It is HILARIOUS that our established religion’s idea of futuristic power sources is WINDMILLS! But no one is allowed to laugh in church.

The only major advance in social science in half a century has been the study of animal behavior. Instead of seeing herd animals as mindless brutes who clump together ONLY for fear of predators, we have discovered that they have class systems and dictatorships more rigid and cruel than the greatest tyrannies Rousseau and Marx faced.

Today’s social science chugs along on the assumption that all inequality is the result of economic disadvantage. All inequality is UNNATURAL, not like the innocent beasts of the field. That crap is as out of date as the 4500 year old earth.

Boone Pickens made himself a saint of our established religion when he tried to make WINDMILLS the Way of the Future. He lost two billion.

If you watch old movies, you know how to identify Men from the Year 2000. They wore a uniform , tight, solid color, with little gold epaulets on the shoulders.

All of them. Men and women, children and adults. It saved the B movie makers a MINT. I am sure that the same 2000 AD uniforms used in Things to Come in 1937 were used on TV’s Buck Rogers two decades later.

But no one took it seriously that we today would be WEARING a solid color uniform. If that uniform were adopted today as The Inevitable Future, every Mommy Professor would line up to get studies financed that proved that that is the direction fashion is going, and every documentary on clothes would end with a Sermon on how, with all the apparent contradictions, clothing has been moving in that direction since Egypt.

Our ancestors would have laughed out loud if they saw The Sermon on our documentaries today. The Technology of the Future, they say, a blaring of trumpets and then — WINDMILLS!

Oh, yes, Futuristic Windmills with the funny pointed shapes, but always the same ones, every bit as predictable today as the uniform of the Man From the Year 2000 was in the B movies.

It must save the documentary makers a mint.

I wrote a piece in which I warned you that a Wordist should be regarded in the same way you regard a psychopath. As in my fifties rants about integration, this will seem to be alarmist and paranoid.

But it is actually a reference to your own common sense, something you already know. Anti-racism has been described as “successful social engineering.” The prejudices common to the generation before the Slave Generation have been, through an intensive program, been denounced by a majority of Americans.

The words social engineering have not been applied to this program except among those who subscribe to it all. That was the way I saw it in the 1950s. A concentrated campaign to change the basic loyalties of a population cannot be anything BUT social engineering. Once you admit that, what I said follows.

The reason people object to “social engineering” is that you are dedicating your society to changing a basic set of loyalties, aka, “prejudices.” But that is not just social engineering, that is social surgery. Cutting out a set of values, whether you call them prejudices or loyalties, is like cutting into a live human body.

Obviously your first question is, “What ELSE are you cutting out?”

It is not really surprising that the 60s, which began with a revolution on race, ended with hundreds of thousands of Americans marching with Viet Cong flags in their demonstrations. You never saw a swastika at an America First rally in 1940.

When Vietnam fell, leftists and McGovernites called each other and cheered.

What respectable conservatives called prejudice had been discredited. But so was what they called loyalty. Being for your own had been under attack as Evil for many years. No one else has made this obvious connection in print, but when you cut out one natural prejudice you cut on the whole organ.

When September 11 made a majority of Americans question the whole American commitment to Israel, the left dreamed of getting back the glory days of what they call the Hippie Era of Vietnam. But most Americans don’t sympathize with their basic program of making anti-Iraq War into Anti-Americanism.

So, to keep anybody but their own out of their demonstrations, they named themselves the Movement Against War and Racism. This kept out anybody but leftists. The left certainly recognizes the anti-white campaign as their key to victory.

If you want to be a professional conservative, you never mention that.

No one asked what the hell the war against Iraq had to do with “racism.” The silence was deafening.

But a society which has been subjected to social surgery is never the same again. And a person who takes social surgery as part of his thought pattern is not the same person Americans once were.

This is a warning, a very personal warning. A warning either has truth in it or it just paranoia.

I’ve been called paranoid before, and all my nightmares came true.

War in a society is different from what we are fighting. There is a Geneva Convention-type atmosphere in a regular war in a regular society. Russians who surrendered in WWII starved to death in German camps, not because of the Germans, but, as Solzhenitsyn pointed out, because Stalin disclaimed all POW rights for Soviet soldiers who surrendered.

So Stalin treated German prisoners the way Confederates were treated at Camp Douglas, where a much higher percentage died than Yankees at Andersonville,. There was plenty of food up North, but the prisoners didn’t get it.

General Lee died regretting that he never saw what I am pointing out. Any conditions in war depend on both sides being a part of the same value system. Their loyalty to their side is mitigated by their common loyalty to a common race and culture.

General Lee died bitterly regretting his thinking that the Yankees he was fighting were the Yankees he had been with at West Point. He surrendered honorably, by that code, but he subjected the South to an enemy who denied the whole concept of HIS IDEA of honor.

But the Soviets and the Yankees were Wordists. They had no common ground with other white men, something Lee took for granted. Soviets were Wordists. They had no common ground with anyone who was not of their Faith.

The Founding Fathers were very aware of this difference. To them the Inquisition and the Calvinist burnings of heretics was recent. They watched the Hispanic world become a colored mass whose only concern was religion, not race. In their day the Inquisition was still a reality.

There is a very slippery slope here. Do not get the idea that the person talking to you is anything but an alien if he speaks in terms of “all people.” One who claims loyalty to Humanity is an entirely different animal.

This is a lot like dealing with the millions of actual psychopaths around us. As long as they are hemmed in by a society, they do a better job of acting normal than we do. So General Lee thought he was dealing with other white men who would deal with the people he was surrendering accordingly.

When I was negotiating air deals with Communists, they were a bit comical, drinking straight vodka with bananas and stealing pencils from the negotiating room. But they were the same people who shot anyone who tried to escape the countries they owned and considered torture a routine assignment.

Wordists remind me of Asimov’s definition of robotic thinking, “Logical but not rational.”

This is a warning it will be almost impossible for you to remember when a Wordist “Christian” is simpering at you when it suits his purpose: “Trust me, I’m just like you.”

If a person cannot think, “He is a white person, I’m a white person.” you are not dealing with a person who recognizes any rules at all beyond what you can enforce right now. Something that belongs to everyone belongs to no one. In EXACTLY the same way, someone who belongs to All Mankind is part of NOTHING.

As with a psychopath, the Wordist does what he can get away with at the time. When you are e arguing with him, you think he is just too biased to keep this thinking straight.

His thinking IS straight. His only interest is his Wordism, which is always referred to by its code name, “Loyalty to Humanity.” The good of all mankind is his Word. His ideology or religion. There is nothing else there.

One who has loyalty can stick to the truth. The truth, after all, is something which affects him and those to whom he is loyal. But the person you cannot but think of but as looking like you and talking like you has only one loyalty, loyalty to his Truth.

He is a psychopath. You need to rethink all you normally assume about such people. Or you can make the same mistake a lot of women did about that nice Ted Bundy

The advantage of seeing Political Correctness as an established religion is that it follows the continuum of history. A person who is a complete temporal provincial sees what is happening in his own time completely out of context.

It took a long time for commentators to see that the dichotomy between Modern Marxism and Middle Age Religion was totally bogus. Marxism was imposed on Christian countries exactly the same way Christianity was imposed on pagan lands.

Christianity came as the Gospels, the Hope, the Salvation and Good News. It offered hope to the poor who had nothing. It was represented by poor men taking enormous risks out of a pure love of their fellow men.

Once countries were converted, the Old Testament, the Laws and the Prophets, and the burdening of heretics began. Kingship began in Northern Europe along with bishoprics. Two thousand years before Aryans had invaded southern Europe and brought various forms of government, all republican, from Greece’s democracy and the vicious equality of Sparta to Rome’s Republic.

Roman history began with the overthrow of the Tarquinii Etruscan kings.

Christianity brought kings to the North. Iceland was settled by people running away from Norway’s first King, and first Christian ruler. Regular historians always described Iceland as INVENTING a parliament. But the Iceland’s elected legislature was simply a continuation of northern government as usual.

History got it backwards because “king” was the “old” form and democracy the “new” form.
Marxism came in the same way Christianity did, with Idealists giving Hope to the common people. Once it took power, its kings and bishops came in and the Inquisition began.

This is, at long last, fairly easy to see. But you do not understand history IN THE LEAST if you do not see its CONTINUITY. You have seen people ALMOST get a point and then ruin it by showing they did not get the REAL point.

The way you completely miss the point made here is to say “Marxism (Political Correctness, no one but Marxists ever used the term) is a new twist on an old theme.”

It is emphatically not a new twist. It is EXACTLY the same old theme. That is the reason everyone, including people RAISED in Marxist countries, did not realize Political Correctness was the same old thing. One man raised in a Marxist country told me they called it “political rectitude” in his language. “Political rectitude” is an exact synonym for political correctness, but he was so used to having everything spelled out to him he didn’t RECOGNIZE it!

And if you think Marxism is a new twist, you are being as dense as someone who has lived under Political Correctness all his life and doesn’t recognize it.

There is no “new twist” in Marxism.

Political Correctness is familiar to anyone who has read Marxist letters. But they cannot attach them to this world. This sort of cowlike absence occurs when someone hears “bourgeois values.” If you read at all, you know you still hear this condemnation of middle class values in one of twos place: Among aristocrat-worshipping monarchists or among Mommy Professors and their pet limousine leftists.

But hearing both, the drooling college graduate with the absent eyes sees no connection at all.

This is the only place you will see this connection written down:
The “bourgeois” is the group which presumes, with no royal title from the Old Regime and no Doctoral Degree from the group that fools the herd by calling itself a New Order, to own its own property and make its own rules.

But when a person hears hippies using the term and the French Old Regime using the same term, they may as well be hearing from different worlds.

Thinking is making connections. When you’re six it is all right not to realize that if three plus three plus three plus three equals twelve, then four times three makes twelve. But if you become an adult and STILL not do make this connection instantly, you need help.

“Officer Brian, you reported an armed robbery. Do you have a description of the suspect?”

“Yes.”

“Well, give it to us.”

“I said I HAVE it. I’m not sure I can give it to you.”

“Why, didn’t you see him clearly?”

“ I didn’t say it was male.”

“Was it a female?”

“Sergeant, more than half of the people in this country are female. If I said the person was a female you would suspect millions of people on no basis but their sex?”

“Well, how tall was the suspect?”

“Sergeant, are you going to go out and start rounding up people on the basis of their height?”

“For God’s sake, man, which direction was the suspect going in?”

“If I give you the direction, you will start looking at everyone going in that direction. A person is innocent until proven guilty. Thousands of people are going in every direction in this city, innocent people. There could even be roadblocks set up which implied that this group of people is more likely to be armed robbers than people who choose to go in another direction.”

“Were they in a vehicle?”

“If they were, it might mean they had a handicap because they could not walk or run. If so, this would be profiling of everyone who is old or differently abled. Otherwise it would profile those who are not.”

“Officer Brian, is there ANYTHING you can tell us about this perpetrator?”

“ALLEGED perpetrator, sir.”

“ALL RIGHT. Is there anything you can tell us about this alleged perpetrator that would aid us in finding him or her?”

“Not without profiling. It was just a person, regardless of race, color, creed or national origin.”

“Officer Brian, turn in your badge and gun. I just checked with headquarters and you are fired.”

“Not for refusing to profile I’m not. The ACLU will beat you on that.”

“The ACLU is against you. You continuously referred to your subject as “a person.,” so PETA has filed a joint action with the ACLU for your removal for specieist profiling.”

It amuses me how people talk about the Stockholm Syndrome as if it were something new. Twelve million Americans, most of them male before Basic Training, were given the Stockholm Syndrome at government expense, not for hours, but for eight WEEKS.

In the 1960s Abbie Hoffmann and a lot of other New York-type Jews ran the “Radical” groups. When the Chicago Seven were tried they kept yelling at the judge about his being a Goy. But that was less than twenty years after World War II, and the WWII Generation was in charge, and they were unable to handle a guy screaming in their faces.

A black in prison, I think he was in for carjacking, once told me, “Some of these old guys, you yell at them and they’ll suck your ….”

He was more accurate than he knew.

For the WWII Generation all they had to do was scream at them and they went into worship position. No earlier generation of Americans would have let Abbie Hoffman get a sentence out. But almost the entirety of what started out as American males had been taught that a Real Man is made by screaming into his face and MAKING THEM LIKE IT.

The Stockholm Syndrome, which was named long after a whole generation was subjected to it, means that you are held captive by someone who can do anything they want to to you, and your gratitude is overwhelming when they DON’T do something to you.

Every member of the Weakest Generation went to bed at night grateful to his sergeant. They admired their sergeants. They WORSHIPED their sergeants.

Solzhenitsyn talked about how differently women reacted to being called for questioning from the way men did. A lot of women would primp. They would have this MAN trap them alone with them in a room. In short, S&M.

But those were WOMEN he was talking about. This wasn’t any Syndrome, it was just that a lot of women enjoy that kind of treatment from men, as a quick trip to any emergency room will show you. Some men do,, too, I’m sure, but I understand they like WOMEN in leather outfits doing it. I saw one case on Operation Repo.

The guy tied up in Operation Repo asked the repo gang to come join the girl in punishing him. So when you really get into that stuff apparently you can start asking men to join in. The WWII Generation was in a very, very sick environment.

The result was a period in which whoever screamed loudest and insulted them most got whatever they wanted. The magazines had screaming blacks with their mouths wide open on the covers. To get a civil rights act through blacks just had to burn down their own neighborhoods — the cops weren’t emasculated yet — and scream into the ever-ready cameras.

So when I talk about the Weakest Generation, I believe I am telling you what many have asked — “What happened to AMERICANS?” What happened to the people who took the land from the Indians, who whipped their slaves, who did the LYNCHINGS?

How did they go from one extreme to the its S&M worshiping opposite? I watched it happen. It began at a very suspicious time.

When I was less than ten, I always found a lot of the TV shows puzzling. They would have some alien or some Indian — always innocent — being threatened by a shouting mob. Superman or the Cisco Kid or whoever showed them how wrong that was.

I could not imagine a mob of guys like that, even in South Carolina, out in the open yelling for blood the way I later found lynch mobs did in the 1930s. What a difference a few years make! Those mobs were real to the people who wrote the scripts, but not to the kids who watched them. They were as ready to believe in a mob of outraged white men as they were in the ET they threatened.

And for the same reason. There were no outraged white “men” after WWII. So our age began in World War II.

When someone demands objectivity, always ask, “WHOSE objectivity?” When they are questioned on such matter as their fanaticism for Obama or their unanimous screams against Goldwater they will shrug and say objectivity is not possible in the real world. Then they start declaring that all objective science is agreed on global warning and especially race.

All tyranny is based on objectivity. Ayn Rand said that Freedom is based philosophy of Objectivism. Her followers are as rigid and as mirthless as any Puritan. Cotton Mather, Karl Marx, CS Lewis, Ayn Rand, all of them see spontaneous joy as evil, as an enemy of the grim Objectivity they are trying to promote.

In his Surprised by Joy, Lewis hurried to point out that his Joy was not a happy emotion.

I have written repeatedly that the person who calls everybody a liar in invariably a liar himself, that those who shout Mercy loudest uses it as an excuse for unlimited torture, that the person who scream HATE is always motivated by hatred himself, and that an experienced cop will look twice at anyone who is trying to look TOO innocent.

Mercy is the opposite of mercy, all capitalized virtues are their historical opposites.

Objectivity is the antithesis of freedom in history. And Freedom is the opposite of freedom because Freedom is objective. That is why it is capitalized. Actual freedom exists precisely to the extent that Objective Judgment stops limiting it.

Wordism says Freedom is a matter of WHO limits it. One is Truly Free only if he is obeying he law or the Lord or Marx or Mommy Professor.

And that, brothers and sisters, is ALL that the word freedom means.

Because of what freedom really is, a free person must always regard EVERY form of judgment as an imposition. Tyranny has absolutely nothing to do with the Words which lead to limiting it. BY its very name, society must limit freedom. But one must never look upon one excuse, one form of Wordism, as better than another.

I once called cop in Britain because a loudmouth was sitting on his roof next to my hotel. When the cop showed he ran. The cop told me he couldn’t do anything anyway, because in Britain a man’s home was his castle. I asked him what about he Englishman n his hotel room trying to sleep. One cannot throw rocks from his castle so why can he throw noise?

Nobody ever answers me.

And what about my right to go straighten the guy out myself. That I didn’t bring up before a cop, but it is freedom any Anglo-Saxon would have recognized.

None of my freedoms mattered because the man in front of me had on a costume. He represented Objectivity.

The loudmouth’s freedoms have to be weighed against mine. That is true and it is what people say. But my point here is that, as usual, they say it but they don’t THINK about it.

My point is that the BALANCE is the point, not the JUSTIFICATION. In Rule WW2 I pointed out that the media or a respectable conservative cannot say that shooting someone down for trying to escape a Red country is not the same thing as a right-winger shooting someone down. If that were evil the entire Communist Empire would be evil., OBVIOUSLY evil from the word go.

But this cannot be because the left cannot be evil, just as Jews cannot hate and only whites can be racists.

No human being is objective or perfect in any other way. But the inability to be altogether good is no excuse for evil and the imperfection at being objective is not a license not to be. But Wordists use their Truth as an excuse, whether it is their version of Patriotism or Mommy Professor’s Progressivism or the million different declaration of the Will of the Lord.

Wordism sees no such balance.

Wordism is insane.

The man who did my last interview is a former California professor of Political Science who was born and raised in Croatia, then Yugoslavia. It was a Communist state. But he thought Political Correctness was an American product. I pointed out to him that it is a Marxist term.

My interviewer had the honesty to admit he had not realized that. Nobody seems to realize it but me. He then translated the term he was raised with from the Reds from the Croatian and it was “political rectitude” which is a synonym for political correctness.

That sort of basic observation seems to be my particular gift.

Or curse. Gang, it is actually SCARY when you see so many things that are so obvious and no one else notices them. You get the feeling that you are surrounded by Pod People.

No one talks about real Marxism these days, so no one realizes the wildly obvious fact that regular correspondence between them throughout their history has included the term “political correctness.” This is another case where the REAL theory is so silly that the left does not discuss it and the respectable right obediently doesn’t.

Nowadays when someone says he is a Marxist, he ignores the REAL meaning of the word. He says that means he believes in “the class struggle.” Not only is that not true, it has nothing to do with Marxism. The class struggle to Marxism is exactly like evangelism to Christianity. A Christian is not “one who believes in evangelism.” Christianity claims to believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection, supernatural things.

Evangelism is part of the practice of Christianity, but it has nothing to do with what Christianity IS. Marxism is one of an endless historical progression of Wordist ideas that advocate a class struggle that popped u in every literate society for thousands of years, but that does not define Marxism.

Marxism is about the thousandth recorded system that believes in a class struggle. No society has ever been without some form of THAT as preached by radical. To say Marxism is belief ion “the class struggle” is like defining Pentecostals as “people with feet.”

Marxism is based on Rousseau’s idea that animals and savages have no sense of property, no borders, no pecking order whatsoever. Like every other theory of its time. Marxism says man’s genes demand that we return to the natural order of a classless, borderless society like that of the animals and savages. This is not mentioned today because it is so laughable.

This leaving the Rousseau Assumption alone is not confined to the Marxists or even to the political left. Everybody knows that all of the assumptions on which every theory today is based, the Rousseau Assumption, has been blasted to pieces by discoveries about animal behavior in the last half of the last century, But everybody ignores it and hides in their Book.

What everybody does NOT notice is that social sciences have not changed one iota because of this revolution in knowledge. O’Reilly is as fanatical as any Marxist in denouncing “the idea that one person is just naturally smarter than another.” Hannity, Baby Jesus, insists that if we knew The Book we too would be like the beasts of the field, though he has no idea what the beasts of the field are like.

Everybody still goes on the assumptions from before the finding of facts like chimpanzees hunting and eating monkeys and patrolling their borders with a ruthlessness that would solve the Mexican Border Problem instantly. The class system is so strong in all herd animals that it would startle a Victorian Brit.

But no social theory today, left or right, takes the slightest notice of this. Their Book was written before it came up, so they will nod when it is mentioned, but then go on to what they always said.

I pointed out previously in some detail how Mao’s Great Leap Forward, a crippling disaster, was caused by Mao being Shrewd. Communists insist that running an economy is something Intellectuals can do. They always feel cheated because the capitalists have some secret.

I wish you had all seen a documentary about North Korea. It freezes your gizzard. All the pictures on walls are of The Leader. It takes you a while to understand the old lady is thanking The Leader thinking of an old woman and giving her the apartment.

The documentary is about a doctor who went to North Korea and did a hundred or so simple sty removals on blind people there. All of them, when the bandages were removed and they could see, thanked the Leader. No one mentioned the doctor.

Communism is PRIMITIVE. It is a Cult, like Political Correctness. So is the idea that there is some SECRET, some KEY to capitalist success. Mao decided that all of the Western countries produced STEEL. So he set up a Great Leap Forward dedicated to producing steel.

Meeting the STEEL quota was all that mattered. I don’t need to tell you what the result was. Tiny smelters were attempted everywhere they should have been producing the few instruments required for rice production. As usual, the stuff written down as steel was nothing of the sort. They melted stuff down.

Khrushchev came over to America in the 50s and he found out what the American Secret was: America produced CORN. So Russians, already on the brink of starvation, were ordered to plant American-style corn.

Russia is not America. You can plant maize almost anywhere here and it will grow to some extent. Only a Communist would ORDER it to grow most places north of Crimea.

As I have described, Stalin decided that Communism made people perfect, so genetics didn’t matter. He murdered the whole Medicogenetical Institute and put Lysenko in charge of Soviet genetic. Lysenko decided to make winter wheat by freezing summer wheat for a while, and that was one of his more logical ideas.

Only Communism could make the Breadbasket of Europe starve.

The problem is it is hard for us to abandon the long discourses and big words respectable conservatives use and talk about a Cult. It is hard for us to look at the Harvard faculty that takes Communism seriously and the Jewish Geniuses who have this elaborate scheme that a mere human can barely see the outlines of and laugh at them as a Cargo Cult.

If you don’t know what the Cargo Cult is, please let me know.

But Communists have repeatedly gone the Cargo Cult Route and been worshiped for it.

Kissing liberal hiney makes a living for respectable conservatives but it wont sell, first and foremost because it isn’t TRUE.

For almost two millennia, Western Society made an ideal of someone who whipped himself bloody each night, who starved himself, and who, above all, was totally sterile.

Now we sit around and shake our heads in wonder and ask how white self-hatred has become our highest ideal.

Hey, stupid, IT ALWAYS WAS!

I have pointed to the roots in Buddhism and decaying Zoroastrianism, but will we sit around and make up stories about Conspiracies by Aliens.

My simple explanation that we are the race with the least adaptation to environment and therefore we are the race that took the ideal ground is rather obvious once it is stated. People want whites because they look better. Whites look better because we concentrated on competition among ourselves, including blond hair and blue eyes.

People adapted to frozen places have Oriental epicanthic eye folds. People who adapt to hot or cold do NOT have white skin. But I still hear the old “Challenge of the Frozen North” crap.

In fact, the reason historians tried so hard to put Zoroaster in the sixth century, BC — I just head that on a documentary but even mainline historians dismissed it a long time ago — is because Israel only became monotheistic in the seventh century BC. There could not be a whole Persian Empire that was monotheistic long before.

That’s why the philistines — Persian-oriented philosophers — were denounced. In early days there was constant power struggle in Israel between those who favored the current Egyptian dynasty and those who favored the ruling power in Mesopotamia. Israel/Judah was just a buffer state. Studying that history alone is exactly like studying Belgium with no reference to Germany or France or the Netherlands or Spain.

No wonder the only non-Jew praised by the Old Testament was Cyrus of Persia. And it was almost certainly in the never-bemoaned Persian Captivity that monotheism came to Israel.

So was is this history avoided? It demonstrates the one fact that both anti-whites and Conspiracies want to deny: Our fate is our making. No other race can have that much influence over the only creative race that exists.

The only creative race that exists.

The only creative race that exists.

Other groups did not create our self-destructive disease. There is not one word in the Old Testament or even in the New Testament before Paul about how sterility was an idea. And Paul was a Pharisee. He was a sophisticate of his time, which meant that he was steeped in the knowledge of his time that included heavy doses of degenerate Zoroastrianism.

Everything connects. People roll their eyes when I talk about Z but talk endlessly about Jewish history. They totally misinterpret transmigration of souls as if it were a GOOD thing or a RELIGIOUS thing. It is the Wheel of Life, which ancient Aryan philosophy teaches ESCAPE from.

So our self-hatred is HELPED by enemies, but, like everything else, it comes from US.

As I said before, every piece of Oriental Wisdom turns out to be an old Aryan fad that got frozen into the Oriental motionlessness. Kung Fu was a religion in itself. The Way of its day. That’s why the Orientals still have religion we have long since forgotten, along with Communism, which will ALWAYS be in China, just as will Buddhism, which scarcely exists in India.

Each thing above presents a new world view from that we now have. And we have a different diagnosis of our disease.

In 1992 I decided to try grad school again. One semester almost drove me nuts but I learned that what I had said about academe in A Plague on Both Your Houses in 1976 was, at the very least, true. In 1976 it had been many years since I had left academe and my description of it struck even me as a bit overblown.

I found out in 1992 that it wasn’t. But I had no illusions going in. One person, hearing I was in Political Science, said, “It must be fascinating to them to ask you about all your campaigns and making laws and working for the President.”

I was actually stunned by this statement. Obviously it had been a LONG time since this person had been in school, or maybe, like most people, she just didn’t notice while she was there. I sort of mumbled, “No, they’re too busy to be interested in that stuff.”

In school, your sole interest is in listening and regurgitating on tests and trying not to worry yourself into a breakdown. The person who asked me that had a college degree, but probably had not been to grad school. She probably thought that GRAD students would be interested in the subject they were dedicating their lives to. I understand that was once true.

My father used to advise us to talk to a professor about HIS subject, because to HIM that was the most fascinating thing in the world. Back in HIS day it was probably true. After all, back then the few people who had doctorates could make good money anywhere. But by my time academe or government were the only places a man could be assured of a job for life.

Graduate students and professors have less interest in their subjects than a plumber does in pipes.

One thing I noticed was the difference, even from my generation, in the reaction of professors and grad students to the words, “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you RICH?”

In my day, professors or grads would just chuckle at it. Today they start to explain how just anybody can get rich if they’re MEAN or GREEDY enough or how it’s all a matter of chance and so forth.

They protested too much and they protested WAY too quickly.

There are endless books about how industrialists shape their mentality around the industry on which their money and power depends. But I am the ONLY person who has written a book of that sort about academe.

Academe is an industry so gargantuan that it could stuff US Steel in its vest pocket without a bulge. On every issue its attitude is that if things were turned over to the Intellectuals, things would be fine. All money would be OK if the Intellectuals took it and gave it out.

This giving all money to the dictatorship of the proletariat, made up of Intellectuals, used to be called Communism or Socialism. On the day the Soviet Empire collapsed, every Communist or Socialist became, in a single day, Environmentalists. No one else noticed that, of course. If they had noticed it they would have been surprised.

I wasn’t. The program of Environmentalism today is a Kyoto Treaty where all production becomes subject to the dictates of the Intellectuals.

It is not entirely accurate to call Politically Correct economic theory socialist. Socialism is a theory of production. PC has no theory of production whatsoever. Politically Correct economics is one hundred percent distribution. All that PC has to say on the subject is, “The intellectuals will collect and all the money and distribute it.”

Don’t confuse this with an economic theory. Political Correctness says that “the Intellectuals should run everything.” Economics is just a part of everything.

PC believes that money comes from magic. In this they are exactly like libertarians and liberal churchmen. The official Catholic statement on economic begins on exactly the same basis that other church statements on the subject do, “THE LAND PRODUCES great wealth. I short every church begins its statements on income distribution with what Screwtape called, “a good, sound, resounding lie.”

The land produces little or nothing. Hunters and gatherers had “the land” all to themselves, and about twenty thousand of them scratched an existence out of the entire British Isles. More to the point, if “the land” produced all that the same churches would not be demanding that first world countries send enough to survive on to third world countries, which contain a lot more of “the land.”

Every church today, in this as in other areas, is not only a liar, but a psychopathic liar. But even a psychopath has a reason for lying. Ion this case they are following the Politically Correct line: There is no production, only distribution. No church EVER discusses why one system is more productive than another. No church would EVER imagine criticizing a Great Oriental Philosopher for talking about table manners while children collapsed from starvation within a mile of him.

All anyone discusses is distribution. You can hear a fat preacher bemoaning starvation, but you will never hear one mention that this is the first time in history when starvation is an unusual way to die.

Once again, what I am saying here is too obvious to be noticed. This is the only place you will see this point even MENTIONED.

Michael Moore demonstrates that Mommy Professor loves ugliness for its own sake.

I do not like looking at ugly people. Why is it that someone so horribly ugly is so popular with Mommy Professor’s products? A good looking person could say the same thing.

Yes, it is very popular for people to say that looks don’t matter. In fact, if you want to hear sincere expressions of that belief go to a high-end beauty parlor and listen to Mommy Professors’ upper income liberals talk to each other. As they sit there spending thousands of dollars on touch-ups and blonding they will recite The Party Line that Looks Don’t Matter.

Vanishingly few people in a high-end beauty parlor are buying contact lenses that make their eyes look brown. Even fewer are having anything darkened. But they sit there and tell each other that children don’t care if their blond mother makes them brown and kinky.

If they have feelings, maybe the kids have feelings too. Well, if they are RACIST feelings that will keep a black guy who likes blond from getting what he wants the kids have no right to those feelings. They are there to get blonded and to talk about how to help the black guy end blondness.

So any discussion of looks is “superficial.” Meanwhile looks are the first concern of damned near everybody, especially their own.

“Do unto others as you would have others do to unto you.”