respective institutions, liberals took over complete control of both parties. Rockefeller Republicans, who were an infinitesimal part of the Republican Party, held more power over the platform and the presidential nomination than did the overwhelming conservative majority.

The Democratic presidential nomination and platform was simply owned outright by liberals. And the majority of Southerners gave them absolute, blind, unquestioning loyalty. Can anybody call that “moral,” a word conservatives are always claiming that they own?

So our blind loyalty to uniforms and other institutions gives liberals a free ride in their campaign to quietly turn them into instruments of leftist policy. So Bob Jones and the Citadel, fresh from enjoying our support in their conservative battles, promptly sell us out.

Until we stop substituting blind loyalty for personal morality, we are going to be sold out. In real world politics, when you give your loyalty blindly, you ask to be betrayed. And in the cold, hard world of power politics, you get exactly what you ask for.

December 4, 1999

Bob Novak made a remark on “Crossfire” that seemed to contradict one of the liberal historical myths. Instantly Bill Press and the liberal guest went into a Greek chorus in which they recited — and I do mean RECITED — the required liberal myths. America fought World War II, one recited, because of Hitler’s Hate. The other liberal took up the tale instantly, reciting how the Civil War was fought against slavery.

Novak could have mentioned that the US fought Hitler because Hitler declared war on the United States. He could have mentioned that Stalin represented Hate, too, and he was our Great Ally and Hero. He could have mentioned that Lincoln made it very clear that the war was NOT about slavery.

But we all know Novak could not do any of that, because these are Official Liberal Facts. All conservatives are required to accept them or be convicted as naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.

It is true that Bob Novak is himself Jewish. But being a Jew provides not the slightest protection against being condemned by liberals as anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionsjews. Richard Herrnstein, who co-wrote “The Bell Curve,” was a Jew, but he is permanently condemned as anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

When I was on Capitol Hill, I was talking to a black school official in Ohio who opposed busing. He sounded very tired. He told me that white liberals had condemned him as a Klan sympathizer. I sort of chuckled, and he said, “It was funny to me too. At first. But I found out that these nuts MEAN it!”

He knew he would never get another promotion for the rest of his career in education. He would be lucky to keep his job.

Just a little while back, anyone who questioned the Official Liberal Fact that ten percent of all men were homosexuals was in DEEP trouble. That figure was arrived at by Dr. Kinsey, himself a bisexual, in a study which said that any man who had ever had a homosexual experience was homosexual. He also included PRISONERS in his study! So a teenager who had been raped in prison was classed in the Kinsey Study as a homosexual!

At that time, everybody had to repeat Kinsey’s ten-percent-of-all-men-are-homosexual “fact” as biblical truth. By now I doubt that one in twenty of the readers of this column even remembers this. No respectable conservative disputed this “fact” at the time. No respectable conservative has ever reminded anyone of this “fact” since it disappeared, and no respectable conservative ever will.

A study finally killed that liberal “fact.” It found that about 1.4% of men were classed as “homosexual.”

So liberals keep on making up “facts” as they go along. I’ve killed a few liberal “facts” myself. In their day, those “facts” were recited in the media thousands of times daily, and every reader of this column saw them. But I am willing to bet no one remembers them.

The best known liberal “fact” that I killed was during the Carter Administration, when the first major effort was under way to declare homosexual households to be “family units.” New types of families had to be accepted, it was said, because ONLY SEVEN PERCENT OF AMERICANS WERE PART OF A “TRADITIONAL FAMILY!”

I got the Congressional Research Service to chase down the origin of this strange assertion. They traced it to a Labor Department finding that the stereotype of a traditional family was of 1) a husband working, 2) a wife not working, and 3) the family had exactly one son and one daughter. This became the “traditional family” that had now declined to a mere seven percent of the American population.

It was like magic. I put that finding in a speech for my boss, Congressman John Ashbrook, and it appeared in the Congressional Record. Like magic, that “seven percent traditional family” statement simply DISAPPEARED from the media! No one ever mentioned it again! Certainly no respectable conservative will ever mention it again, to remind us of how liberals make up their “facts.”

But if I had not chased that down and challenged it, liberals would still be saying that only seven percent of American belong to “a traditional family,” and respectable conservatives would still be agreeing with it.

December 2, 2000

There are three Reconstruction Amendments, which were passed in the aftermath of the Civil War.

The first Reconstruction Amendment was the Thirteenth Amendment, which freed the slaves. The second was the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave black people citizenship. That one got through only by open cheating.

The last Reconstruction Amendment, and by far the hardest to shove and cheat its way through, was the Fifteenth, which gave blacks the vote.

As the presidential election went to the courts, there arose a chorus of people who say that voting “is the most basic right of every American citizen.” One of the LAWYERS who is arguing the Bush case before the United States Supreme Court said that “VOTING IS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT.” He said that you have as much right to vote as you do to practice your religion, or to free speech.

To repeat, the Fourteenth Amendment gave black people CITIZENSHIP. But it took a real fight to get through the Fifteenth, which gave blacks the VOTE. A lot of people who supported black citizenship did not want all non-whites to be given the vote. This was especially the case in California, with its huge Oriental minority.

In fact, a groundbreaking Federal Court decision was necessary to save the Fourteenth Amendment. It barely squeaked by, cheating and all. Before it was passed, California actually rescinded its ratification. If that had been allowed, the amendment would have failed.

What happened was that Californians suddenly noticed that there was no reference to “black people” in the new amendment. It not only gave Southern blacks citizenship, but it also gave the same rights to Orientals! California tried to pull back its ratification when it realized that the Fourteenth Amendment gave Orientals NON-VOTING citizenship.

California would never have touched the Fourteenth Amendment if they had thought from the beginning that it gave Chinese immigrants the VOTE. In other words, if the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment had thought that voting was the right of every citizen, it would never have gotten into the Constitution.

As it was, in order to save the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court had to rule that no state could back out once it had ratified an amendment.

But when the fight over giving blacks the vote came up, they were already citizens. It never occurred to anybody that they therefore had the right to vote.

Nowadays, it never occurs to anybody that, if you are a citizen, you might not have full voting rights.

Actually, what the Fourteenth Amendment gave blacks was what everybody insists cannot exist. It gave blacks citizenship, but no vote. The Fourteenth Amendment, in other words, made blacks official second class citizens. If it hadn’t, there would have been no Fifteenth Amendment.

In 1954, in Brown vs. Board of Education, the Court changed the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that it forbade any distinction at all, of any kind, being made between white and black citizenship.

Today, it is impossible to explain to anybody why the Fifteenth Amendment was necessary. In 1868, it would have been just as impossible to explain to anybody why it wasn’t.

There is no overlap whatsoever between the thinking of those who wrote the Constitution (even the most radical) and the judges who claim to interpret it today.

NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM

I think we are also at that point that as a political movement we could promise
liberation, liberation from PC and the goofs that lord it over us.

Comment by Simmons

ME:

The platform plank Simmons is advocating will begin:

“The established religion of the United States of America, Political Correctness, is hereby disestablished.”

Those who oppose this plank will be antidisestablishmentarians. I bet you never expected to see that word used in a sentence!

Ann Coulter’s new book, “The Church of Liberalism” is a straight steal from my “Political Correctness is not LIKE a religion, it IS a religion.” So this concept is no longer a far out idea.

All outstanding student loans will be paid out of the giant reserves universities have. Harvard University alone has several billion dollarrs. The rest will be charged to professors and deans and contributors who have contributed tax-exempt funds to the Political Correctness seminaries we call colleges and universities.

We just got several million votes right there.

Other platform sentences:

“Under American laws, all monopolies are illegal. Two men in the same business are subject to criminal prosecution if they DISCUSS prices in their common filed of business.”

“By the same token, anyone who discusses graduation from a Political Correctness seminary as a qualification for hiring is subject to prosecution under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act.”

A few million more votes from people who waulify for Mensa but never finished college.

A million votes here, a million votes there, and it adds up to serious political clout.

Peter points out:

Do you really think that even the “testable IQs” that are marketed today are valid measures by race?

Do you really think that a psychologist who discovered that Orientals or Jews had much lower IQs than whites would be given much press?

In college, I had a Psych professor who did tell the truth — quietly. She found real, valid test results and displayed them on an overhead in class. She put the results up as just one display in a series of overheads. It was part of a group of overheads that she said we didn’t need to take notes on if we didn’t want to, that they wouldn’t be on the test, and that they were just for our own information. She had done this previously with more innocuous overheads, so we were familiar with the routine. She left up the overhead of the test results showing lower IQs for Orientals and Jews only briefly. But she did scan the class to see who had noticed. I did.

I stayed after class and told her thanks for the overheads, smiled and left. She got great evals from the class. I got a good grade.

Comment by Peter

MY REPLY:

That lady is part of our underground army, each member of whom works alone.

You were a blessing to her.

In any totalitarian environment, there are those of us who keep telling the truth, defying the Truth.

I cannot give you enough credit for understanding. I cannot give you enough credit for what you did for that lonely shieldmaiden whom I wod love to thank.

I get SO tried of people praising somebody who makes a publc statement which is something like the truth.

The heroes and the herioines are the underground warriors like her.

Like you.

Like me.

We fight for what is true simply because we cannot stand untruth.

That is heroism.

When you understand that, everybody else seems superficial and silly to you

Those who talk about Change cannot deal with real, honest-to-God change, just as the last people who know love are those who shout Love incessantly. No one is a better hater than a person who insists he is fighting Hate.

Marxism believed it was obvious that the best economy would be a PLANNED one. Instead of all that inefficient competition everyone would just pull together in an organized fashion. The term Social Progress has been laughed out of existence. Now they call it Change, though I haven’t even heard that term in a while.

But Social Progress or Change, it means that Political Correctness knows exactly where society is going, that it is going in his direction, so Change is on his side. Which is the exact set of assumptions that got Social Progress laughed off the map.

Wordists all claim to know exactly where the world is headed. Every Wordist also knows that if he could consistently predict the stock market that way, he could BUY the world in a few years. When peabrains like that actually take over an economy, anybody who should be trusted with sharp objects should know what will happen. But the experts and intellectuals declared it a success until it literally collapsed before their eyes.

The fatal weakness of Change is that it cannot deal with the slightest bit of real change. Marx assumed that what he thought were the trends of his day would continue unchanged. The proletariat would get poorer and more desperate. Even as he wrote, the first we of the city proletariat was becoming management and beginning to buy property and workers were being given the vote.

None of this concerned Marx in the least. A good Wordist never lets reality slow him down.

Everything here RELATES. To an extent a present reader finds it impossible to conceive, the Middle East was the absolute basis of ALL thinking that thought itself civilized In Marx’s day. There was no real change. Every Great Civilization progressed through rigid phases. The High Culture was the pyramid-building and scribe phase Egypt had reached and we had fallen from.

You don’t need a free market to tell you how to build a pyramid. In fact you don’t need a market economy to do ANYTHING that twentieth century history says High Cultures did. All you need is scribes to plan and organize it.

Meanwhile out in the real world slamming an Egypt-style planned economy into the modern world was like taking the Wright Brothers’ plane up against a modern jet fighter.

And that is why what I say sounds so confusing. After a lifetime of being given exact plans and specifications for building an endless number of Wordist pyramids, I am trying to get you back to a system that visibly takes Wordism apart when it goes for a test flight. I do not NEED a mass movement. I need to push certain basics to keep the movement in a rational direction.

But, as with the economy, the apparent winner is the equivalent of planning, the torchlight parade approach. Just as a Great Civilization was based on building pyramids, a great movement is based on getting millions of people out on the street. That is why someone like me spends WEEKS arranging that “spontaneous” crowd when The Candidate shows up. That’s the way Harry Truman did it and, by gum, that’s the way it’s done NOW!

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, mass meetings are strictly for show. The real campaign is one-on-one or the despised “campaign slogan,” which is really an attempt to express the public mood, however crude. It is not “good” in the sense Marx would define a “good” economy. A campaign slogan is as hit-or-miss, when judged on its “goodness” as the latest trend in consumer spending. But have you ever LISTENED to the total, changeless crap that is shouted at mass meetings. They are mobs, with the IQ of mobs.

The age of TV moved from the mass meeting to the slogan. Has anybody noticed that we are no longer in the age where television is the Latest Thing? In our age, an idea very rapidly becomes either outdated or a challenge that must be met. This is the first time in history when the ordinary person has the POWER to DEMAND an answer. It is very, VERY hard to do so, but one of my favorite things is watching the old “professional journalists” get together and moan about this modern age when “professionals” no longer control every outlet.

Thirty years ago everyone knew who the Anchor Man on CBS was. I don’t. IS there one?

People always want me to present a more “solid” set of ANSWERS. Everyone you know can present you with a solid list of what constitutes Change. Everyone but me. I deal in a world that changes from year to year. Rule One: No kind of Change can deal with real changes.

The most “progressive” economies on earth proved that.

When Karl Marx was a young man in the 1830s, the huge sensation of the time was Hegel’s Spiritual Dialectic. In the late eighteenth century the big buzz had been about Rousseau’s Noble Savage. Marx combined the two aqnd came up with Dialectic Materialism.

Rousseau, who never set foot outside Europe, declared that people outside of civilization were kind, gentle and equal.

Civilization, said Rousseau, caused all the evils and inequalities we are heir to.

I won’t bother explaining dialectic. It’s almost as complicated as it is silly. I would also have to explain how people in 1830 could have taken it seriously.

But Dialectic Materialism, called Communism, was enforced in the Soviet Empire until the 1980s. It collapsed the minute it stopped being enforced.

Now look at the spread of time between the philosophies the USSR was based on and the time it fell. Rousseau had been dead two centuries and the Hegel craze had been over for a century and a half. In the USSR both were Progressive thought.

The point is this:

When I talk about what social scientists all enforced in the 1950s I am talking about RIGHT NOW. Today’s Political Correctness is based entirely on the ideas of the first part of this century, not today.

In fact, they are not even based on the knowledge AVAILABLE in 1950.

Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Rousseau all believed in a human behavior which, in the light of the slightest study of real natural behavior, is beyond the laughable. We now have endless studies showing that every social animal has a hierarchy, which is what Rousseau said only civilization produced.

In the 1950s you HAD to believe that only mankind has BORDERS. The only thing that prevented a World Government was capitalism and failures in civilization. Why can’t we be like animals and savages (Political Correctness makes no distinction) and be Virtuous and Universal?

Every social animal patrols its border. The gentle chimpanzee troop patrols regularly, and it will tear any outsider chimp apart if it is caught in their territory.

What was the reaction of the USSR to these rather obvious findings?

They were suppressed, just as their SOCIAL implications are NEVER talked about in social science courses today. Every social science professor has to admit that “There ARE genetic factors influencing man’s behavior.” But you will never hear one single word about any of them in any social science class, journal, or discussion.

But they find time to drag Marx out of his coffin regularly.

Every year we learn whole new patterns of gene-based behavior.

But Political Correctness remains firmly rooted in thought that was discredited before 1950.

And Political Correctness reacts the only way outdated thought CAN react. It enforces its ideas like a totalitarian state.

I EXPAND on ideas, and I want some of you to do that, too.

In what passes for a seminar today, professors contract student’s ideas. First of all, since no professor gets paid for anything except pleasing other professors, students in undergrad are useless, but grads can be useful. A professor’s job is to publish or perish, and none of his publications go beyond other professors. So in seminar he will present what he is working on and the students will go out and do detailed research on his subject for him.

I call this “contracting in the first sense.” That is, a professor takes on a writing project and then subcontracts the detail work. But it is also contracting in a second sense. You know the definition of a specialist: “A person who knows more and more about less and less until he knows all about nothing.” That describes today’s grad student perfectly.

Today’s student, therefore today’s professor, must limit his THINKING to his leisure time in the coffee shop. He gets his degree and his salary by “contributing to the literature” and by “peer review,” which means he has to think exactly the same way his colleagues do, and his output must fit nicely into the last set of articles in last month’s journal. Which is why those journals have to be financed by force and not by a willing readership.

So “academic thinking” means a steady contraction of an idea. You are given a proposition and you look it up in the dictionary. You find out details about it. You study its history, especially in The Literature.

But the one thing you NEVER do is to lift up your head and take a look around that idea and say, “Does this make any difference?” “Does this make any sense?” The sense it makes, as more than one professor has told me, is that you get paid to do it.

Take the article I wrote below on Jewpernica. I got little feedback from it, but if you EXPANDED on it, you might come up with some new concepts. First of all, I am not asking for more details about Jews. I am saying that we need to lift our heads of The Literature and say, “Does this make any difference?” “Does this make any sense?”

I don’t really care what Hezekiah said, because I know too much about that world to think he said anything. We don’t know who was REALLY doing what back then precisely because our heads are buried in the Old Testament and, in the case of Marxist professors, in the idea that the world began in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

As far as I can tell, almost everything the Prophets wrote was bitching like we hear today. Theology consists of taking that old bitching as word-for-word statements of what someone actually believed and bitching the same bitches today.

And while our noses are down in that swill, about Amenhotep’s left toenail, all of history is ignored. I mean ALL of history. Every day comes another breathless revelation that a cloth “invented” in the Middle East was on Northern Europeans a thousand years earlier, that writing predating hieroglyphs has been found in Romania, that life did not spring up a billion years ago, but in fact probably existed on Earth Mark I before it collided with the planet part of which became our moon four billion years ago.

But, like any other complete retard, history is astonished every single time. It NEVER sees a PATTERN. We still have the same old history books with everything starting in Egypt-Israel-Mesopotamia and people from their teaching others to us their opposable thumb.

THINK about it: Where, in The Literature, would such a pattern FIT? Everything has been carefully built, block by block, on the old ideas, and no peer reviewer is going to let anybody attack the whole edifice in a single article that will be PUBLISHED,

Now there is an idea you could EXPAND on. How is information PRODUCED? What INCENTIVES are there to keep beating dead horses? What concepts have simply not appeared for this reason, and exactly why?

Someone Googled and found that the only reference to the Medicogenetical Institute identical twin study, one of the breakthroughs of our age, About a thousand geneticists were executed for that study. Garrett Hardin discussed it in Nature and Man’s Fate. I knew an Oxford professor who lost a hundred friends in Russia in that incident.

That was the incident that put Lysenko in charge of Soviet genetics and starved a million people at least.

I am STILL the only reference to that incident in Google. Why?

Who is going to talk about that study? Respectable conservatives, who say they believe in equality and the birth of retards more than liberals do? Leftists who say that man will be completely transformed by Marxist policy as Stalin did? Professors who are desperate to prove that any practical discussion of genetics in social matters makes one anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews?

So it appears that there is only one person on this planet who will ever EXPAND on this incident. The one you find in Google. Me.

Find the PATTERN. NO ONE IN ANYOTHER SEMINAR WILL EVER ASK YOU TO DO THAT.

I am not opposed to art. I am not opposed to music. I am not opposed to words. I am not opposed to institutions.

But if you decide that all races are equal because you like African art, I am opposed to that. If you decide your daughter should marry a black because some blacks are good singers, I am opposed to that.

None of this is hard to understand. But when I say that institutions are bad when they are substituted for racial loyalty, I am opposed to it, people get very confused. One commenter said that “the People of the United States ordained and established a constitution,” so I should not object to institutions.

What I LIKE about this statement is that it is blog statement, no frills, no fancy stuff, no attempt to cite endless histories to make it look like the writer is thinking Deep Thoughts. It is right or it is wrong.
And that precious word:

Period.

This is a PLAIN statement of a confusion that a lot of people have about Wordism. Just because you have an institution does not mean you have Wordism. Wordism is the fatal disease that every institution gets, and will get until we are fully aware that it IS a disease and what its symptoms are.

I am not opposed to art. I am not opposed to music. I am opposed to words. I am not opposed to institutions. But in the case of the Preamble to the United States Constitution I am reaffirming that the PURPOSE of the institution: to provide the blessings of liberty for OURSELVES and OUR descendants. I certainly do not object to an institution that does THAT.

But what is the Constitution today? The Constitution is the document used by judges when they OVERRIDE the peoples? interests. When it was decided by California voters that they did not want to provide welfare for people who were NOT “We the people of the United States” the Supreme Court overruled them in the name of the Constitution.

Due to Wordism, the Constitution is doing exactly what it was set up toe avoid doing. Courts have picked out the words they want and made our Constitution into an institution which is an enemy of we the people and our posterity. This happens to all institutions eventually.

Whales gather barnacles. That does not make me anti-whale. People get diseases. That does not make me anti-people. Institutions get Wordism. That does not make me anti-institution.

[Bob, I'm taking a risk that you won't mind me posting this during your vacation. I hope this is a nice follow up to "intent." -Brian]

There are a million Truths, and hundreds of new ones daily. Every priest, guru and Marxist has one. There is only one truth, without the capitalization. But every form of Wordism as it own Absolute Truth, so we throw Absolute Truths at each other instead of talking rationally.

In a Wordist world we never say what we mean. Everything becomes an absolute, whereas every OTHER social animal lives in a balance of his wishes and group wishes. Modern Wordism developed when we still thought animals had no borders, fought no wars, and had a classless society, just like Rousseau’s Noble Savages.

Old Wordism developed when we still believe Atlas held up the world and if the Pharaoh or Aztec Emperor didn’t get out there and talk to the sky the sun wouldn’t come up. We, post-modern adults, can’t simply say we don’t WANT intermarriage. We have to make it Objective.

At the same time, everybody is outgrowing this crap. That is where a lot of the fascination with the Sopranos comes from. People LIKE Tony Soprano. “But,” we are told, “Soprano violates the System.” Most of us would rather take our case in front of Tony’s cold-blooded common sense rather than in front of two lawyers and a guy in a dress who treats the “jury” like the slaves they are.

Big successful lawyers talking at law school LAUGH at the idea that law has anything to do with justice. So do TV viewers. In fact, everybody has outgrown it but Professional Journalists and Mommy Professor and the like.

What I offer you is coaching in speak Postmodern English: “Cut the crap.”

So the Mantra is the simple truth, hammered in. There is no substitute for it. There is no substitute for sticking to the point that today “racism” means exactly what “heresy” meant to the Inquisition and what “fascism” meant to the Communists and what “Communist” meant to the fascists.

If you complicate it, you are not just gabling the message. You are WRONG.

Our newest hammer-in point is, “Why do people say things?” S when someone gives you an academic “fact,” like “race doesn’t exist,” the REASON that was said was because anyone who said anything else would lose his job.

THAT IS THE REASON THEY SAID THAT.

PERIOD.

There is NOTHING else here. You KNOW that. So if you say anything else, you are “overcomplicating,” you are lying. And telling lies what everybody knows are lies is a BAD strategy. Moderate Republicans used it for a generation and it NEVER worked.

People should not be able to cite Communist economic figures for an obvious reason everybody knows NOW. People should not be able to cite “authorities” whose jobs, as everybody knows, is to toe the party line.

The point is that TODAY everybody KNOWS that academic is subject to Politically Correct terror. Two decades ago you still had to CONVINCE people of that. . But in a war like this, if you are STILL arguing the way you did two decades ago you are in the position of Iraqis who tried to face 1990 weapons with 1980 Soviet stuff.

The world has moved on, but too many of us are still using the same old crap we used in the 60s.