http://www.sadanduseless.com/image.php?n=658

The predictions of 1925 were largely still current in 1950. Even when I was in grad school, the ruling Mommy Professor phrase was “Modern Industrial Society.”

Marx had predicted socialism as class differences grew and the peasants left the land to become part of the proletariat. The Future was already laid out, the farm was the past, the city was the future.

As in the 1925 layout, as people left the only place they knew of at the time as an alternative to city life, people would cram together in the city. I believe it was in the 1950s that Frank Lloyd Wright became Mommy Professor and designed a mile-tall building in which people could live their entire lives.

You see this in the 1925 model of 1950. It is one enormous city center, with everything from grocery stores to shops stacked on top of each other.

When I got to college in 1957 this was still the view of Mommy Professor and Frank Lloyd Wright was his Prophet. I was sixteen and I saw the cities were failing fast, their crime rates increasing geometrically, Social Progress was already devastating city centers.

But that 1925/1950 model was still firmly entrenched on campuses. It had been Marx, Wright, and Progressive Theory for a generation and it was held truest, like most predictions, right when it was visibly failing.

Visibly, but only if you LOOKED.

This is the usual conservatism of Progressivism. From the Marxists down to the democratic socialists and the openly liberal voices, it takes a long time for a given Inevitable Future to spread through the entire giant complex.

Nobody seemed to notice this inertia but me. The Sun Belt was growing by leaps and bounds, but nobody on campus noticed it in 1950. The Future was The Modern Industrial Society, as Marx and the Webbs and the Intellectuals and Idealists, i.e., Mommy Professors, had said for over a generation.

That 1925 model could have been presented to a class in 1960 and been endorsed.

Every single trend was going on in places Mommy Professor simply didn’t look at.

It really cripples you if you have an Inevitable Future firmly in mind, because an Inevitable Future must proceed from an Unchangeable Past. The word “progressive” means that thing can only go one way.

And if you think that things can only go one way, you’re always wrong. You regularly get hit in the back by the historical equivalent of a Mack Truck.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy offered to work in close concert with high level Soviet officials to sabotage President Ronald Reagan’s re-election efforts and to arrange for congenial American press coverage of General Secretary Yuri Andropov, according to a 1983 KGB document.

Specifically, Kennedy offered to have “representatives of the largest television companies in the U.S. contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview.” The idea here would be for the Soviet leader to make an end run around Reagan with a direct appeal to the American people.

Kennedy suggested that Walter Cronkite, Barbara Walters and Elton Raul, the president of the board of directors for ABC, be considered for the interviews with Andropov in Moscow. He also asked the KGB to consider having “lower level Soviet officials, particularly the military” take part in television interviews inside the U.S. where they could convey peaceful intentions.

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=119874

BBG had been a bit quiet. He didn’t back me up on remembering the old gun control debate I mentioned. But surely he remembered the all-out push from the left as the USSR was going down.

It was the Nuclear Freeze Movement. What Kennedy called Star Wars was the last nail in the coffin of the USSR. At that point, all the USSR had in the world was its nuclear arsenal. Reagan announced he was going to set up a defense against it.

What all of us knew was that the USSR had stolen every iota of its nuclear technology. Even Sputnik was sent up on missiles we had in our warehouses. That was in 1958, when the CIA was announcing that the Russian economy was barreling forward.

Thirty years later it was common knowledge that it was a total and stupid failure. All it had to call itself a Superpower was its missiles. Its submarines were sinking out of sheer incompetence. A nuclear defense system, or even the possibility of one, made the USSR’s Superpower status look ridiculous.

Reagan knew this. In fact, to show how clearly he knew it, the whole nuclear defense idea was developed in a conference he had with science fiction writers.

The entire left OPENLY came out in howling protest against it, in the same words used by the Soviet leadership. There was no longer any secret about how desperate the left was to save Communist rule.

In fact, this campaign ended the highly successful Superman movie series. The last Superman movie had the Man of Steel Himself enforcing the nuclear freeze. Even for movie audiences, that piece of propaganda was just too blatant.

Kennedy’s people had been marching with the Viet Cong flag in the 1960s.

About everybody McCarthy said was a Communist is now found on the KGB list of American agents. Anybody finding an old Nazi list of agents working with them would be front page news today.

Actually, just as Kennedy’s people were on the streets with Viet Cong flags and Hanoi Jane was shooting down imaginary US planes in Hanoi, many of the people so loudly defended by liberals in the 1950s announced that they WERE Communists in the 1960s, when that was the thing to be.

The only reason some of the people on the McCarthyite lists haven’t been discovered is because no one spends time going through the enormous KGB lists.

Now imagine that we suddenly discovered huge Gestapo lists of Americans working with the Nazis seventy years ago. The entire world media would be there in a rush.

The left does this and we don’t. That’s because leftists are pros.

That is why I keep trying to tell you that as the Mantra takes hold, DO NOT let bygones be bygones. Every company and every fortune must be investigated. Those whose money came from companies who pushed white genocide should be fined.

Above all, there should NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS on this.

If you have not learned how the anti-whites have used guilt to ram the most incredible agenda in history down our throats, turn yourself in at the nearest retarded home.

If they are waking up in a cold sweat at night fearing what their limousine liberal grandfathers did that could have the IRS at their doors in the morning, they will be going out of their way to make sure the suicidal urge whites are cursed with is FOUGHT AGAINST.

MAKE THEM PAY or the disease will come again.

Historians always assume he was writing in a peaceful atmosphere about his abstract philosophical world view. No one ever mentions that there was a war going on at the time. No one mentions that if Jefferson’s side had lost it, they would have been hanged.

I get a laugh out of looking at the situation as they see it. It is like expecting an abstract philosophical view from a government engaged in World War II.

There was a war going on, but Jefferson is not supposed to have NOTICED it.

To win the war, the Declaration had to appeal to two desperately needed groups. There was an anti-War segment of parliament, extreme Whigs, who referred to the Americans as “our army.” As Americans foresaw, it was THEIR victory in the British elections that forced the King to make peace after Yorktown.

The other group Jefferson had to appeal to was French liberals. That is the crowd which brought on the FRENCH Revolution, which led to slaughter and despotism worse than the one it replaced. To appeal to them Jefferson wrote his “all men are created equal,” which made no sense to anyone outside a French salon.

That is the only part of the Declaration anyone can quote. That is because the ideas that led to the French Revolution were utterly alien to Americans. Which is the reason the two revolutions led to such entirely different results.

The preamble aimed at French liberals was the only part of the Declaration that makes sense to Mommy Professor.

When the war was over and Americans wrote their own Constitution, there was not the slightest hint of the sort of crap the Declaration is famous for. The only part of the Declaration anyone ahs been taught by Mommy Professor is a Wordist World View that is totally absent from the Constitution was wrote for ourselves.

The Preamble to the Declaration is Rousseau and Marx. But it is NOT American.

At all.

What is truly admirable is that the Declaration, written by a 33-year old Virginian, was so perfectly aimed at the two alliances abroad that were in fact critical in winning the war no historian notices was going on at the time.

Mommy Professor loves to point out that the Declaration was hypocritical. ALL war documents are hypocritical. But again, no one ever mentions that there WAS a war on at the time.

Historians are always discussing the Constitution in terms of the groups who formulated it. But they never say anything about that in the case of the Declaration, or, to put it more accurately, about the Preamble which is the only part of the Declaration they ever quote.

This is because, for Wordists, the Preamble to the Declaration is unique. It is the ONLY wording produced by the Founding Fathers which sounds Wordist. It WAS Wordist. It was aimed at the French liberals who were limousine liberal non-working followers of Rousseau.

I am going to write one such hisfic writer about an incident in one of his books. The year is 1775. A black walks into an exclusive London club. He says, “Is this because of my COLOR?! Like modern Brits, everybody there goes into fetal position and starts weeing on themselves.

All one Brit in 1775 would have done was say “Well, DUHH!!” or its equivalent.

Real Brits were known for their dry sense of humor, that is, for telling the obvious truth. Other countries didn’t do that an more than modern Englishmen do and for the same reason.

I hope this clown will get more than one criticism of this crap.

This was an exercise in Temporal Provincialism. Sheri described something as Temporal Provincialism but I think she was describing historical DISTORTION, a very different thing. If we cheapen the term Temporal Provincialism as a standard insult it will lose its bite.

Temporal Provincialism is certainly a great EXCUSE for historical distortion and it is A, one, cause of such distortion, but it is one of our special terms in BUGS, so it should be understood very clearly here.

No room full of Englishmen in ANY age before ours would have peed on themselves fro the room going quiet when the first black in its history walked into an exclusive club. In fact historical fiction by definition consists of historical distortion.

We certainly don’t mind if a Bill Jones who never existed is described as walking in London. In 1850 We DO mind if said fictional character is walking across Olde London Bridge in 1850 because by then Olde London Bridge no longer existed.

We don’t mind a fictional black man walking into that club is what is called a work of historical fiction. We DO mind if the room full of eighteenth century Brits goes into the fetal position modern Brits do. A writer of historical fiction is expected to get his fiction and his fasts clearly separate, unlike the BBC or Oxford.

That’s one reason I like it. Margaret Frazer writes about people in the fifteen century following the old wisdom of washing out wounds with wine so they didn’t infect. They only stopped that when Mommy Professor medicos showed that it was not part of the True Roman Theory of Humors.

Vikings didn’t get scurvy. It was not until medicos got the filter-down from Intellectuals that that crap happened. But you won’t see any of the real medicine practices in the Middle Ages mentioned in any Oxford History book. You only see this kind of thing mentioned accidentally by people who actually know something about the time.

Historical provincialism is the Brit who was terrified of Political Correctness. Historical Provincialism is the writer who says nobody ever cured anything until the Renaissance showed them how, as a recent BBC did. Historical provincialism is a BBC showing I Claudius and showing his Yard covered with gray, featureless statues of the kind people dug up after they had been in ground for two thousand years. The Renaissance gave us those.

A person really raised in classical times would laugh his ass off at the US Capitol claiming to be “classical” building. The “Rome” films show would look to him like Spanish Harlem on a bad day.

These publicly financed jerks claim to TEACH us! This is not political distortion. This is silliness. This is IGNORANCE.

Historical distortion can be practiced by knowledgeable people. Temporal Provincialism is NOT.

When in God’s name will we ever get over this crap of portraying our opponents as Evil Geniuses?

We will only get rid of them by laughing at them.

What is interesting about this statistic is that at the time it was supposed to show HITLER’S problem. Nowadays the same statistic is used to show the JEWS’ problem. There was a major ad in the New York Times saying “Jews, be JEWISH!”

There is a lot of money dedicated by Jews advertising dating services to introduce Jews to Jewesses.

It took Hitler over two years after he took absolute power to promulgate the Race and Nationalities Act, prohibiting Jewish-Gentile marriages. There is no way one could say that the legislation was stuck in some congressional committee.

When the media began in 1962 to refer to Barry Morris Goldwater, National Review called up the shades of Hitler. They pointed out that giving the full name of a Jew was the Nazi method of pointing out he was a Jew.

Hold it, gang! Didn’t Hitler, of all people, just refer to somebody as “Jew.”

No.

Why not?

Because there were laws against it. That was why they had to put in the full name if it sounded Jewish enough.

If I remember correctly Henry Ford stopped attacking Jews when a civil suit was brought against him by Jews. This did not stop the KKK from reaching a membership of about four million. The KKK was destroyed by corruption.

But if the facts get in the way, there is a way to deal with it. Just say that the reason Hitler never took power in Germany was because of those strong hate laws that kept even Adolf, to some extent, muzzled.

And if anyone points out that Hitler did indeed take power in 1933, put them in prison.

With all their differences, they only had two serious splits. In 1924 the Democratic Party had to decide whether to condemn the violently anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan. That gets all the discussion today, but another split was that the Klan and Bible Belters were violently in favor of Prohibition and Northern Catholics were against it.

It took almost a hundred and thirty ballots for them to agree on a candidate. He was John W. Davis, the Governor of West Virginia. He was not at the convention. They also decided not to condemn the Klan by a handful of votes. The Republican convention, which included the delegation from Indiana which was ruled by the Klan and governed Indiana, went ahead and condemned the Klan and supported Prohibition.

This same John W. Davis was a very Southern Southerner. In fact, thirty years later this same John W. Davis represented the segregationists, including South Carolina, before the Supreme Court in Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka.

So the split went, barely, to the Bible Belt Southern wing in 1924.

By 1928 the Klan was a dead letter. This time the convention nominated an anti-Prohibition Catholic from New York — he used to pose with a glass of beer in his hand, looking at it lovingly. A huge number of Southerners voted for the Republican — calling themselves Democrats for Coolidge or Southern Democrats.

But the amazing thing is that those were the ONLY splits in this coalition in what is becoming two centuries of voting together. And it was a split decision, the Bible Belt won in 1924 and the Catholics won in 1928, but the Democratic Party went right on without a bump.

A split like that would have ripped any other coalition to shreds. It is hardly noticed today and it was not remembered when it blew the political landscape to hell and back in 1980 and 1994.

It is noticing things like this that made my career in politics.

Contrary to the Ellis Island mythology, Catholics did not just come onto the American shore yesterday. They were a potent force for Andrew Jackson. And the waves of Poles and Italians who came over here a century ago went into ethnic neighborhoods and followed the politics already set down by the Jacksonian Irish.

They no sooner got here than they were entrenched in an old American way of thinking.

It warmed my black little heart when I was sitting in an anti-busing headquarters and someone said, “Well, we’ve always hated Yankees…” The man who said that had never been south of New York City. The Yankees he was referring to were the ones the theologian Novak had lied and called WASPs.

Another incident in Boston actually embarrassed me, and I am not easily embarrassed. We were talking about our origins, as Southerners and Irishmen will. I talked about the only person in my family tree who did something historic, the Reverend Alexander Whitaker who converted and baptized Pocahontas and wrote the first book in English written in America, which is on the Internet in its entirely, Whitaker’s Goode Newes from Virginia.

The point of the story to me is that while historians insist that the Pilgrims founded English America, Reverend Whitaker converted and baptized Pocahontas, married her to John Rolphe, wrote that book and DIED before the Pilgrims got here.

The Southies were thunderstruck. Honestly, you would have thought I had pulled out papers proving I was heir to a Dukedom. It was embarrassing, as if I had tried to trump them totally about my ancestry. It took me a while to catch on.

You see, these people had always been spoken of as if they just came off the boat. The people doing the speaking were the Lowells who speak only to the Cabots, and the Cabots who speak only to God., in short the Yankee descendants of the Pilgrims.

Down South almost all our ancestors were here before 1700, so there was nothing special about mine. But these people had no idea that ANY white person came here before the Pilgrims, and that was a BIG thing in New England.

A Dukedom would have impressed them less.

Can you imagine Americans whose families have been here for a hundred and fifty years actually being put down, and accepting it, by a bunch descended from a group that got lost on its way to Virginia?

The Pilgrims came to Boston earlier, but they had become Europeans. I had come up to join the people around me because they had become my fellow white Americans long since.

Gimme an Irishman behind the bar before a Yankee behind a Harvard lectern any day of the week.

This has happened before. The development of printing made Luther’s power possible, but it did not occur in a vacuum. Western society invents things it has a need for.

By contrast, the printing press and the mechanical clock in China came on in a vacuum and disappeared in a vacuum. Printing in China, and in Korea which had an alphabetical script and only 24 letters, came and went in the same nothing.

This is why the example of the Donation of Constantine is so critical. Charlemagne’s court invented the Donation of Constantine. This is incomprehensible to accepted history, which sees Charlemagne as trying to get back to the Roman Empire ruled from Rome. Charlemagne had no such interest.

In Charlemagne’s time there was a recognized, legitimate Roman Empire, which had not had a break in its Imperial line since Constantine moved its capitol from Rome to Constantinople. It never occurred to anyone in the actual Roman Empire that moving the capitol constituted the Fall of Rome.

If it did, then the moving of the American capitol from New York to Washington would have been the Fall of America.

In his own time, the Court of Charlemagne had a practical problem. The Pope, probably against his wishes, had made Charlemagne Emperor. The Pope, who was blind and had had his tongue cut out, did not feel safe.

He desperately wanted the Imperial Power to cover the City of Rome.

This was a cosmic challenge, because the Emperor — actually Empress — in Constantinople was not only an Imperial power but a power in the religious area as well. The Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea which defined the Christian Faith, though he himself was not only not a bishop but was unbaptized. He was referred to by all bishops as The Supreme Bishop.

Today the Eastern Church still considers itself a part of the State, a subject of the Emperor.

The Pope had to redefine ALL of that. So he produced a forgery called the Donation of Constantine.

The history I have just explained is justified by the fact that this forgery was supposedly written by the EMPEROR, not by Saint Peter or Paul or any other religious authority. In the Donation, Constantine gave the Church to the Pope.

People KNOW this, but they don’t THINK about it. For centuries the Papacy based its claim to power on being given power by an Emperor. That meant the Emperor had it to give. People never THINK about that, just as they never think about the Temptation of Christ, when Satan offered all the kingdoms of the earth to Jesus.

The latter meant that it is assumed that Satan OWNED the kingdoms of the Earth, which is definitely not Old Testament, but is pure Zoroastrianism.

The Donation was discredited in the fifteenth century, when literacy was so widespread that the word could spread before, as he expected and said, it could be burned at the stake.

This was just before printing took over. And that in itself, if you THINK about it, can tell you a lot. In the West, literacy was ready for print. Print became powerful in the West because it did not appear in a vacuum and disappear in the same vacuum as it did in the Far East.

Lots of people say size doesn’t matter.

But the competition between blogs is enormous, and if I am going to give up thinking and just repeat what I thought before, I might as well make money at it as a respectable conservative or get rich on it at the SPLC.

It is interesting how much one can tell about real history from the few times Politically Correctness shows MERCY to those it hates. They hate J. Edgar Hoover because he is seen as an enemy to the advocates of a People’s Peace Loving Democracy McCarthy attacked.

He criticized Saint Martin Luther the King because he kept open Communists as advisers. He even criticized Paul Robeson, whom the New York Times described in his obituary as “a lifetime advocate of human rights and a disciple of Joseph Stalin until his (Robeson‘s) death.”

What the media never mention is the reason why Hoover declared the Mafia to be a myth. It had nothing to do with his homosexuality. If the Mafia had a picture of his making love to his live-in Deputy head of the FBI, FBI experts would have declared it to be a made-up picture.

We are familiar enough with kept “science,” like Climategate, to know about this. We all know that the Genome Project will never say one thing that does not support Political Correctness. And where do did all local police, and even Interpol, send photographs to be verified?

To the FBI in Washington, of course.

So why is the media so uninterested in why Hoover declared that the mafia was scientifically proved to be a myth, just as the Genome Project says race is?

For very simple reason: the FBI wanted to look invincible, and Organized Crime was LOT bigger than the FBI was. So the FBI bought out white trash relatives of Klansmen and made huge progress in crushing a much smaller and more divided foe.

The media don’t want to criticize THAT.

But that was, for Hoover, a diversion. He knew what the media wanted, and the media didn’t care whether Organized Crime died or prospered. It wanted Southern resistance crushed.

Hoover was a master politician. Like Churchill, he did not care what he did to the world so long as he kept power. And unlike Churchill he DID keep power, whereas the world spit Churchill out.

The simple fact is that any attempt to deal with organized crime in Hoover’s time was doomed. So J. Edgar declared it a myth until that disastrous meeting in the mountains made it too obvious to declare mythological any more. But that was in the 50s, I believe.

Hoover was right. He couldn’t deal with Organized Crime. It was not until the passage of the RICO Acts that a crime boss could be charged EFFECTIVELY with crimes committed on his orders. The Warren Court worked desperately hard to defend all criminals, especially the big ones, and you couldn’t get anybody for drugs unless you found drugs ON them, and then it wasn’t easy.

No big man in the Mafia ever had drugs within a football field of him. So it was obvious that all the law enforcement agencies got nothing but small fry, and it didn’t look good. Hoover had been right to defend the Mafia all that time in order to keep his image.

Hoover was also as helpless against the Communists in the US as anyone else. He abandoned McCarthy. He wouldn’t have been surprised to know that practically everyone McCarthy accused turned up in KGB files, but that was not his problem.

Hoover wanted to do things that showed him invincible. Preferably things to media would LIKE. So he did that by buying off white trash.

They did an interesting Politically Correct line about the genetics of Aryan mummies they found. Documentaries now say that though they look white, they have genes found in India, the Middle East, and Siberia as well as Europe. The Hittites were Aryans and the other locations are where Aryans went.

The mummies in China have the genes other Aryans have, so they can’t be Aryan.

So they just LOOKED white. The article on the cemetery dug up with such embarrassing bodies in Tibet leads off with how the genes are found in all these other places though they look as Caucasoid as I do.

This is interesting logic. There are statues of Buddha in Japan by the hundreds. Buddhists point out that Gautama Buddha “had eyes the color of the blue Lotus.” From that, with a little doctoring, we could conclude that Buddha was a blue-eyed Japanese.

Marxism and Political Correctness have exactly the same problem with history that the Renaissance Church had with the Bible. Marxism requires that our accepted everything was invented in the Middle East and is the Property of Mankind history be exact, literal, and detailed Truth in precisely the way that the Church required that Genesis be true, word for word.

When the Medicogenetical Institute of Moscow did a study and found that genetics was critical, Stalin arranged it so that the head of that Institute “confessed his ideological error and was shot.” This incident appeared in Garrett Hardin’s Nature and Man’s Fate and I knew a Member of THE Royal Society, a geneticist, whose Russian friends were all shot, but this incident has been completely erased from the historical records.

COMPLETELY.

Stalin made Lysenko head of Soviet genetics, and people know about that, but no one asks what triggered his appointment. Note that above I did not refer to “The Medieval Church” as the source of the war against science. All the sources do. I do not for a very quaint reason:

It’s not true.

When the age of information slammed into Europe, the Medieval Church could have handled it. Luther himself thought he was criticizing the Church from WITHIN the Church. An absolute despotism of the kind historians refer to as The Medieval Church would not have considered it routine for a priest to nail up points he wanted to debate on his church door.

No TYRANNY allows that. Try nailing the Mantra up on a University bulletin board and keep your tenure as a professor.

We have been treated to Climategate. Anyone who suggested that top experts were conspiring to fix data would have been denounced as paranoid, as McCarthy was. It is almost impossible to find someone McCarthy denounced who was NOT a Communist. Due to the Internet, that fact is so well known that I have not heard the word “McCarthyism” in a decade.

This collapse of one its best verbal weapons has not hurt the Left because it has the right to do what it always does as its part in the play: FORGET it.

CS Lewis told a nun that he did not join Tolkien in the Catholic Church because her church had abandoned the Medieval Church. He did not elaborate, but it is true that the rigid organization after the Council of Trent was arguably as different from the Medieval Church as the Lutherans were.

All this is VERY relevant today, IF we see things as they really are. There is an explosion of knowledge at the grass roots. It is not a new conspiracy, it is a predicable crisis. White people in ancient China is a fact regular history does not make room for, just as the invention of the telescope was.

Since our entire secular theology is as rigidly based on accepted history as Renaissance religion was on the exact words of Scripture and pure forgeries like the Donation of Constantine, the institution must make the facts fit its own survival interests. It will do that partly by suppressing facts. Partly by warping research results, and partly by denying it ever disputed any of the new findings in the first place.

That is a part of history that never changes.

So if you were surprised at Climategate, don’t be.

Subsistence is the amount of goods and services required to keep workers alive and working. All goods and services beyond subsistence is Surplus Value.

Please note that little dot right after the word “Value.” It is called a period, and, as I have said before, it is very often the most important part of Bob Whitaker’s writing. What I have said is the entirety of Marxist “economics.” I count twenty-four words in the entire discussion of the economics in Marxist economics.

The reason Marx is said to have a Labor Theory of Value is because, according to his Great Scientific Discovery, since all value is produced by labor, all money that is needed to do anything but feed labor is Surplus. In the industrial society of his day, and far more in ours, this Surplus Value is huge.

So how is Marx’s great scientific discovery to be distributed. “The distribution of income,” says Marx, “is a POLITICAL decision.”

In Marxist terms, everything is a matter of class relationships and class relationship are entirely a matter of power. The only relationship which EXISTS in any society is the power relationships between classes, and that relationship is ENTIRELY a matter of distribution of goods and services.

Marx stated flatly that the family does not exist, the country does not exist. He advocated what was called Free Love because marriage was an economic relationship with a class purpose, and ONLY a class purpose.

Until you learn to understand this way of thinking, you cannot understand Political Correctness or anything else you hear from Mommy Professor’s acolytes.

There is no such thing as race relations in Marxism. The race with the most power is ipso facto the racist one. Orwell used Marxist language, with which he was very familiar, in 1984. The State in his novel was developing language so that no one could have the words to SAY anything that was not Goodthink, what we call Political Correctness.

Orwell envisioned a society in which one could only speak in Marxist terms. Anything else was racist or Sexist or nationalist, though his words were different.

A lot of people think Orwell was prescient. He wasn’t. He just understood Marxism.

That is an insane attitude, but it is a very RATIONAL attitude, in the economic sense. Half of he population will always be below average and you will always have a clientele if you rant about it.

Attacks on whites always concentrate on what whites have, not what third worlders don’t have that we do. Yes, starvation happens nowhere. Starvation only happens where we are blocked from getting at it. But it will be cold day in Hell before an anti-white takes notice of this.

But a CAUTION. When we use the Mantra anti-whites’ only counter is condemning whites. PLEASE don’t argue that. With the reality I just mentioned. PLEASE always hit them with “So you are justifying genocide.”

We don’t have time or space to get into IQ scores, crime rates, or what the white man has actually done.

STICK TO GENOCIDE.

Someday we will have time to give the information we are aching to give out, BUT THAT TIME IS NOT NOW.

I think this subject may interest you, but it will be far worse than useless if it SIDETRACKS you.

The term “subsistence farming” gives me cold chills. If you actually see that someone is depending on his naked crops out in the field to give him enough food to survive on, it is different from a textbook term. Books always tell us how peasants resisted the new farming techniques, and historians dismiss it as superstition and ignorance.

Of course peasants were resistant. They were TOLD these new methods would produce more food, they may even have believed it, but no one seems to realize why they didn’t want to take the CHANCE. It was not an economic risk, it was life and death, watching their families starve to death because they had risked everything on a promise.

Subsistence farming is HORRIBLE. No wonder priests who promise to make the crops good this year by a sacrifice or praying to Saint Whoever got power and money for it. They were the only intellectuals the peasant had. They were usually caring and believed what they said. How was a peasant to know the experts in scientific agriculture were indifferent?

The fact is that a wise peasant would not have believed a ten thousand year succession of well-meaning experts. How would they know that this particular set had a point? Can you imagine how terrified they were even when this was tried on even a few acres, realizing that if this set of priests made it work, they would be forced to abandons methods that had fed their families since time out of mind?

This is not what historians write about or read about. They think only in The Big Picture, who against Progress and how those who were for Progress were the good guys. Their information is produced for each other and for well-fed students who think that subsistence is a credit card at the grocery.

That’s not fair but it makes my point.

In the real world, no Indian would go back to his forefathers’ world, and they had it good. Indians had thousands of acres for each of them. But they also died young. Almost everyone had pain they lived with that we would not tolerate.

But the rest of our third world had lives that were, in plain English, horrible. They starved routinely. That was the poor guy. Rich ones lost their teeth, for a start. Every single Pharaoh suffered from a malnutrition that would be intolerable today in Nicaragua.

Multiculture is big business, but what offends multiculturalists is that not one single culture the West went into has the slightest interest in dumping all that has come in and go back to their ”kinder and simpler” life.

White people had diseases, slavery, no respect for the native culture. But so does everybody else.

Not one single sin of the white man was unique to us. But the white IS unique in what it did FOR the world.

But please read this AGAIN:

When we use the Mantra anti-whites’ only counter is condemning whites. PLEASE don’t argue that. With the reality I just mentioned. PLEASE always hit them with “So you are justifying genocide.” We don’t have time or space to get into IQ scores, crime rates, or what the white man has actually done.

STICK TO GENOCIDE.

Someday we will have time to give the information we are aching to give out, BUT THAT TIME IS NOT NOW.

I think this subject may interest you, but it will be far worse than useless if it SIDETRACKS you.

One person did a Google and said I was wrong. He pointed out that every single page that aims to be Modern Zoroastrian states flatly that anyone is welcome to be a Zoroastrian, regardless of race. So they couldn’t have said that.

I asked him if he had Ever seen any OTHER religion where the first thing they hammer on is how race is no barrier. I asked him WHY he thinks the Zoroastrians wannabes hit so HARD on that. He got it then. You don’t go to such huge lengths to deny something that never OCCURRED to you. They are rejecting their real history, confirming it IS their real history.

I was simply LISTENING closely. He stayed on the surface and repeated what they SAID without thinking about WHY they said it.

This was not unique to Zoroastrian Persia. At its height the original Olympic Games had the original Olympic Oath, which included the oath that “I am of pure Hellenic blood…”

Zoroastrianism went from being racist to becoming a Death and Sterility Creed. As we move away from racism, our psychology makes every crisis, from Soylent Green to Global Warming, an argument for not having children.

The history of the Pilgrims and the Puritan is completely different from age to age, so everything I say here has a question mark after it. Whether they came here for religious freedom or to impose their religion, the point is they ended up with a doctrine the original immigrants would not have stood for.

No one notices this, but I do. I think about it a lot.

As I understand it, the 1620 Pilgrims were a different lot from the Puritans who came later in vast numbers. Backbaygrouch will be able to fill us in on this. The Pilgrims’ Massachusetts Bay Colony fought long and hard to keep our of the Puritan’s control, but they lost.

I have READ that the Pilgrims were far more genuinely in favor of religious freedom than the Puritans. The Puritans make a bad joke of that “America was founded by people who came here for religious freedom” stuff. Again I defer to backbaygrouch on the actual facts. Why have an expert around if you aren’t going to use his expertise?

Actually I have nothing against the Puritans for imposing their own religion on a place they went to to have their own population on which to impose their own doctrine. We all wish we could do the same sort of thing for an all-white area. It is the HISTORY, the LESSON that needs correcting.

The Puritans came her to impose their own religion in an area four thousand miles away from England. There are TWO lessons here. Most literate people are aware of the first, that they did NOT come here for Religious Freedom. I want to emphasize the SECOND lesson, which is almost unknown.

The second lesson is that the Puritans FAILED to impose their religion. Why?

Naturally I look at this from a BUGS point of view. One of our points here s that when an institution takes over, the PURPOSE of the institution is lost.

Jesus had no lessons about how a group of theologues should justify their absolute rule. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” would have gotten someone hanged as a heretic. So they naturally went to the Old Testament to organize their society under theocratic rule.

As time passed, even before they came to America, Puritanism became more and more about how to impose their will on THIS world. The institution talked more and more about its right to rule. The same thing happened to the Catholic Church as it put whole countries under the Interdict to collect money for the Pope.

They were both institutions USING the name of Christ. I wonder how different history might have been if we had lost at Tours and the ruling institutions called themselves Moslem. It may be that we would have had much the same history and the West would have been just as different and independent, but in the name of schism between the Moslem Branch in Northern Europe and the Moslem Branch that was based in the Middle East.

The Catholic Church was every bit as separate from and hostile to Constantinople. The name Christianity certainly did not unite them. Today Iranian Islam has the same attitude to the Sunnites. My point is that no matter what the NAME institutions appeal to, history itself goes its way and institutions are part of history, not of theology.

China’s version of Marxism versus the old Russian version has little to do with Marx. Marx considered cities to be the natural development of a proletarian society rather than peasants. Pol Pot used Marxism to DESTROY his country’s cities. Before long neither version had anything to do with Marx.

The same thing would have happened if they had all called themselves True Snake Worshippers.

When today was 1938 John Maynard Keynes wrote his General Theory and became the number one economist on earth and progressive historians hailed his work as detailing the true historical causes of business cycles.

Keynes’s explanation was enormously complicated and it was based on a flat-out lie. A fellow doctoral candidate of mine did his dissertation on what Keynes called “classical economists” he said completely misdiagnosed the whole thing. Keynes said, over and over and over, that these “classical economists” advised a balanced budget while the country needed a stimulus.

It turns out that not one of these “classical economists” actually existed in the real world of the 1930s. Every professional economist, every single on, demanded deficit spending AT THAT TIME. In fact, Adolf Hitler had ALREADY used the stimulus by building the Autobahn and other huge public projects and the German Depression, worse than ours, was OVER by 1938.

But no one in 1938 wanted to hear these two facts. They wanted a complicated explanation for what was to them the overwhelming disaster of the age.

When the 1950s was NOW the debate was for or against Big Government. Conservatives took KEYNES’ explanation of what he called “classical” economics as their own doctrine! So conservatives were “anti-Keynesian and liberals were pro-Keynesian. But conservatives were talking about balancing the budget as an eternal principle, the way Keynes said they should.

New Deal history had nothing to do with what actually happened. Readers wanted to read about Big Government versus Small Government.

When NOW was 1970, President Nixon said “We are all Keynesians now,” by which he meant that nobody advocated balancing the budget in the face of depression. He had no idea that everybody intelligent was a Keynesian — in his sense — in the 1930s .

Except the Democrats who nominated Roosevelt. Their 1932 platform denounced the huge national debt Hoover was piling up in an attempt at recovery.

When NOW was 1985 the debate was over REAGAN’S deficits. He cut taxes to stimulate the economy and the Democrats were once again raising hell about his huge deficits.

When NOW was 2000 pretty well all liberals agreed that Reagan’s tax cuts had worked, and their only argument against them was that they were too MUCH. But by 2000 everybody agreed that tax cuts were a true method of reducing recession. Democrats simply preferred keeping taxes as they were and using SPENDING to do the stimulating.

In other words, by the time NOW was 2000, everybody had gone back to REAL economists’ thinking in the 1930s. But before that it was not accepted politically that raising taxes was a way of keeping a depression going.

When NOW is 2010, all the obvious facts about the New Deal are easy to state.

The New Deal consisted of two parts. One part was stimulus, which was deficit spending and major stimulus programs. The other part was a backbreaking regulatory and tax burden on the private sector, including income taxes up to the 91% bracket and putative action against business in general, out of the Marxist textbook, which was aimed at leftist ideology and punishing the villains of the day, businessmen. Which I like to all the Dillinger Phenomenon. John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde and the rest were heroes because they robbed banks, the villains of the day.

But it was the Dillinger Phenomenon used by the far left which kept the Depression going. But one can only say this simple fact today. When NOW is 2010 and everybody now recognized that raising taxes depresses the economy.

And it is now accepted that shrinking the money supply, which was done in the 1930s to the extent of cutting it by a third, is a sure way to cause a depression. That was done by the banking industry and the Federal Reserve.

That was not a Conspiracy. It was same blind, drooling stupidity by Experts that caused the collapse of 2008. He who does not learn from history repeats it.

Those who think history is the real past will pay for it.

I am not sure I can define mantra thinking, but what occurred to me was another example of it. We keep finding dead civilizations. We keep studying each one in detail to find out What It Has To Teach Us. We never do the Mantra-like thing: We don’t step back, look at all those discoveries as trees, and see the forest.

And the forest, the big idea, the Occam’s Razor, is this:

How do we PREVENT ourselves from BECOMING a civilization whose CORPSE must be found by a uniquely advanced one in some indefinite and unlikely future? That is what dead “civilizations” have to teach us first of all.

We are actually digging around in the ruins of an old “civilization’s” corpse to find predictions of what will happen to US in 2012 A.D. It has not occurred to ONE PERSON fascinated by this to wonder why this Great Wisdom had not one word to say about the period of that civilization’s OWN TOTAL DESTRUCTION, which happened long ago.

Before he drools in awe over the Ancient Wisdom of dead societies, the Mantra Thinker asks first WHY THEY ARE DEAD.

All dead civilizations have brown skins. That is what is called an observation. Observation is he basis of Western thought.

I want to know WHY this is. Those who study the Great Dead Wisdom talk exclusively about the Wisdom, never about the Dead part.

Except one thing.

The use of speed, amphetamines and then Ritalin, in huge amounts drives down your tested IQ score. This is not well known. I know because it happened to me. When I stopped using speed and went into recovery, my IQ was down to 100. My visual memory was almost gone completely.

People don’t know about this, one medical student I know of failed a term found that his IQ was average and QUIT his entire medical career. He did not know that the IQ goes back up when you quit. He asked at his MED SCHOOL, and no one knew that!

Hitler used speed heavily till the day he died. By reading this blog, you have discovered a critical fact about the deterioration of his performance from the brilliant politician of his earlier years that the encyclopedic works about him did not, as far as I know, mention.

By the way, do not let the fact that Adolf was an energetic man fool you. Oddly enough, it is highly energetic people who tend to use amphetamine and coke. This is not the only contradiction represented by speed. Remember that it is used to treat children who are already hyperactive.

Despite all the screams against Ritalin for such children, it is the ONLY drug that WORKS. It is a Schedule 2 drug, and doctors, who want total control of any drug that has any effect, would not use it if they had any other.

There is a legion of urban myths about hyperactivity, as there are with race. Every year someone would come up with absolute proof that hyperactivity is cured by taking children off sugar, hug therapy, talk therapy, and on and on. The list is endless, and I lived through at least a dozen of them.

These answers to hyperactivity were endorsed one year and if you mentioned it the next, the same people would laugh at you and deny ANYONE ever believed that. They were another piece of accepted crap that proved that Ritalin was a Plot this time. This is the kind of recurrent dumbness that gives conservative groups their cuckoo reputation.

The difference of course, is that liberals can all agree on another explanation of why race isn’t there every year and deny it the next, but media conservatives NEVER remind them of it. Things like cutting for sugar to and hyperactivity are remembered by liberals and they CALL the kooks on the right “kooks.”

We know a lot more about Christmas, though we never think about it. It was the birthday of Mithras established by Constantine. No one ever THINKS about that, they just recite it, as they do all history Mommy Professor didn’t hammer in. They get classes dedicated to the birthday of Saint Martin Luther the King, but Mithras is mentioned in case they play Trivial Pursuits.

The beginning of the New Year was probably the first major piece of real knowledge the shamans actually possessed. Every year the Northern world got colder and colder and death surrounded them. Only when information passed from one generation to another did those who did that discover that the sun came back every year.

Then they discovered the DATE at which the sun began to come back. This was not as obvious as one may at first think.

After all, while the northern hemisphere does indeed reach its maximum distance from the sun at Winter Solstice, the weather keep getting colder right into February. So it was quite an intellectual achievement when, looking forward to an even deader January and February, our forefathers CELEBRATED December 21 or 22.

In fact, dates were something ancient Wise Men took very seriously, because it was about the only solid information they had. This makes it mysterious, at least to the two or three people on earth who actually THINK about, that the Magi would have changed the date to December 25.

In fact, there is probably an even simpler explanation as why January 1 was set as New Year’s Day. I just have no idea what it was.

Have you ever noticed how January 1 is ONLY traditional date that no one ever celebrated. Even the Jews dug around in their history and found the Festival of Lights at Christmas. Thanksgiving was celebrated in England regularly before the Pilgrims were the first settlement and invented it.

Jamestown had Thanksgiving, but Jamestown didn’t exist. THINKING about history can make one what the PCs and blacks call Ignunt. May Day was pagan and I am willing to bet every Semitic religion had its own version of Passover.

All dates have predecessors.

Except New Year’s.

This leads to several observations. Back then the Mantra would have been laughed at. Back then race was considered a problem confined to the Southern States of the USA. For everybody else it was a chance to be self-righteous.

Back then everything they denied would happen is now justified. If you challenge what would have been a nightmare to people 50 years ago, you are ruined in America or imprisoned in Europe.

There was an old WWII type at our club who had repeated all the integration lines so long he reacted automatically. Once we were all talking about the mixed couples at Wal-Mart. I said I had predicted that would come with integration, and he repeated “Integration is not about intermarriage” before he realized where he was, WHEN he was, and what we had just been talking about.

I remember when we laughed at the idea of LOCKING one’s car when it was parked on Main Street: “if we were up North we’d LOCK it.”

I was watching a reality show where a big black beat a white guy in the middle of white crowd, knocking one of his eyes out of the socket. There were at least ten male whites, but they just cowered in the corner like a Distressed Heroine or member of the Obedient Generation.

We are living in several things that would have caused sophisticated laughter when I mentioned them in the early 60s. But I could clearly see where white weakness was leading. No one dares protect their borders. In fact, it is illegal in Europe to think of them as “our” borders.

The bitch about how they would defy America, but they are now all “nations of immigrants.”

Without race, borders are nonsense. What does a multiracial and multicultural “nation,” a real oxymoron, have a right to protect? One minute we are “a nation of immigrants” and the next we are supposed to worry about the living standard of so-called “American workers.”

WHY?

Who are these so-called “Americans?” Any other time calling them “Americans” would be bigotry. An American is anyone who agrees that all men are not only equal but the SAME.

If a respectable conservative wants to lose his livelihood, the quickest way would be to put these propositions together. He must say there is no such things as an “American” but most conservatives keep their audience by demanding “we” close “our” borders. But none of them will make any anti-immigration type square this with the idea that everybody is an American.

They used to deny that integration was about intermarriage. Now a conservative will say immigration isn’t good because the Mexicans won’t marry his daughter, they refuse to “assimilate.”

Hell, we could even use it on Martin Luther King Day.

Calvinism outlawed Christmas. What really offended them about it was not its pagan origins. In fact the Mithraists were not pagan, which referred to the wild country side, but very much a religion of the cities and of civilization, and December 25 was chosen for Christmas by Constantine because it was the birthday of Mithras.

EVERY pagan religion had its equivalent of Yule on December 21 or 22, Winter Solstice. Constantine was a Mithraian before he became a Christian, so there is no other explanation for that particular date.

To me, things were not as simple as historians, Constantine’s apologists, made it. My field of expertise is not religion, but politics, and this sounds familiar to me. Just as the Church gave the pagans their statues, as backbaygrouch points out, since withdrawn, it gave things to the huge Mithraian constituent.

The real politics of adopting the NAME Christianity to the expanded Helenist Jewish population which had so little Israeli blood in it, used ONLY Greek, and numbered about a tenth of the entire Roman Empire at the time of Christ, is over three hundred years long. The entire Helenic Jewish population disappeared from the historical record, without the slightest note from historians, as Christianity grew.

“The Greeks” appear regularly in the New Testament.

Peter and Paul, both strict Jews, went at it as to whether to baptize “gentiles.” Who were these “gentiles?” Did they include the Helenized Jews who might have been regarded by the relatively few Hebrew Jews as gentiles? For some other reason, presumably, Jesus was condemned as being from “Nazareth of the Gentiles” and the Samaritans did not regard others as real Jews, and Jesus told the Samaritan at the well that she was wrong and salvations was with the Jews.

But any evidence relating to this has been burned out and suppressed for many, many centuries, so historians don’t bother with it. Had the Moslems not burned every shred of Persian literature, there would be whole schools of history dedicated to Persia’s obvious influence on all out institutions. But it was burned so it is ignored.

Like every other faith, Political Correctness says it reveres knowledge and condemns book-burning. But history never questions the decisions of the book-burners.

Historically there was a constantly renewed alliance between the Hebrew Jews and the zealots in Israel which went on for some five hundred years. The last such alliance exploded against the Roman Empire in the century before Islam conquered Persia. According to both Testaments, the Persians were the only other religion the Jews considered Godly. “Cyrus” the only non-Jew who ”did the work of God” in the Old and the Magi recognized Christ thirty years before the Jews crucified him.

In one book of the Old Testament, after the Resurrection, someone asked, “Has he gone to the Greeks?”

Along with the date of Mithras’s birth, these are VERY heavy hints.

The Roman Church allowed a smoother transition with the statues in the West and the joy we peasants were allowed on December 25. The Calvinists outlawed celebration on that day.

The constant attacks on this particular day are a result of the fact that Wordism of any kind HATES joy. Even CS Lewis explains in “Surprised by Joy” that Joy, in HIS sense, “is NOT a pleasant sensation.”

It is Screwtape who accuses God of liking human pleasure.

Wordism, be it Calvinism or any other, exists in institutions and the food of religious institutions is guilt and sacrifice. During life, you only GIVE. That is not what the religious leaders THINK of, Lewis certainly praised some pleasures, but it is what institutions LIVE off of.

Guilt, from global warming to racism to having sex, is what powerful institutions are BUILT on.

Our idea of Christmas, from the old Yule celebration, turns the stomach of our present established religion on a level they are not aware of.

It is interesting, though, that the New Testament put the birth of Christ in the winter, as the Zoroastrians did. And, with their discussion of the Magi, they certainly knew. For some reason it was important that the MAGI recognize Christ. Considering how the Persian Empire loomed over all powers outside Rome at that time, this is not surprising to someone who knows history.

But historians of our new established, no less than those of our previous established faiths, also ignore all this.

Yule is the day the sun begins to come back. At the Solstice the Northern Hemisphere is tipped at its maximum angle away from the sun. The Yule may have often been a time of despair. The dead of winter. When the sun threatens to go away completely and, in very northerly climates, it does.

Some time long ago it was realized that the sun would return. Men who had lived long knew this. But then the wise men, those who carried knowledge from generation to generation and kept records of such things, found the day when the sun was furthest away but began to come back to us. Untold thousands of years ago, this became a day of celebration.

Then came the Wordists.

When we rid ourselves of the Wordists, every day will indeed be Christmas.

Anglo-Saxon Law recognized that delay means injustice. There are TWO parts to court decisions, justice is the SECOND. The FIRST is to have a place where things get DECIDED. The second is JUSTICE. The second is a matter of endless dispute. The first can be seen on a calendar.

After the Norman Conquest, everybody was subject to what was erroneously referred to as Roman Law from France. Anglo-Saxon Law was quicker. But unlike so-called Roman Law, Anglo-Saxon made no claim to Perfect Justice. It was developed largely to solve a problem.

The problem was feuds. With Nordics, feuds get totally out of hand. I don’t need to explain that to an American. But in every Aryan society feuds were far more of a problem than almost anything decided in a court.

Like lawyers today, the Normans looked on Anglo-Saxon justice as crude. With the Norman Conquest English justice started on the road to Justice instead of Expediency. Law ceased to be something that had to dealt with as an adjunct to running the general society and became an Institution on its own.

This is an example of a critical rule: Wordism breeds institutions and ALL institutions follow an evolution, straight survival of the fittest, of their own, no matter what Words they quote. The first reaction we all have when told of earlier societies’ trials is to see them as absurd. But what would an Anglo-Saxon have made of a court deciding to let a man off for child murder if “the chain of evidence is broken?”

Anglo-Saxon justice was based on “Who sez?” You lined up those testifying for one side and those for the other and weighed them. A thane would outweigh a certain number of average men. There were no hermaphrodites in black dresses and mascara. There was no paperwork except recording the two sides and the “Who sez.”

Those who laugh at this have never lived in a community. In our society you have to find out who the person is at the trial. In those days, a person lived there all his life. In our society, the Judge is God in the courtroom. In those days, everybody in the courtroom played the same role he did in the community. This meant that the inequity of the society was reflected in the courtroom.

So is a man was a thane, he had more influence in his society than the average man. If his influence was greater and he was a bad man, it showed in the courtroom, but no differently than it showed in society at large. The courtroom was just a part of an unjust society and it reflected that.

In a society, the higher ranked people have to be careful which side they take. If they let a felon go free and he commits another crime, they cannot just ignore the way a judge who is Quoting the Words can.

With the Institution of Law in England, courts became a separate Institution, based on books that said that in the world of the court there was no room for the outside world. The Institution of Law developed a priesthood that looked a lot like that of the Church and for the same reasons, which had nothing to do with God or Justice.

Anglo-Saxon Law provided law. It solved two problems, one of making a final judgment without a feud, and the second of doing it QUICKLY. These are objective realities. So-called Roman Law turned into an institution with its own enormous priesthood. Its only justification was that it SAID it delivered JUSTICE, which is an absolutely debatable question. You will find precious few lawyers who claim that today’s law brings justice. But we all know that the legal Institution delays endlessly and allowed feuds to go on in feudal- note the name — times.

“Justice” was the only thing the institution ever claimed to deliver IN PLACE of the two objective things pre-Wordist Law delivered on, speed and preventing feuds. But once the institution was in place, the lawyers told us that law is not justice, and in fact real law has nothing to do with justice.

In fact, we no longer have any concept of what justice IS. One standard statement that is almost as stupid as Edison’s “inspiration versus perspiration” crap is that “only the rich can afford justice.” A rational person knows that the rich can afford ACQUITTAL. That is 180 degrees different from JUSTICE. But the difference occurs to no one, because the idea that law is justice no longer occurs to anyone.

But it does tell us what our legal institution has taught us that Justice IS. Justice is lots of lawyers. Religion becomes lots of priests or television evangelists. The man who said salvation is “free and without price” would have been burned for heresy.

But I mean this literally: To an institution which survives, the definition of what it produces will mean lots of money for them. Look around you, do you see any churches that don’t pay their ministers? Almost by definition, an institution depends on size, full-timers, MONEY.

We say that a person is deprived of JUSTICE of he doesn’t have enough lawyers and procedures.

The Church of Rome banned translations of the Bible and banned lay people from owning a Bible.

In the end, the Church found that banning the Bible was unnecessary. They did their own translation and only demanded that the Church’s Commentaries were seen as Biblical. As I said, institutions end up doing the same thing no matter what Book they claim.

The American Constitution was written down so that everybody could read it.

But in the end, the Institution of Law did exactly what the old Church did. The only Commentary that MATTERS is that of the guys in black dresses. They learned from the Institution at Rome’s experience that it makes no difference who can read it as long as only one Authority can INTERPRET it.

In the end ruling institutions look just alike. They can claim the Word of Hamilton or the Words of Moses, but the Words ends up meaning nothing. Only the Interpretation, only the Commentary, is enforced. And that is every bit as effective as banning the document itself.