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.