“Freedom is the right to say two plus two is four.” That is the famous conclusion of George Orwell in 1984. At two widely separated times, two different high Japanese leaders made the mistake of pointing gout that Mexican immigration lowered the average IQ of the United States.

You can imagine the whirlwind they reaped by that Hitlerian statement. Each on was newly astonished:

1) The Average Mexican IQ is lower than the average American IQ;

2) Therefore if you add lower IQs to higher IQs you get a lower IQ. That’s as obvious as two plus two equals four.

3) Which is the problem.

As Orwell pointed out, this is not the first time in history we’ve had this problem. And the first clear sign that you have this problem is that it cannot be discussed.

Jared Taylor was invited to Canada to debate multiculturalism. Needless to say, the invitation was withdrawn. It was finally realized t hat multiculturalism is not to be debated ANYWHERE. Every major magazine in America, especially National Review, has criticized the “absolutist approach” to the first amendment.

It is a huge weakness in their defenses that they demand an end to what Orwell would have called free speech. No one holds more tightly to this line than the respectable right. Only our Canadian friend Paul Fromm spends his days and nights fighting for Free Speech in Canada. While doing so, he makes some excellent substantive points about race.

Paul bases his success on hitting at the BASIS of the suppression of free speech. A writer for the Wilson Quarterly said that John Stuart Mill was wrong for basing the argument for free speech on utilitarian principles. The writer said that people had the right to say that innate Racial IQs were different, even though that t CANNOT be true.

Mill said that free speech was useful BECAUSE THOSE IN POWER CAN BE WRONG. The writer said one thing “we” all agree on — his “we” — was that races cannot be innately different. He said that such arguments cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds because they cannot be true.

However you may criticize it, you have to admit that Catholic Church is not the most bouncy and flexible institution on earth. In fact, that’s why I chose that church for myself some time ago. Try to find out what the Methodist position is on something.

After chairing a lot of Narcotics Anonymous meetings in Unitarian Churches, my conclusion was that Unitarianism is “The Church of Whatever’s Cool.” Or, as a friend of mine said, “The Unitarians are based on the principle that is, at most, one God.”

Even after Vatican II when you go into a Catholic Church you know you are in a church. The FEW times I go to church I want to be surrounded by believers. Yes, the priest will talk about trendy issues from time to time, but mostly each Homily is from the Bible.

My point here is that while the Catholic Church is known for being unbending, the simple fact is that almost everything adopted in Vatican II was not only a contradiction of Vatican I, the Council of Trent, but it could not have been DISCUSSED in Catholic countries after the Council of Trent. As in the case of the Declaration of Independence, no one ever mentions that the Council of Trent was adopted in WARTIME.

I have never read a single discussion of the Declaration of Independence as the basic document in American history which ever MENTIONED that it was a WAR document.

Wartime is little different. The Anti-baptist Severus was burned by Calvin, but it was one case where Calvin and the Pope were in perfect accord: “Severus was silent until the fire reached his face, when he began to scream. Twenty minutes later, he was silent.”

No, that attitude didn’t leave a lot of room for discussion.

In the 1960s, the hippies had a Free Speech Movement at Berkeley. It consisted of yelling obscene and blasphemous words at each other. TO a liberal or a respectable conservative, this is free speech. To the WQ writer t his is free speech.

Both liberals and respectable conservatives already HAVE the truth. Free speech to them is a pure indulgence, without purpose. It consists of curses of nasty phrases or of political heresy. To them these are all the same.

That is not the purpose of freedom of speech, the right to say two plus two is four. But no mainline commentator could possibly know that.

I don’t really present ARGUMENTS. I present ways of saying the truth in such a way as to leave the other side looking ridiculous. That is exactly what you cannot do and be declared respectable in the media.

They have given up trying to argue with me precisely because my method is so EFFECTIVE.

For example I was looking at an editorial which shows that the children of Mexicans who come to the US end up a lot like Mexicans who stay down there. This is avoided by libertarians because they believe in magic. They say that the border is magic, and if the population of Mexico comes over it they will magically produce a society as productive as whites.

But there is another point here. All the explanations for Mexican failure are predictable. Nothing is their doing. We all know why that is, but we don’t SAY it. The article is to be published. Regardless of the truth — WHICHEVER WAY IT GOES — every word in that article can be explained by the audience, not by the facts.

It is unlikely, to say the least, that one would say for the sake of tact happens to be also the truth.

This goes back to the Middle East history I have been talking about. There is an enormous coincidence here, too. By a miraculous coincidence, all those people who had been scouring the Holy Land for a thousand years suddenly discovered that they only had to go about a hundred miles in either direction to be historians instead of theologians.

It reminds me of the old Mutt and Jeff cartoon when Jeff found Mutt searching under a street lamp. “What are you doing?”

“I dropped my watch a hundred feet over that way.”

”The why are you searching HERE?”

“This is where the LIGHT is.”

It reminds me of the anthropologist some years back. He lived in Kenya. He “found the earliest man.” Guess where?

The first thing you do is find out WHY someone says something. If it is exactly what he would say or do for some other reason, the chances are it isn’t true.

Only a fool takes an advertisement as truth. Only a fool accepts what one would say for the sake of tact as reflecting reality.

Life After Man showed what would be left after man disappeared from the earth. What they did not go into is the real relevance of the program.

For example, the only monument left after a few thousand years would be the Stone Mountain Confederate Monument. Mount Rushmore is too open to the weather. You know how there is a standard “Future Uniform” on the old TV shows to show someone comes from the Future, the one with the pointed ridges on the shoulders?

If the only thing people or evolved monkeys of the future had was the Stone Mountain Monument, they might have a standard picture of human beings, all wearing Confederate uniforms!

Suits me.

But we have images we KNOW are just as absurd, but we keep them. The Classical Buildings like our capitols and monuments would cause anyone from ancient times to roll on the ground laughing. We poor little barbarians found gray stone statues and gray stone buildings in Greece and Rome and built MORE gray stone buildings!

We now know that NO Roman or Greek would have left a statue or building we way we left anything like THAT! Hey stupid, the PAINT wore off!

But is you look at “I, Claudius” on BBC or Educational TV, you will see that he is surrounded by those same discredited, gray statues. But it is NOT the masses who produce this crap. It is the Intellectuals. They set up the fashion, and they will not let it go.

This is what Joe Sobran, in his Foreword to my last book, called “the ignorance of the intellectuals.”

The natural follow up to Life After Man would be a series showing what historians would have concluded if historians looked at what was left after a hundred years, a thousand years, five thousand years, and what the history would look like in each case.

Our entire accepted history is based on the idea that Intellectuals are the basis of Progress. So they developed this Renaissance nonsense. Those who wrote looked back to the last time in history there was a society based on lots of writing and Intellectuals. In our case, that was the Classical Age. Then they declared that Progress only reached us because we “rediscovered” the Classical Age.

Actually, I cannot find a single idea, and there must be SOME, that we used from Classical Times. In fact, the whole history of nineteenth century medicine is our getting RID of the crap Galen and others left behind, and getting back to common sense.

The Classical Building nonsense and the picture of all of us wandering around in Confederate uniforms falls in with the article I just wrote about Cargo Cult Communism.

Those science fiction shows from the 30s and 60s showing everybody in 2009 walking around in uniforms with pointed shoulder decorations were SEEN as what they were: a cheap way to say, “This is the Future.” But if one of the writers had said “This is REALLY what the future will look like.” we would have questioned his sanity.

What if those writers insisted, one and all, that all people in the future would REALLY wear those uniforms? They would have been instantly discredited. Yet those who continue to build those ridiculous “Classical” things and put them in their “educational” shows are considered Intellectuals!

Those who try to trace all Progress back to the Middle East are our official Intellectuals. Their history is exactly like the classical statues. When they dated Stonehenge, it had always been assumed that the henges we found from that age started in the Middle East and ended up in Britain. Actual dating showed that was a HERESY: Those buildings STARTED in the North and the latest ones were in the Sacred Middle East.

Like the “classical” buildings, this was a non-problem for our Ruling Intellectuals. They are still building Classical Buildings and so forth in gray stone. No discovery has altered our Ex Oriente Lux history in the slightest.

In India there is that single piece of advanced, tempered steel sticking up. While all iron technology is dutifully traced to the Middle East, this one piece of steel is more advanced than anything produced before the twentieth century. It doesn’t fit, so it is ignored.

When those Aryan mummies ere found in China, they were ignored. They had on clothes stitched in a way that history said was invented in the Middle East a thousand years AFTER these people lived. I am willing to bet history STILL says the same thing. China had iron industry, and China had lots of Writers and Intellectual, so it must have INVENTED that technology. They didn’t even invent rice paddies!

But history says they did. It simply ignores any troublesome possibilities and goes right on implying that China is the Ancient and Original Genius. Accepted history lies less directly than by simply implications people have already absorbed. But having the Emperor Claudius wandering around between statues he would have laughed at is a lie, and a big one.

We must stop coddling the Intellectuals. We must call a Cult a Cult and an ignorant barbarian influence of our Intellectuals like the Classical crap what it is.

Respectable conservatives, as always, are worse than useless. Nobody quotes more untranslated Latin and Renaissance history nonsense than the Buckley types. They are the LAST people who might call those Intellectual ignoramuses what they are.

That is why they get the respectable label. That is why they get paid.