When people found out I worked on the writing of legislation on Capitol Hill, they would naturally ask if I was a lawyer. I had a standard joke reply:

“No, I don’t do anything legal.”

“Uh-oh, let me restate that…”

Of course what I meant was that lawyers made sure that people like me discussed policy language in a bill. But, just as every speech one wrote for the congressmen began with MR. SPEAKER: certain places in the legislation had to conform to legal form.

Some of this was arcane. For example, Federal language used the word “abolishment” rather than the correct term “abolition.” The lawyer had to finalize the FORM, but when it came to 3 am compromises on intent and policy, the congressmen sent senior staff in, not lawyers.

So instead of trying to explain that, I just made the joke about my not doing anything legal.

But I face something of the same problem with my writing. I could say that the unique thing I have to offer is not factual information. If I say I do not base my thinking on a special set of facts I know, it sounds, like “doing nothing legal,” as if I were proposing that facts don’t matter.

On the contrary, my best work, like the Mantra, is based on solid actuality. But it is a different LOOK at actuality.

Having developed a way of thinking, I could spend another fifty years or so just looking into the facts you and I both know as a matter of course and finding different aspects to them that people need to think about.

I made huge factual errors in my first book that make me cringe now. But that book made Review of Reviews, and nobody mentioned one of them. Even my enemies realized that the examples I gave wrong were not basic. They were infinitely more interested in the fact that I was stealing the word “Populist” from the left.

But I cannot get all the research done by myself that people get paid to dedicate their lives to on the other side.

In his Foreword, Joe Sobran said that my last book was not really a book, even though he praised it handsomely. That is true, in the same sense that if I wrote a complete piece of legislation by myself, it probably would not be legislation. Lawyers have to do the doctoring, and most of my congressmen were lawyers themselves.

I got the discussion down and the lawyers did what needed to be done.

In exactly the same way, I have nothing but respect for those who study issues and then write our tomes. But a person who is only a member of the committee legal staff cannot make the POLITICAL decisions and do the POLICY exactness that was my job.

But the legal staff would be useless without us policy people. Policy is the point of the whole exercise.

This seems obvious, but it is hard for me to explain that the case of our tomes is similar. The problem with tomes on our side is that few people BUY them, much less READ them. One reason I gave up on conventions was because when I made this obvious point, I got that cow like look I so often make when I point something obvious out, something everybody already knows, as a prelude to saying what to do about it.

We cannot depend on the tomes to get a bigger audience for themselves. They have been coming out for a century and practically nobody HAPPENS to read a hundred thousand word book contradicting what he believes and is converted by it.

But every time we shake their tree with the Mantra, we set the groundwork for those who can see to look for more. People only start looking at “racist” literature when they are shaken by something they read, and damned few are going to just happen to read a hundred thousand words at the outset.

I understand the place of the Tome People. But they cannot understand OURS.

In General Comments 3 someone mentioned a reply they got to the Mantra: “Loyalty to the white race is treason to humanity.”

This is the motto of Noel Ignatiev’s group he calls Race Traitors. This is typical and funny. For an Ivy League Jew to be claiming he is a traitor to the white race is exactly like a Jesuit claiming he is a traitor to Protestantism.

Ignatiev, a small time teacher at Harvard, says “The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that the only opposition could be from white supremacists.” While repeating the Jewish establishment line but for his present purposes he pretends to be bravely defying the white race which, for present purposes, he claims to be part of.

This is very typical. Anti-whites routinely hide behind being white as if there were no such thing as treason. As I have said, Jews are white or a minority or a separate group when it is convenient. Anyone who challenges their momentary identity is anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Anti-white whites will routinely be shocked by the Mantra, “How can I be anti-white? I’m white.”

My reply is, “It’s called treason, dum-dum, it happens all the time.”

Then I get out and some SFer gives a long, complicated reply which lets the anti-white get back into the debate. My stuff is designed to expose the enemy and leave them naked. The standard reply we learn from tomes gets them back into the argument. They have something to argue with.

In short, the Tome People do for anti-whites what respectable conservatives do for the left.

I just wrote a piece about how one cannot plan for the new age of information if one does not REMEMBER how things were before it.

We at BUGS have discussed at some length how my sentence structure here is so different from the one officially demanded by texts on writing. I have adjusted to short sentences and ending one thought at a time because direct mailers have found that is the way to reach people in competition with others who have learned to do the same thing.

Oddly enough, Internet studies are finding the same thing. In a mass of information, internet readers will not give you much time to bore them or to sound smart. Like those selected for direct mail, the competition is FIERCE.

No one was more indoctrinated in the old paragraph structure than I was. I had to write for editors.

I also had to write for speeches, and the staccato I write now would not do for reading out in public by a congressman at a formal function.

BoardAd did a study of my old writing in Whitaker On Line and its evolution. How did he do this analysis? He looked in Google, of course. He found a means of MEASURING sentence structure. Try to find THAT in the old World Almanac or in less than several hours in the public library!

BoardAd found my sentence structure has evolved, and he can MEASURE it!

My life has been spent in communication, but a lot of people have far better credentials in their communications careers than I do. But we now have two special pieces of wisdom I can offer you that they can’t.

First, I REMEMBER. I do not selectively FORGET every time the other side was embarrassingly wrong. To get mainline credentials, you have to pass the acid tests of those who have a VETO on things that would embarrass them. They can’t tell you everything you CAN say, but they can certainly ruin you if you cross their line.

No one is allowed to REPEAT how all the talk about gun permits fifteen years ago was about how a BLOODBATH would happened if permits were handed out to people who didn’t wear police costumes. I have heard those screams mentioned a decade later, but never REPEATED.

Secondly, I remember how direct mail worked, and how direct mail, and ONLY direct mail, could statistically analyze the results of every change of wording and sentence length and hundreds of other variables. They wrote for “flyover country” in a competitive market, the way blogs must today.

Now for a third factor. I began the last discussion by talking about how hard it was to come by facts not so long ago, and how impossible it was to correct silly statements Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite declared to be Gospel.

That was pre-Google. We have taken a GIANT step toward overcoming what I REMEMBER being the problem by the simple fact that your Google is as good as that of CBS. It is no longer Opinion versus what you looked up, It is CBS versus Google.

But all this brings up a fourth factor, which I call The Art of Being Wrong. My writings use a lot of factual information, but information is not my primary focus here. I am trying to change PERSPECTIVE. So if I am talking about the Alamo, and the best information is that there were three thousand Mexicans there instead of the five thousand I give, I consider it a waste of time to have a long discussion of it.

If I make a mistake that really alters the PERSPECTIVE, I will correct it. But most of my general points are simply so obvious once stated that the exact facts I cite are irrelevant.

The fact that immigration and assimilation are directed at ALL white countries and ONLY at white countries might be debatable if you looked at the lack of pressure on Andorra or Liechtenstein or Mount Athos or SMOM. But the desperation of someone doing that makes the point.

Or should I spend a lot of time talking about Mount Athos or SMOM being an exception?

So I SAY what I think. No one has to say “with all due respect” or “I hate to disagree.” That’s what sycophants told Cronkite and Company. I say it here, and you correct it HERE. I consider that a favor.

The Cronkites could never LEARN. Their days are gone. We have here a seminar, and a real seminar puts the professor and his grad students on an even keel. Which is why you won’t find a real seminar at any University today.