I just wrote Brian that “Provigil is officially only a narcolepsy pill. Ritalin is the ADD pill, and it has been a Schedule 2, meaning it is addictive, for forty years. But Provigil is more closely regulated because it works too well.”

If this had been written to him by anybody but me, Brian would naturally have asked if I didn’t need some medication myself. But this is simply how the world works.

Regulation of drugs or guns or anything else, in the real world, is a power struggle.

It is true that the average doctor or brass hat policeman is fully and honestly convinced that his ideas about controlling guns or drugs is entirely objective. He has, after all, devoted his life to the public good.

Which is why you have them as specialists in things like law enforcement and medicine, but you pay people like me to deal with reality.

As committee staff, I was perfectly aware that both sides on each issue believed down to the toes of their shoes that they were the good guys.

So while others start with the assumption that a person who is expert in a field has a more objective opinion, I start with the reality that the last person who is objective on any subject is the person who has devoted his life to it.

No one wants to hear this.

When people look at a judge their first thought is that he is a successful practitioner of law and is an expert, one who has given up a lucrative law practice which a lawyer of his abilities could probably command,  in order to devote himself to the Law.

This is a very comforting idea. None of us want to be wheeled into the Emergency Room while having it in mind that the doctors are biased in what they do. If we are on trial, none of us wants to think that the judge has anything but Justice on his mind.

No one wants to pay a crippling fortune for tuition with the idea that the expensive professor has exactly the same mind set every other professor has.

After all, these are the areas where we do NOT understand what is going on. We want desperately to believe that when it comes to stuff we cannot understand, the people who do understand are no different from us, except for their higher knowledge on the subject.

It’s a scary world if that is not true.

But if you realize that each profession has a set of steel hard prejudices, you can at least predict what they are for.

Provigil gives energy, the way Ritalin does. It makes people feel energetic and good.

There is no way in God’s universe that a drug that makes people feel good will ever go unregulated.

Provigil is amazing. You know the “do no operate heavy machinery” bit? Provigil has been used on jet pilots for over two days without sleep and had no ill effects!

It is true that an effective drug is usually fatal in an overdose.

But the white power that kills more people than any other is called sugar, and you do not need a prescription saying you are not diabetic to get it.

What is important here is not the facts, but the concept.

The fact is simply that if a person gets his power in the medical industry, things are really regulated first and foremost because they are effective, not because they are dangerous.

Regulation is a power struggle, but a person who is inside a field cannot recognize that fact.

There is a lot of talk about privatizing space.

Holy Private Enterprise will get out there instead of government programs.

The people who insist on this are the same ones who met at conventions to push the space program with General Whozits as keynoter while the real subcommittee dealing with the real budget were snipping NASA out.

While they are showing how they are both pro-Space and pro-Private Enterprise For All Mankind — Hooray! — they are outnumbered a hundred to one, minimum, by those who are already putting together the regulations that will keep us out of space.

For every bit of promotion at their get-togethers, there are a hundred professionals demanding that we not pollute space. There are groups who would never put it this way, but they are demanding the rights of Native Spacians.

In 1969 the astronauts went up alone. Today they would have to have a thousand of Mommy Professor-trained bureaucrats for every astronaut, minimum.

As always you simply cannot put this into context without Mantra Thinking: We are dealing with an established religion.

When they want money for their own priests rather than for science, one of their continuing lines is, “Man has no right to interfere with the Works of God.”

Except for the substitution of the word “Nature” for “God,” do you actually see the slightest difference between today’s established religion and the Traditional Values.

Professional conservatives make their living by making the same statements in terms of the older established faith. To me, they are MORE offensive than liberals because they use the name of God,

You can’t blaspheme Nature.

The space program died under the ministrations of conservatives. Even Reagan, the former governor of California, regarded space spending as he did any other government expenditures except those cute boys in uniform.

To keep us out of space, you simply regulate any private program out of existence, just as they did atomic power and as they will any technology beyond the windmill.

And if someone can produce a windmill scare, there could be a hundred thousands bureaucrats in it for them

The income tax has one big advantage:

It HURTS.

If we had a Value Added Tax the deficit would not be such a big issue. There would be a lot of yelling by conservatives, but the solution would be just to increase the VAT by a few percentage points.

With America’s present dependence on income tax, the debate includes exactly who pays the increased income tax, and everybody but welfarees pays the thing. So we have the kind of debate Europeans, who depend on the VAT, do not have.

Budget politics is a matter of visibility. So pork billions are added on simply because a few millions get completely lost in trillion dollar outlays.

The European living standard is much below the American, but the per capita income, which everyone relies on, is very close. Americans used to go to Europe and get excellent deals. But now living in Europe, including Canada, is a major financial sacrifice.

Prices in Europe have been driven sky high by the Value Added Tax.

Normally things are more costly in different countries. But I am still looking for one single thing, including Canadian whiskey, that is cheaper in Canada than in the US. People regularly drive all the way from Ottawa to the US border to do their shopping.

It is probably not ideology that makes Europeans hand out all those public goodies. It seems to me more likely that it is the VAT.

Bob Hope once said that the difference between Communism and capitalism was that under capitalism he got to see his money before it went to the government. In his day the income tax on above $300,000 a year was 91%.

Naturally that bracket yielded almost nothing because anyone who reached it could afford tax advice. Only professional athletes, especially boxers, got caught in that bracket.

But the 91% did distort the economy enormously by distorting investment and putting a limit on how much productive people worked. That top rate became major news when Joe Louis got ruined by it.

The income tax has to be discussed in detail, and every group makes it public. The Value Added Tax increases price wildly, but every group wanting more government money has the same advantage a pork-driven congressman does.

In a VAT economy the general tax increase is a general thing, while each expenditure gets specific attention.

We have all heard of “judge-made law.”

But Mommy Professor is very silent on the subject of “jury-made law.”

And one lesson we must learn is that silence from Mommy Professor is as important as his outright blatherings.

Talking about liquor laws reminded me of jury-made law. When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, Charleston, SC opened its bars. When you went to Charleston, there were open bars and liquor by the drink.

Once in the 1940s, Governor Olin D. Johnston, “a personal and political dry,” called the Mayor of Charleston with the press watching and said, “I demand that you close those bars in Charleston.” The mayor replied, as Johnston knew he would, “Governor, YOU close them.”

Thus were two successful political careers advanced.

As I pointed out in the case of Mississippi’s prohibition laws, there was a huge difference between MAKING a law and ENFORCING a law.

Governor Johnston would have had to bring bar owners in Charleston before a Charleston jury.

Lots o’ luck there, Olin D.

The whole concept of jury-made law has been alien to Americans since the Greatest Generation took over.

Once again, I have to tell you that I am not exaggerating here: before the Greatest Generation, jurors were really not all that intimidated by a grown man sitting there in a black dress. The reverend stillness with which people called for jury duty today was alien to pre-WWII Americans.

In fact you already know about jury made law. You know that the death penalty for theft and other minor crimes was gotten rid of because juries, knowing the judge would follow the law blindly, simply refused to convict.

That, after all the arguments, was what happened to South Carolina’s ban on liquor by the drink: Juries simply refused to convict.

But the Greatest Generation was a wholly different matter. To them, the Judge was Authority. He wore a costume and his word was, to coin a phrase, law.

Some poor bastard who had had to shoot somebody in self-defense was convicted of manslaughter by a jury because the man in the costume had told them that, according to the law, he should have thought the whole thing out in the few seconds while he was being attacked and had a gun in his hand.

I actually met one judge in my youth who was absolutely dumbfounded by the way his jury actually sent a man, for not having behaved in the manner the law says a lawyer with hours to ponder things would have behaved, to prison for the rest of his life.

He told me he had always said that a jury would NEVER convict a decent person.

But it was his first Greatest Generation jury.

No one called for jury duty today has the slightest concept of what a jury is all about.

They are there to obey.

When a crisis occurs people rush to pay the experts.

But a crisis is usually by definition a failure of the experts.

Let us say you are in combat. You only realize there is an enemy weapon in a particularly place because some of your men got killed by a shot from it. Obviously you need to know more about the location where that weapon was located, so you bring in your people who were scouting that area because they know more about that particular area than scouts reporting from a different area.

But you don’t give them a medal.

Highly paid and well-known experts in our society are usually those who have let the most casualties occur in their area..

I predicted on September 11 and 12, 2001 that not only would not one single intelligence officer even be personally criticized for what happened but that all of them would get a boost in rank and pay. At the time, when people were screaming about the intelligence failures, that seemed impossible.

Today, it is utterly forgotten that anyone ever asked for any explanation for the criminal failures of 9-11.

White agricultural experts and white farmers are considered about the least exciting people in our society. Nobody even knows that, for the first time in human history, there is more than enough food for everybody on earth and when starvation comes it is not accepted passively anywhere on earth.

Farmers and agricultural science have succeeded on a monumental scale. So they get no attention.

A crisis is a FAILURE. We treat failure, especially colossal failure, as the reason to promote people and increase their budgets and put them on talk shows and read their books.

Usually one of the greatest signs of success in a political system is when people don’t bother to vote. In our world where we worship the Root Canal a low turnout is seen as a disaster, a reason to have political experts write books on the failure of the system.

When the American political system was at its most stable commentators were constantly bitching about how few Americans voted compared to the Election Day March in Europe.

Europeans didn’t vote because they were concerned. Quite the opposite. Almost all Europeans considered voting a Duty. They went to the polls unanimously and cast the same vote for the same party.

Americans only bothered to vote when they didn’t trust the rest of the electorate.

Compared to the Communist countries, even the Europeans had too small an electorate. North Korea once reported that one hundred percent of its ballots were cast, presumably including by those in comas.

But no one questions whether heavy voting is a healthy sign. The scouts who didn’t find that gun that killed their comrades will not receive praise. But experts who do exactly the same thing have ensured themselves promotion and book sales.

Brian asked me if managing engineers was different from managing anybody else.

Before the Civil Service reform Act of 1978, the entire civil service as we think of it went from grade GS-1 to grade GS-18. The top three grades were called the Super Grades.

If you were a GS-15, if you went to a military installation you were given the accommodations of a Colonel. GS-18 rated a Lieutenant General. Above that you were a political appointee. If you count through the grades, you will find a GS-13 was major and so forth.

The job description on each level was extensive. So when you got to the super grades they really got intense. Then in the early 70s, I believe, the guy who founded Avis wrote a short guide to management called “Up the Organization.”

One of the many excellent points stated shortly in that book was his opinion of Job Descriptions for high level executives. He said simply that if a guy who has reached THAT pay level NEEDS a job description, he doesn’t BELONG at that level. The whole point of high-level management is that you MAKE job descriptions by getting the job done.

By 1978 they got rid of the Super Grades and established the Senior Executive Service, the SES. GS-16 became SES 1 and 18 became SES 3. Before that, all grades came with a set of numbers in the middle showing your specialty, none of which I remember.

So you might be a GS-1856-16, the middle numbers showing your specialty. So you could be a GS-6324-5, meaning an economist at grade 5, or you could be a GS-6324-16, meaning you were A grade 16 economist., a one-star general equivalent.

One thing the Civil Service Reform Act did was to get rid of that middle four numbers above grade15. The restrictions on where you could be transferred to were removed.

You were no longer an economist by trade. You were a Manager. It was assumed that you could manage a section of the defense Department or a section of The Forest Service or be in charge of a supply section of the GSA.

When you get to that level, you simply cannot know all about what is being done, no matter how many years you have been an economist or a negotiator or a building supervisor. You go in, find out what needs to be done, and get it done.

Naturally none of the political appointees understood the point of that. So when my boss was murdered and I took a job as a Reagan appointee, the politicals there showed me their new organization chart. I groaned inwardly and looked as interested as I had to be to keep my job.

I groaned because I knew that that organization chart is the standard way career people have been defanging the new administration since George Washington’s nephew turned out not to be enough and he hired another worker.

Each new administration comes in with plans to “change things.” So the careerists say, “Well, to really change things we have to reorganize.” And the happy little idiots spend their first year reorganizing and triumphantly bring their shiny new organizational chart to the President.

Which means they haven’t done ANYTHING but change names and shift people around.

If you are taking over a business the question is not whether you have a new organization chart. The only question is always The Bottom Line.

What led to the creation of the SES was to end the endless worry over Job Descriptions and who was in what department. I was in the first Administration after the passage of that Act. What had the New Philosophy changed?

Nothing.

We all remember what was done when intelligence organizations committed criminal errors that led to September 11, 2001.

They created Department of Homeland Security. Not one single failing of the old system was addressed.

Yes, Brian, if you can manage engineers at a high level, you can manage office supplies at a high level. Your job is to find out what needs doing and how to do it.

When the last energy revolution occurred, fossil fuels began with coal taking over the roads. For century it was like the huge UNIVAC computers, limited to large scale in the form of railroads and factories. Then Henry Ford became the Bill Gates of fossil fuels.

Neither Ford nor Gates claimed to be original. Gates said he was waiting on personal computers to reach a certain level, and he named the new PC that developed and caused him to tell his partner, “Now it’s time to get going.“

Certainly Ford made even less claim to being original.

In fact, who exactly invented something is usually a historical detail. Some Chinese invented one thing after another, OR it got to China from White India, but each time the invention stopped when it got to China. The printing press was there but died, the gun was in Japan in the sixteenth century but died.

There is a lot of debate about whether China invented GUN powder. They did have rockets that made no difference to their history, so the question is did they have GUNS that made no difference to their history?

But the real, the HISTORICAL question about Oriental inventiveness is already answered: If you have to look so closely to see whether gunpowder was ever there, then clearly the Oriental use of it is entirely different from the Aryans’.

In a white society there is a lot of debate about who invented something. The reason for this is that the SOCIETY had reached a point where the ingredients are there and someone will put them together. There has never been a debate in Oriental society about who invented what.

Unlike Al Gore, Gates did not claim to invent the Internet just as Henry Ford never claimed to have invented the automobile. Ford‘s mass production methods were what made Eli Whitney rich after he found the cotton gin was simply too simple to keep patent rights on.

But both Gates and Ford did the thing that is utterly lacking in Oriental societies. They took a concept and made it a societal advance.

The space program is going through a similar process. When the USSR’s Sputnik went up in 1958 a number of giant programs were adopted to counter that achievement in the US. What most people didn’t know was that a rocket that could do the same thing was sitting in the US stockpile.

I wonder if the Soviets ever invented ANYTHING?

But there is nothing the media like like a national crisis, so a national crisis Sputnik became.

If you read science fiction from the 50s and 60s you consistently find the computers involved are giants, Univac’s big brothers, as dependent on size as on advancing technology. In China, the things which impress Americans in history, like iron foundries, were huge projects.

But it is on the Ford stage that Western technology is built. In 1958 Sputnik, which was putting an overweight basketball into orbit, was a massive project that showed that only The Collectives of the Peoples’ Democratic Republics, working the entire economy under Mommy Professor’s planning, could produce such a marvel.

Now putting things into orbit is regular business, and each year the businesses able to do it get smaller.

Right now a person can construct an A-Bomb off the Internet if he has the uranium. It is the power that is missing. So Brian and I are watching for the new power source.

With that new power source will come a time when private use of outer space is as common as it is in old sci-fi stories.

We are now seeing problems with regulating the Internet between countries like the ones they will encounter in regulating space.

But you will not see any of these future realities discussed anywhere but BUGS.

When I was in the program, I was amazed by the people who would casually mention to me that they were homeless. They were clean, they led normal lives outside. You couldn’t tell the players without a scorecard.

They were not homeless because of societal inequity. They were homeless because of building codes. Today you couldn’t build a Depression-era shantytown on Federal land in utmost Nevada. Recovering addicts are often construction workers. They could put something over their heads, but WHERE?

Once again, the reason one sees this is because they never ask themselves is WHY IS THIS INFORMATION PRODUCED? The are thousands of people who make heir living with the homeless, but damn few of them can even imagine building one’s OWN shelter.

All information published about the homeless is published by people who are using homelessness for their own living or their own cause, or both. You should see how they react to my suggestion of leaving areas for shacks.

That is fascistic bourgeois thinking, that is typical, “Let them eat cake ” stuff!” This is hiring more experts like government building projects and experts in homelessness would plan and administer. No one with a Master’s in Sociology or who is a Marxist would encourage MORE shanties.

And that is where ALL of our information comes from. But no one ask why the information is produced.

One guy made billions by making tiny loans to tens of millions of third-world borrowers. He did more good than ten World Banks. The money did not filter through governments. It went to people who found solid reasons to get into the little debt they could get into.

He has been recognized as a humanitarian lately, but it was late because information is produced by experts to promote the idea that Idealists like them should get paid to plan projects. To put it simply, professionals are interested in using homelessness to promote Economic Democracy while the people only they speak for publicly want to get a roof over their heads.

Less than two centuries ago, Europeans would remark casually a particular family was going to starve come winter. This was not because, as the Idealists would say, they didn’t care. They lived in a world where they couldn’t do anything about it. Feed the family this year and they will starve next winter. There were too MANY of them.

Demography is a branch of economics, mainly because you have to put it SOMEWHERE. As a result I had to do a fair amount of reading in the area for my credentials. My impression was that Experts on Hunger don‘t know what hunger IS. They use the words starvation and malnutrition interchangeably. They want to prove that capitalism will always, and uniquely, produce Hunger.

Back on Planet Earth, the only white countries that have seen actual lack of food were in the Peace Loving People’s Republic, countries run by experts who CARED about the poor, if you ask Mommy Professor. Mommy Professor can stand in the middle of a group of people whoa re actually starving and rant about “inequities.” That’s what he’s there for.

An actual human being among starving people will want to get food to them. NOW.

One of the greatest and least noticed phenomena of our age is how few people actually starve. I do not know whether people starve in India any more. But all a Hunger Expert will note is that Indians get paid very little. The security net there is very, very low. But for the first time in thousands of years, it EXISTS.

This is of no importance to someone who is only interested in a New World Order. But it would impress YOU if you ever saw the ways things USED to be.

People who have no roof over their heads want one. They could build one if there was a place for them to do it. But once again, one has to realize that information is PRODUCED. I am telling you this, but I have no stake in Homelessness.

But who is going to talk about this? It is information only a non-Expert would be interested in.

Once again, let me explain why I wrote something.

Several times here I have discussed the fact that Mussolini almost missed The March on Rome that put him into power. He made a speech, probably not for the first time, that the Italian people should march on Rome and force a government that would GOVERN.

As I say, he had probably said that a hundred times. But this time it hit a note, and while Mussolini went about his routine, the March was building up and being organized. He found out about it at the last minute and rushed to lead it.

I am reminded of 1992 when Larry King asked Ross Perot if he would be willing to run for the presidency and Perot said yes. Within days Perot had a spontaneous national campaign organization and with in a couple of weeks he was way ahead in a three-way poll.

These are extreme examples, but a thinking person should see the importance of them. If the actual leaders have no idea what the unrest is like, if they come within view of taking power without even feeling the waves, how about the rest of us, especially the “experts?”

I have discussed the fact that as the USSR was going down cartoons depicted Estonians and Ukrainians demanding independence as drunks in Confederate uniforms. Within DAYS of that barrage of cartoons they began to pull out in mass.

These are giant examples. They have all been carefully forgotten. But there are endless smaller examples.

I have agreed with liberals that if Obama had been white it would have been a landslide. Bush left us both a financial crisis as big as any since 1929 AND an unsinkable, endless war with no exit strategy. EACH of those things took out a historical president who went from a landslide win to a landslide loss, Hoover and Johnson.

BOTH of them combined got Obama a respectable victory.

There has been talk about he tea parties, but you have no idea what is going on unless you see the world as I, and I hope WE, do. Once again, let me repeat what I have said many times: respectable conservatives have always been conservative respectable.

In respectable conservatives you are saying these are conservatives who are respectable. You’ve got their priorities backward. Their first and only real loyalty has been to respectability. National Review has always made it clear that they are part of the establishment first, that they will ditch anybody who really offends liberals. They are first and foremost respectable and any disagreement with Political Correctness is way down on the list.

What shocked the bejesus out of liberals was that a huge groundswell of those lamb like respectables suddenly became blatantly unrespectable, shouting, threatening, violently cowing their opponents the way only leftists have ever been allowed to do.

Every issue of National Review contains at least one apology for it.

No one can analyze this unless he looks at the examples of the March on Rome, Perot’s lead for the presidency which only a psycho could have screwed up, and the world press’s laughter at the idea that the Soviet Republics would secede.