You have heard a plenty about supply side economics, based on the fact that when taxation reaches a certain level government revenue from it goes down if it increases. People do not produce when taxes are too high.

On the Nero Wolfe mysteries, which were written from the 1930s into the 1980s, Wolfe would take cases only until he hit the $200,000 income level for a year, and then he would quit for the reminder of the year. I cite this example because it shows how common it was for people to work up until they were in the high brackets and quit.

Joe Louis the heavyweight champion for many years, almost ended up in prison. Since boxers received straight incomes that couldn’t be hidden, almost all of his income went to Internal Revenue.

We knew about supply side economics at the University of Virginia twenty years before Reagan was elected and passed his supply side tax cuts.

Economics also has what I call a demand side.

When I was in Europe, the European middle class, which earned less than half of what Americans did, vacationed in Spain. You could stay in a bedroom with shared bath for ninety cents. Beer was nine cents a bottle in a bar. You could get local wine, which wasn’t bad, for about twenty cents a liter.

In fact, when my British girlfriend came down I wanted to do the American thing, get champagne. I said I wanted the most gorgeous, expensive champagne they had,

It turned out that the most expensive they usually had cost under a dollar. Then after I insisted, the guy went back and got a huge bottle which cost almost three dollars. It had a big pink ribbon on it, but he actually looked guilty for charging that much for one bottle of anything.

When I took my first time off in Spain, I faced a problem. In each town people from one country tended to flock. I found that where Americans went were at American prices and the hotels looked like American hotels. Where the French went was cheap but filthy.

So I followed the Germans. The place I went was where German tourists went. They did not pay a pfennig more than they needed to, but the place was clean.

In other words, I bought German because of German demand. German products were good because Germans would settle for nothing less. The supply in any country lives up to the expectations of the demand, though I haven’t seen any economist discuss that.

Soviet products were famously awful. But it should be remembered that Marx based his whole system on the idea that a product’s worth is not decided by the market, but by the objective amount of labor put into it.

The Soviets in sixty years never produced ONE consumer product they could sell abroad. They could only dump these goods on a captive population behind their borders. It was a special privilege of the upper class in this classless society to go to the places that sold foreign goods.

And, in places like Communist Hungary, they refused to accept Hungarian currency in those shops.

Like the rest of the quality of life, it is the population, not the Wordism in power, that gives products their reputation.

During the Patricia Hearst kidnapping episode, the entire national media was on the lawn of the Hearst Mansion, playing touch football – which was OK since the Kennedys did it, and like activities.

While they gamboled on the Hearst Porch, a reporter from the National Inquirer, I believe it was, went out and found the Symbionese Liberation Army and Patricia and the whole story.

You have often heard of “leaking” a story. This is a very difficult process, because getting the media to even read what you have to say is an art in itself.

Totally contrary to popular belief, reporters do NOT go out and get stories. They have a grind that would put a professional bean counter to sleep.

Speaking as one who put so many stories into the press, I can state expertly that reporters are at the beck and call of whoever is in the establishment. In the 20s it was Henry Ford or some other tycoon. Today it is an approved Politically Correct Person.

About 1970 Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan and some other PC Symbols decided to push the women’s Equal Rights Amendment.

So they picked up the phone an told the media that going to have a press conference announcing that they were now the Women’s Movement and they were going to announce the Agenda for American Women. The press showed up in hundreds and it has been THE Women’s Movement ever since.

The interesting statistical fact here is that, while other national movements had represented minorities, this one declared that it spoke for the majority of Americans. But the agenda they announced was accepted as “the women’s agenda.”

The membership of the Women’s Movement is miniscule. The largest women’s movement opposes it and the leader of that group says that the fact that it is the largest actual women’s movement is the media’s deepest secret.

We are back to the basic question: Why is this information produced? Reporters make their living by producing what their editors can use. Editors make their living by producing information which satisfies those with money.

A critical point is that this is a ruthlessly competitive market. A thousand newsmen are competing for the editor’s job. For every reporter, there are dozens who want his job. Someone who provides words from a Kennedy is on the fast track, and probably the ONLY track, that will finally single him out as the next editor.

The reporter who broke the Patricia Hearst story didn’t get much for it inside the press. He certainly was not accepted into the Big Leagues with the guys playing touch football at the Hearst Mansion.

The Reporter Industry is an Industry, putting out mass produced articles to those who want to keep up with the same things everybody wants to keep up with.

About my age Benjamin Franklin began writing his autobiography.

It was, among other things, a farewell. Franklin was about seventy and he had done more different things than any other man we know of from his time.

Franklin had negotiated with the King and with Indians, supplied armies, made his fortune, and he was the only the third American to be a Fellow of the Royal Society. Almost every American knew quotes from him,,

James Watt and Adam Smith were personal buddies of his.

Just his incredible contributions to the science of electricity would have been enough for one man. “Positive” and “negative” and “battery” and a whole list of basic words we use today were his.

So by 1774 Ole Ben was feeling a bit used up. He was looking back on his life.

He never finished the book.

Some events caught up with him of which you may have heard. In fact, most people are not familiar with what he did BEFORE he started saying goodbye.

He had no idea what was about to happen in the troubles with Britain, but he had another historical blind spot.

Ben Franklin was fascinated by knowledge for its own sake. But, as a very, very practical man who had made his own fortune, he knew that electricity was fascinating but totally impractical. He would have laughed out loud at someone who theorized that there might someday be a PRACTICAL use for this barely theoretical force.

Yes, he proved lightening was electricity, but he no more thought of that as a practical discovery than he would of the idea that man is largely made of carbon, and therefore scientists could create a man.

I use to know the details of Franklin’s electricity. But that was back when I was a ham radio operator, and I was using a state of the art Morse Code key.

I remember that a “battery” was named for the way the glass jars looked like a column of men. It took a lot of glass jars being chemicalized and rubbed to put out a spark you could see.

I forgot the details, but since I am a Mantra Thinker, the CONCEPT stayed with me. It caused me to save a lot of science projects that Senator Proxmire was loved by mindless conservatives for attacking.

Proxmire just read the titles of the projects, which the average person would not understand, and denounce the $50,000 or whatever the grantee was spending.

Analog Magazine once made a list of some of the stunning advances these very basic research programs caused.

That was one of the two times I risked my job on principle. John Ashbrook had the NSF Grant list sent to me and asked me to find some projects to make fun of for publicity. I was the only person on his or the Committee’s staff who could understand what the titles meant, so I was the only one who could do it.

I did what a staffer NEVER does: I told him No. I told my boss this stuff was unworthy of him, and I would have no part of it.

No, I don’t remember the details of Ben Franklin and electricity.

But I got the POINT.

There is a similarity between Mommy Professor’s economics and Mommy’s Professor’s history. Mommy Professor can’t make anything, economic or historical, so he wants to talk about distribution. So huge numbers of Mommy Professors can hire on Black History specialists.

Historians who can’t compete on subjects that are important in the past can write books about how Mayan history has been neglected.

The definition of history is everything that ever happened. Almost all of it is neglected. It has to be.

If you knew every public event that the Mayans considered important you wouldn’t know a lot that’s useful.

A guy once argued that it was a black man who developed a particular inside light that was used inside jet cockpits. I asked him if he was actually stating that, if it had not been for that one black, jets that go twice the speed of sound would now be using CANDLES inside?

That was what he had implied.

Decades ago a science fiction story had people all having bad breath and mussed hair because two blacks invented a mouthwash and a shampoo and without them whites would have never found such advances.

Black history has nothing to do with blacks. Black history is an attempt to prove that blacks had a role in REAL history.

In the 1980s Japan was the Miracle People. They had gone from a desperate starving Asian country to top of the world in per capita income with no natural resources. Japan had the key to the New Age, when they were going to break through to a standard of living as high compared to the West as the West was to every economy that ever existed before.

They didn’t. Japan reached the US per capita income in terms of exchange value, but much lower because its prices were higher, and stopped.

Give Japan credit. Communist countries lied desperately but never even claimed to come to more than a percentage of the US per capita income in any terms. Japan did everything they were trying to do.

But the last thing Japan did to accomplish this was to study Japanese history. Their economy was shaped under the Occupation by an American from before the Weakest Generation. They did what we did and got similar results, while Mommy Professor was changing us to an economy that is stagnant at best.

History is not a collection of facts about all the dead end cultures that ever existed.

It is an embarrassing and little-discussed fact, but until May 8, 1945, Germany operated under the Weimar Constitution.

After the Reichstag Fire the Reichstag put the emergency clause in the Weimar Constitution into effect.

The only reason the Weimar Constitution is no longer in effect is because Germany lost World War II.

I wrote a piece about Militant Obedience.

No matter how many words you cover it with, the only LOGICAL difference between Lincoln’s new Constitution declared in the Gettysburg Address and Hitler’s Weimar Constitution is that Lincoln won and Hitler lost,

We DO NOT want to get derailed on this fact, but it IS a fact.

It is a simple fact of life that the parameters of ANY discussion of public affairs are set by who won.

This is not even mildly disputable. If, as Buchanan discusses in his book, Britain had not gone nuts and declared war on Germany when Germany AND Russia invaded Poland, all of our public discussion would have an entirely different twist.

Germany would have been able to invade Russia, an aim Hitler had announced in Mein Kampf in the 1923.

Please note that I am NOT discussing anything specific about alternative history, which is subject to debate. All I am saying is that any alternative history would have produced an alternative DEBATE. History COULD have been different.

No one has any trouble with the simple fact that history COULD have been different.

I am talking about an equally indisputable fact: If history had been different, all the “reasonable discussion” we see professional commentators engage in would be unrecognizable.

If Englishmen and Americans had not been killed off by Churchill and Roosevelt, Hitler would have had Stalin all to himself. Ideally, the two dictators would have worn each other out, but in the long run, in a one-to-one match up, the USSR would probably have been beaten.

Now imagine the “reasonable debate” in the post-War years.

Germany would have had nuclear weapons. It would be the Lindbergh faction who would have bumper stickers saying “Better Nazi Than Dead.”

The left would have been made up entirely of nuke crazies.

The Declaration of Independence was a propaganda document.

It was Declaration written in a period of full scale war.

No one takes the bulk of it seriously, where everything is blamed on the King. Everyone at the Convention had lived under English law their whole lives, and they knew very well that the King could not do the things he was accused of without Parliament.

But there is only one short sentence of criticism for the Parliament. That’s where our sympathizers were, a minority, though a strong one.

Not one delegate, including Jefferson who wrote it, took the phrase from French liberals, “All men are created equal,” seriously.

Most people don’t know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

America has only adopted one statement which summarizes what America exists for: “To secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity.”

If you trying to write the most total rejection of “a nation of immigrants” you possibly could, that is what you say.

The Gettysburg Address was delivered by a President who declared martial law during his reelection campaign. There was no question in Lincoln’s mind that he was declaring a Revolution” “dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal.”

How many men would have fought for the Union if they were informed that they were not fighting for the unity of their homeland, not even for the good of their own children, but for one single proposition?

In 1857 the Supreme Court wrote a book-length decision, Missouri versus Dred Scot, which went into detail about how America was founded and dedicated to white people: “A black man has no rights under the Constitution that a white man need respect.”

The Gettysburg Address was a war measure.

Just as the Declaration of Independence was a war measure.

Literate grown men in 1776 did not declare something as absurd as “all men are created equal” without a really good excuse.

Literate grown men in 1776 did not say “I want to kill Englishmen” at just any time.

So, until the Gettysburg Address, America was officially established to ensure a future for our white children.

The revolution to a propositional state is only valid if you accept the military dictatorship that enforced it.

This nation IS dedicated to a proposition, and it is eleven words long.

I wrote an article about how SILLY Marx is. People are STILL talking about his Scientific History as their version of the Gospels. But we are talking about history from the mid-nineteenth century. As I wrote, to find a synonym, I said “early Victorian history.”

To me that synonym was a great discovery. I was trying to make it clear how ridiculous it was for someone today to be talking about Scientific History from an age when history was entirely different.

But with all my tens of thousands of hours of debate, what hit me was that phrase “Early Victorian” I had happened upon. When you are trying to make the point that Marxist history is not incorrect, it is SILLY, people don’t realize how much more effective I would have been if, instead of referring to it as mid-nineteenth century history, I would have said, “This nonsense is based on Early Victorian history.”

Maybe you have to have been in a lot of arguments to see the total difference here. To refer to something as “mid-nineteenth century” doesn’t have anything LIKE the walloping power that calling it “Victorian” does.

National Review tries to be acceptable to self-styled Intellectuals. But we will not be successful until we make them ASHAMED of babbling crap that a ten-year old wouldn’t fall for.

These people are proud of being traitors. They are not affected by whether what they say is right or not.

But they can be SHAMED.

God knows there is more than enough room on our tiny pro-white side for men like Jared Taylor who can face-to-face with the self-styled Intellectuals and street-fighters like me whom they truly hate for making them look stupid.

From what Dr. Duke says, I am sure Jared Taylor often wishes he COULD sink down to my level and hit those self-righteous, conscienceless bastards in the gut the way I can.

It reminds me of my days on Committee staff when I would be questioning someone from the education establishment giving me theories and I wanted so badly to say, “Listen, you stupid son of a bitch, while you’re pumping out these dumbass theories, your students are ILLITERATE.“ But I was there speaking for my congressman, so I had to hold that stuff in.

So what I notice as a great discovery is almost impossible for me to explain to someone who hasn’t been in the middle of the melee, like the folks in Comments 7 are.

You have to have “been there and done that” to recognize the critical difference between having a club like “Early Victorian” on hand instead of a pillow like “Mid-nineteenth century.”

It is hard to find any genuine facts about the time of St.Paul, because Christian, Jewish, Moslem and Marxist theologians have all built their separate edifices on their own version of history a hundred years each way from when Paul lived.

For anyone to point out that St. Paul and the earlier Philistines of Israel were repeating doctrines from a degenerate version of the Zoroastrian faith would get you executed in Medieval Europe.

It would also get you executed in Stalin’s Russia.

The whole basis of Marxism (political correctness) is what Marxists call Marx’s Science of History. Marx’s Science of History is rooted in history as it was in the Victorian Age in which he lived. Any discussion of real history, like that of Zoroastrianism, questions not only the Old Testament, but history according to Marxism as well.

Any discussion of the actual influence on the actual religion of Iran which was critical over a two thousand year period is punished as heresy by all four religious sects.

I was watching a documentary where it was declared that the Jews were the ONLY people who banned graven images. Actually, Zoroastrians banned images of God (Ahura Mazda) and burned Greek temples for their idols while Jews were still a multi-theistic desert tribe.

Why is this information produced?

Why is the fact, that is well known, that Persians burned Greek Temples in the time when Athens was new because they had images of their gods in them, never mentioned in this documentary made by professional historians?

The fact is that many, many historical facts are OPENLY ignored when they are not convenient. The gray buildings portrayed in the historical “Gladiators” film, which was praised for its “realism” by historians, is one obvious example.

In another series much lauded by historians, “I, Claudius” showed the Emperor Augustus in a garden filled with gray statues that would have looked to anyone in his time like a yard full of broken-down cars in white trash areas.

There is nothing subtle about this.

This could all be dismissed as detail, if it were not that the whole basis of politically correct, Marxist, history is seriously called scientific because it is based on this view of the past. We are outlawing people who dare to discuss any realistic discoveries about the basis of our society!

Somebody needs to write a book about liquor laws.

Liquor laws are what I call real history, not about Historical Inevitability or The Conspiracy, but about real compromises that are so human they are funny.

But never forget that every law on alcohol represents a compromise that was life and death to real, live, active people.

We know that the Eighteenth Amendment, enforced by the Volstead Act, established prohibition. The twenty-first amendment repealed the eighteenth.

Almost.

In order to get the necessary two-thirds majority in congress for repealing Prohibition, a compromise was required. The twenty first amendment did repeal national prohibition, but it also included a clause almost no one today is really aware of, but which is still active.

National Prohibition was repealed, but local prohibition was specifically sanctioned,

It is specifically stated that, when it comes to alcoholic beverages, state law is sovereign over national law.

I used to ride in trains where this reservation made things VERY confusing. You are going along at sixty miles per hour and the Club Car is open or closed every few minutes or every few hours.

It was interstate transportation, where in all other things the Feds have always been sovereign, but a guy well on his way to a good drunk had the glass snatched out of his hand because they were passing through a dry county.

State law.

On absolutely nothing else could s state law override Federal law by declaring COUNTY law to take precedence over FEDERAL law.

Except for that clause on that amendment.

This made for a lot of confusion in the days of propeller aircraft.

Today it is still legally true that serving a drink on board a jet aircraft flying over a dry country is illegal.

And, in fact, if a real person in a real dry county pressed it in court, he would win.

Part I explained how Democrat Senator gave up his Senate seat in 2004 because he spent years getting more extremely liberal in an attempt to get the Vice Presidential nomination.

I decided to write on this subject because it is so neat and probably unnoticed by anyone else: in the same general period exactly the same thing happened to another popular politician on the Republican side.

David Beasley won the governorship in 1994. His margin of victory was provided by those who were in favor of keeping the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina State House.

But everybody knew that he, like Hollings, dreamed of a vice presidential nomination. South Carolina politics is like a small town, everybody knows this kind of thing.

But the next convention was in 1996. Beasley, who had won the governorship on the strength of the pro-Confederate flag vote, needed to become part of the New South fast.

Beasley was elected governor in November of 1994. He needed every day he could get to switch sides. So in December, before even taking office, he turned on the pro-Flag voters.

Why? Because, as Beasley said, the Lord came to him and told him, at the ideal political moment, that the Lord wanted him to change sides. He announced this at the Baptist Convention in Columbia that month.

SC voters are often stupid, but they aren’t actually unconscious.

It is interesting that not one single public figure denounced t his move. They all depend on that I Have Found God crap to excuse them when THEY get caught.

In fact, only one semi-semi-semi-public figure in SC called Beasley’s action by its dictionary definition: Blasphemy. But the Columbia newspaper has quit publishing my letters since then.

Bob Jones IV, who had switched sides on the flag in time to keep his family business afloat, had also quoted scripture for it. The scripture he quoted was almost two thousand years old, but when you need to switch to the money side, any excuse will do as well as any other.

Again, Beasley tried to sell in a buyer’s market. There are a thousand sellouts for every slot.

Poor Fritz Hollings, perpetual junior senator from South Carolina! While Strom Thurmond spent almost half a century as senator from 1954, Hollings was elected to the Senate after Senator Johnston, Strom’s senior senator, died a decade or so later.

Hollings had been one of South Carolina’s youngest governors. He tried to unseat Johnston in the 1962 primary, but he didn’t have chance those days against a seated senator. He had to wait for Johnston to die, the traditional way a seat opened in the South.

So Senator Hollings was finally elected to the Senate in 1967, and was Strom’s junior senator from his relative youth to his very old age when he finally resigned in 2005. Poor old Hollings! Not only was he always the “junior senator,” but his home office in Columbia was for a long time in the Strom Thurmond Federal Building!

Strom left office in 2003. So Hollings had only two years as senior senator. All of Hollings’ life, with almost no exceptions, Southern senators went straight from their congressional seats to their graves.

But Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, a relatively youthful — compared to Strom — 77 years of age, had to resign in 2005 because he stood no chance of reelection.

He was never even considered for the second place on the national ticket. But in going for it he became, as the media said happily, “a surprisingly liberal senator for the Deep South.”

So “surprisingly liberal” that by 2004, all his years of favors and seniority didn’t give him a chance of reelection.

Hollings had been extremely popular as one of the youngest governors in our history. You have to know the old Deep South politics to realize how hard it is for a popular senator to get his constituency down there so disgusted that he didn’t even try for reelection.

What happened was that Fritz had tried to sell out in a buyer’s market. He became a more and more militant turncoat, hoping for the vice presidential slot on the national ticket.

But what he and so many other “shrew” Southern politicos didn’t realize was that Southern turncoats are a nickel a thousand.

Hollings was so furious at being given nothing in the years he was sacrificing his seat in 2004 that he did the most offensive thing he could imagine to those who didn‘t buy him. His last year, he denounced the puppet like support of Israel in congress!

He did that about the time, spring of 2004, when he saw that the polls demonstrated his cause was hopeless.

In Part II, we will watch another popular SC governor destroy himself by trying to sell out in the buyers’ market for Southern traitors on the Republicans side.

Zoroastrianism is verboten because it represents intellectual influence of Aryans ON the Middle East, while official history says all ideas originated IN the Middle East.

This Aryan Heresy (pun, gang!) is slowly becoming known, but it is not unique. It is a part of the whole unraveling of the accepted picture of history that is the basis of all modern Wordism.

Even in the Testaments you can’t avoid Zoroastrianism without twisting things to the point of outright lying. Cyrus is described as doing the work of the Lord, and he was a Persian, ZOROASTRIAN emperor. In the New Testament, it is the Magi who know Christ is coming and honor him, while the Jews reject him.

There was the Babylonian Captivity of an indeterminate number of Jews, but there was exactly the same kind of thing with the Iranians, but it is not referred to as a captivity. Jews were kept in Iran or Iraq for just as long, but Cyrus rebuilt their Temple.

And somewhere in the process, by some accident, Jews became monotheistic. “No other gods BEFORE me” became “No other Gods at all.”

THIS is the form of Judaism that converted a tenth of the entire Roman population, the Hellenic Jews, who became the Christian Church.

For centuries after the conversion of Rome to Christianity and its simultaneous move to Constantinople, the Christian Empire’s only truly powerful enemy was the Zoroastrian Empire of Iran. The link between the origins of Christianity and Zoroastrianism was suppressed, just as the link between Marxist and Christian Doctrine was mildly discouraged in the USSR.

Communists have been described by one wise observer as “Economic Calvinism.”

To truly understand Christ, which I do not claim to, one would to look DIRECTLY at each aspect of the Christian Institution that stands between his words and us.

But this real history of Christianity is just one part of the whole revolution in history.

Nothing is changing faster than history.

When I say our PICTURE of history is changing, it could not be more literally true. Tyrannosaurus Rex is suddenly running around with a beak and claws, we now know that someone from Ancient Rome would have gone into hysterics of laughter if we showed him our national capitol and called it a Classical Building.

Herds of animals are no longer the democratic libertarian structures we always assumed they are. Those peaceful packs of chimpanzees, once assumed to be mere subunits of the World Federation of Chimpanzee kind, suddenly turn out not only to have rigid borders, but patrol them and kill violators.

Recently a documentary on the history of the concept of Hell did the usual quotes from Dante and tried to trace it to the Old Testament. All that was standard.

But one thing they had that only I would actually notice was a picture of an old list of the Ten Circles of Dante’s Hell.

Throughout my schooldays the worst, the Tenth Circle, was cumbersomely described as “those who betrayed patrons who had done them good” or something of that sort. But the old writing showed its real name, “Traitors.”

Back in my school days, the word “traitor” was used by McCarthyites to describe Social Progressives., so there had to be a more complex term to use for Dante’s concept. Turns out that about every one of those Social progressives are in the KGB files.

Dante was right. A traitor is a traitor is a traitor.

Besides getting that right, however briefly, this documentary added one breathtaking quote describing Hell.

They had gone through the usual agonizing process of trying to trace Hell back to the Old Testament, using as always the name of that trash heap outside Jerusalem where things were burned.

Then they gave up on trying to cram the New Testament into the Old and quoted a ZOROASTRIAN in the fourth century about the nature of Hell. His description sounded a lot like what one would expect in Revelations.

For a good reason.

Revelations and St. Paul were heavily influenced by the largest monotheistic faith of their day, the faith of the Magi. But I have never before heard ANY quote in ANY documentary from a Zoroastrian.

So historians have tried agonizingly to somehow find out how child-bearing is talked about as a horrible sin in the Old Testament.

But Zoroastrians were, in their great days, an Aryans-only faith, just as the original Olympic Oath included, “I am of pure Hellenic blood” and Iran, like Erin, means Aryan.

In its later, DEGENERATE form, Zoroastrian became a rejection of all life, not a form of racial pride. That is where the doctrine of spaying and neutering became a part of Christianity.

It is where the seed of our present idea that the highest ideal is genetic self-destruction was planted.

But historians are aware of the Aryan roots of Z. So no one is more desperate than today’s historians to demand that everything about Christianity came from the Middle East, not from a bunch of Aryans up north of there.

The Zoroastrian Institution, like the later Christian one, was good and bad. But the real objection to its being included in our history is that it was an intellectual influence  By Aryans ON the Middle East.

All accepted history requires that ALL new concepts, good or bad, originate in the Middle East while the Aryan barbarians drooled and waited for Enlightenment.

That makes Zoroastrian influence impossible for the History Industry to explain.

So they do what they do with any inconvenient reality.

They ignore it.