One of the characteristics of The Information Age is how quickly The Party Line becomes BORING. In the 1950s I found a lot of people who had not even realized how repetitive the Liberal Lines were. MOST PEOPLE IN THE EARLY SIXTIES WOULD NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE TERM “POLITICALLY CORRECT.”

You do not understand what a change has taken place. You cannot understand the RELIEF of not having to explain. On the objective, practical side, political correctness is so boring by now it drives watches, readers and listeners up the wall.

An example of this was the hook used to grab watchers on a History Channel documentary. It began by quoting people as saying that the first Americans were hunters who crossed the Bering land bridge about 13,000 years ago, i.e., Amerinds. They promised to explode this myth.

Only after five minutes or so of this hook did they say they were going to explode the myth that these Indians were JUST HUNTERS. Then they settled down to the standard revelation that Indians were geniuses with an astonishingly sophisticated technology.

Now what if they had started off announcing that this was one more repetition of the “astonishingly advanced” line? Indians are regarded as primitive, the television Indian specialists tell us, but they were really more sophisticated than we are. Ants are regarded as mindless, say the official ant specialist, but they have better minds than we do. I am confidently awaiting the amoeba specialists revelation of the sophistication of amoeboid society.

But not only is this boring and everybody knows it, but the doc specialists KNOW it is boring. They have to promise a politically incorrect revelation about Indian claims to get any audience at all. Once again, if they had started off saying, “This will prove how great Indians really were” they would have had no watchers outside of Mexamerica and the Tribal Lands.

By the way, this is serious business in the Tribal Lands. There is nothing theoretical about the billions of dollars casinos are raking in on white self-hatred, and any threat to that goes straight to Mafia types.

And there is nothing theoretical about THAT. I was amazed when someone quoted a main line book as talking about the threats and murders of the Jewish Mafia in Hollywood. I could not understand it until I found that it was a quote from a biography of REAGAN, showing his bowing to the Jewish Mafia. In their desperation to attack, they are letting a lot of important stuff slip through the cracks.

As in the present case of the left becoming anti-Israelis over Iraq, the left was so anxious to attack Reagan that it ignored Jewish interest in keeping the Jewish Mafia control of Hollywood in the twilight zone of Conspiracy Theory. This was quoted by an anti in SF, and I was the only person who noted it for what it was. Others are so busy arguing their pet theory of Jews that they don’t notice a plum dropped in their laps.

Yes, you can get killed for attacking white self-hate by an accurate history of America. One phone call and a button can be pushed. I’ve lived with that all my life.

Here is a barrier no one mentions on SF, because it is a barrier against someone who is out there actually IN THE FIGHT, not beating their chests from the sidelines. At the same time, I have given you the giant advantage we now have, and that EVERY PROFESSIONAL recognized, of the sheer BOREDOM of ruling opinion.

These are professional observations, not chest-beating and demanding ACTION. Those who shout the loudest don’t even know how to see the battle as it is.

I often feel like Harry Selden in the old Foundations Trilogy. Selden speaks to people not yet born in films, telling them what is going to happen. Selden explained his foresight from a truly realistic, mathematical sociology – even the Marxist Asimov admitted that sociology in the ‘50s was one step below astrology.

My prescience is simpler: I’ve been here before. I remember when conservative meetings could be held in a phone booth. Paul Weyrich recalls those days in his contribution to The New Right Papers. There were conservatives in congress, just as there are anti-immigration, anti-quota congressmen today, but they were and ARE on the defensive. They are useless, because they cannot deal with the future and the real issues.

Sound familiar?

Conservatives back then were Republicans or Dixiecrats first.

Sound familiar?

So I see you back in the same phone booth. If anything, our New Orleans phone booths and American Renaissance phone booths are bigger than the old conservative ones.

Conservatives then were like Goldwater, who immediately turned the Republicans Party over to the old moderates after his 1964 defeat. He could have won in 1968, but it was Republicanism first. Reagan lost the nomination every time after 1968 with his eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any other Republicans.” He got rid of that in 1976 and came within an inch of winning.

In 1980, to appease the moderates, he appointed Bush his Vice President.

So Bush was nominated in 1988. He announced a “a kinder, gentler” Republicanism. FINALLY, that speech made the scales fall from Fall Girl Nancy Reagan’s eyes, “Kinder and gentler than WHO?”

Bush’s first act as president was to get rid of EVERY Reagan appointee. In 1992, as a good moderate, he lost.

There is very little going on now with our movement that not only is not new to me, but is TIRESOMELY REPETITIVE to me.