BBG says: “Way back there was a set up on TV in which a guy would tell a joke in English to a Frenchman who would tell it in French to an Italian, to a German, to a Spaniard and then back to English. Of course nothing of the joke survived, which was the joke. Comparing the thoughts between thinkers of differing civilizations, races and millennia is compounded interest on the routine. It cannot be done.”

This really hit home. This is EXACTLY what Lawrence Brown was trying to explain in Might of the West. Accepted history tries to show a single continuum of a History of Mankind, and least of its problems is that it is in different languages.

If you go back to what the Renaissance nonsense says was the basis of our science, you find that they were talking about entirely different THINGS. BBG wrote the above in response to my description of what historians like to call the origin of our atomic science in one Greek philosopher.

He was not talking about our atomic science. He was questioning the “substance” idea in form and substance. There is no debate over this subject now. He was discussing this in a different language, a different language no matter how it is translated.

Lawrence Brown points out that few if any societies had what WE would call atheists. The world kept moving, so there must be a Prime Mover pushing it. We would call a Prime Mover a god.

Now we call it inertia. Every other society took it for granted that things could only keep moving if they were constantly pushed. But we take inertia for granted in the same way.

We are not speaking the same language. We are not living in the same world.

No other society ever divided Science and Religion the way we do. Where they were separated, they were different specialties, not different fields, and certainly no more contradictory than obstetrics contradicts ophthalmology.

The Mankind Theory of History ignores all this. It HAS to. Somehow it has to look at a seventeenth century Hottentot swimming in the Zambezi (Yes, Capoids were there then) and somehow show that that is a “stage of development” leading to the Moon Landing.

That takes a LOT of twisting. But we let them get away with it.

If we talk about the Mantra, the anti-white immediately says he is only talking his own country. So he has no idea of the fate of ALL white countries.

No one points out that he is hiding behind provinciality. Anti-whites are always talking about All Mankind and A Global Point of View. Then suddenly they say they are only talking about one country, so it isn‘t genocide.

Looked at one country at a time, immigration and assimilation is a policy. Looked at globally, it is genocide. They hide behind “mixing THE races,” they hide behind, “I am only talking about my own country.”

They are hiding behind provincialism, the same provincialism they so denounce.

Their whole world view is provincial. Mommy Professors of history refuse to talk about ancient thinking as it was. They only talk about how it led of what they call Modern Thinking, the Common Heritage of All Mankind.

The result is the same as BBG’s joke. This translation loses all its relevance, nay, all its SENSE, the same way that the joke loses its humor– it is not only no longer funny, it no longer makes SENSE.

By the time that joke comes from its tenth translation, you could easily teach how it was an entirely different joke originally, about any joke you want to make up. It could just as easily be used to show that it was a Wise Saying instead of a joke, a Wise Saying that just happens to coincide with whatever Mommy Professor is trying to sell right now.

Why is information produced. Let’s say you presented that meaningless mass of words to a journal as originally being the actual joke it was, or as the road traveled by different peoples to come to a Politically Correct conclusion.

Which do you think is more likely to be published?