I knew a whole cadre of young people who loved Reagan because he ended the political exhaustion of the 1970s. They are never mentioned in the press or by conservatives.

A person coming of age in the 1970s was raised on the idea that his world would see no growth. The Environmental Protection Agency and conservation were the focus of attention. No one but me seems to know where this left a young person.

He had nothing to look forward to. He was superfluous, particularly if he was a white male looking for a job.

In other words, it was just like today.

Back then the big political buzz on the right was that conservatives and conservationists should make common cause.

And, of course, the conservative buzz was also the old “to go after the minority vote.”

I have been this way before.

By definition, the buzz is set up by the establishment and its conservative tagalongs.

One of the most critical signs of 1980 end of the old buzz is, AS ALWAYS, the least remembered. Reporters were climbing all over Washington trying to find conservative contacts.

They didn’t **KNOW** any of us, and they said so. PBS even had ME do a couple of shows for them in the process of trying to find tame conservatives. What if the press in 1932 simply did not KNOW any liberal Democrats?

They would have been laughed at. The 1932 media was conservative, but they were also professionals. The 1980 failure was a professional humiliation, so no one mentions it now.

The 1980 media had been trapped in its own buzz, and “Republican spokesmen,” right up to Election Day, meant moderates.

The reality of the 2008 election is totally opaque to anyone who keeps up with the political buzz, which means anyone who makes his living commenting on today’s politics. If he worried about anything else he wouldn’t be published. This is not a conspiracy. It is just that every editor knows what people want to read about, and that is things like criticism or praise of Obama. They are publishing for today’s
audience, not for accuracy about the future.

Political reality is that the Democratic rank and file, which is hard left, almost always chooses someone who is too far left for political practicality. Nixon was very unpopular in 1972, but they chose MCGOVERN to oppose him.

It was HILARIOUS to watch Democrats nominate one MASSACHUSETTS lefty after another and get crushed at the polls. In 1988 Bush Sr. was so far behind Dukakis in the polls that National Review declared Dukakis’ election absolutely inevitable.

I said, “He’s a Massachusetts liberal. He’ll lose.”

Whitaker Basics again. Simplism.

The Democrats who do the nominating did not like Carter’s image and they did not Clinton’s image. They wanted a New England liberal. This time they hit jackpot.

McCain, like Obama, was incidental to the BUZZ Process. McCain was the Republican who had made himself beloved by the Buzzers. What astonished me during the campaign was that the media actually REMEMBERED they had once loved McCain.

Usually that sort of thing is simply forgotten by everybody, but a number of commentators actually DID mention that the McCain the entire media was damning had recently been beloved of them as the perfect liberal’s conservative.

The present administration is a return to the 1970’s abandonment of any real future. I came up with the certainty that space exploration and new technology would lead into an unimaginably exciting future. Older people were jealous of the great things in store for the young. Precious few older people are jealous of the young ones now.

The buzz has replaced the old time future of a Heaven of Progress and space colonization has been completely displaced by a lifetime dedicated to avoiding the Hell of the Moment. You are now a Carbon Emitter, an Earth Destroyer. If you are young, your life must be devoted to sacrifices to make up for your Original Sin of being human.

We are back in the 1970s.

So Where do we go from here?

When the 70s came, I had spent a lot of years getting ready for it. I had my fifteen minutes of fame getting Reagan elected.

I am more ready for today than anybody else, so I will START addressing that next.

A hint: the 70s malaise came from the politics of self-hatred. We’re back to that.

For all this reciting of Mommy Professor’s “beauty is just a matter of opinion” crap, Japan has a serious cartoon problem. It is easy enough for an Oriental to see the difference between one Oriental and another, but it is just too hard to DRAW that subtle difference in cartoons. So their cartoons are Caucasoid.

This has caused an outcry since it started decades ago, when cartoons were black and white but the difference in features were still too difficult and required Caucasoids. The solutions are interesting.

They have “black” characters who are pure Nordics with black coloring. But that’s the least of it.

Today Japanese cartoons are still Caucasoid, but whereas they used to have a few Japanese writings and so forth in them, on a blackboard for instance, now the Japanese Caucasoid characters are in traditional Japanese clothes and every opportunity is used to show Japanese writing. The Caucasoid characters now have more epicanthic eye folds.

This is fascinating for me, but Mommy Professor doesn’t let anti-whites think of it, much less talk about it.

Another device that affirmative action in Japanese cartooning is using is like Piers Anthony’s Xanth novels. A lot of the characters are a mixture of Caucasoid and animal.

Traditional Japanese clothes which fewer Japanese wear every day. Cat moustaches. Slightly squinted eyes. You can FEEL the desperation.

It’s a real yuck.

In the real world, looks are not subject to Mommy Professor’s whims.