It is true that one should look at what the other side does when it is successful. The problem with that advice is that it has been used by respectable conservatives so much to prove their respectability. So a John McCain has a lot of widely touted “new ideas,” but every one of his “new” ideas is a liberal one.

This is particularly loved by our rulers for the same reason Republicans going for the black vote is ridiculous. Those who, defeat after defeat, said Republicans could get the black vote pointed to Republican landslides, like Ike’s wins in 1952 and 1956, when some 40% of blacks voted for the GOP.

In the case of landslides, those who own the black vote do not put out the voter lists every black has when he goes to vote.

And the bottom-line, in a landslide, the black vote makes no difference. The voter list goes out in the ones where it matters, so every time a Republican believes that 40% myth will help him win a tight race, he gets trounced and blacks vote over 90% against him, as instructed.

The same thing is true when a McCain decides to be “flexible.” McCain decided to work with the Democrats on some “reasonable” gun controls bills. The tendency has been so strongly against anti-gun bills that this one was watered down to be one that might be passed in the present state of public opinion.

So this gun bill was to give the anti-gun lobby new life by getting something minor. Since it was so watered down, McCain decided it was part of his New Image to support it.

It is Republicans who want this New Image who actually pass marginal things like that. There’s nothing minor about them. They don’t waste their time on anything that doesn’t matter. McCain gave the anti-gun lobby a victory when it was about to go down for the count.

Just as the blacks only bother to boss their votes when it COUNTS.

So the cliché that one should do what the other side does when it is successful has a very deserved bad name. It has been routinely used by Republicans who rejected the Wallace vote for the hopeless pursuit of the black vote and by other outright traitors like McCain.

But the simple fact is that we are in this corner largely because somebody found ways to destroy us. Even in the 1950s, if you had described the present situation, integration would have been resisted nationwide. Our position was that integration was step towards a program of intermarriage and of doing away with the white race.

Half of the people who denied that would have switched sides if they had seen today. Those who denied it then embrace it today, but of course they talk about a “multiracial society” as if it applied to nonwhite countries as well as white ones. But people back then would have seen it for what it is.

The other side took the line that advanced their cause at the time. They never discussed what the logical continuation of integration was. They just kept to their line about how blacks were discriminated against.

Today, we are trying to make genocide against our race a legitimate issue. We refuse to discuss what exactly will be done about it until the other side stops using intimidation against us for talking about it.

Those on the other side insist that any discussion of the issue will lead to some specific Evil End.

They never let us talk about that Evil End on integration. They would have been fools to do so.

We honestly don’t know where policy will go when the simple survival of our race is accepted as something that can be discussed without thugs throwing a riot or our careers being ruined.

I have been in active politics since I campaigned for Strom Thurmond’s write-in campaign in 1954.

The reason you read is largely because I have been there and done that. Most of us don’t feel hurt when I criticize you because you are making a mistake I made, not once but over and over and over.

Which is why it is so unique that there is actually a very popular error I never made. That was failing to learn from the other side. But before you pin the medals on my shirt that I so richly deserve, let me point out that one reason for this was that in all my reading there was almost nothing BUT the other side.

That was when any debate on television consisted of liberal Republicans as The Other Side against the Democrats who represented what was declared openly to be “mainstream opinion.”

Back then all Civil Rights legislation was stopped by a Southern filibuster. Conservative Republicans simply would not vote closure on debate, which required the vote of two-thirds of the total Senate membership, 64 senators at the time.

Southerners would take turns talking. But it was particularly hard on advocates of the legislation, since they had to sit it out, day and night, while all but one Southern senator stayed away. If at any time there were not 48 of them sitting there, the Southerner talking would simply ask for a quorum call.

The media all declared that these Southerners and Northern conservatives were stopping legislation “mainstream opinion” supported.

My brother gave a very good ironic explanation: “The South, the Midwest, and the West are combining to thwart the National Will.”

One lesson I learned from this was that the side that says it’s the National Will, or anything else, is likely to be seen as doing so. When several leftist women, each of whom had been the serial rapist’s best friend in the most extreme period of “Criminals are innocent, it’s society’s fault in the 60s, held a press conference in the 70s to declare themselves The Women’s Movement, they were accepted as such.

One of their first big issues was how many serial rapists a male-run society was putting back on the streets.

I was not surprised that the Women’s Movement had almost no popular base at all. Hundreds of thousands of women joined women’s groups with a conservative, anti-Women’s Movement agenda. But they got no notice at all.

When we set up our highly-publicized Populist Forum, we set up press conferences for genuine ground level anti-textbook movements, independent truckers, and anti-bussers, wildcat coal strikers, farmer’s groups and lots of others. Since my press releases said exactly what they wanted to say without subordinating it to any spin, we simply had to turn down all the dozens of requests for our help because we had no money.

But the media did call us the Populist Forum, a name liberals would die for.

In fact, though he doesn’t know it, we secured that title so that James Edwards can use it now.

The other side gets out in public and claims things. But it also gives the press something it can USE. You write their articles for them and they will use your title. I once made the front page of the New York Times doing that.

Conservatives expect to lose all the big titles. The conservative women with larger outfits could have called themselves the REAL Women’s Movement, but they always used words like Christian or Traditional. if they had come to me I could have helped them take over the Women’s Movement title.

And if a bullfrog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his butt every time he jumped. Conservatives didn’t like me because I COULD do things. That is NOT the way you become a respectable conservative and earn money to pay for your suit and tie.

I would like some comments on whether we always assume everybody is against us when we go into our debates. It is the ones on the other side who do all the talking because they know what to say. Who doesn’t? For one I can say we have heard it a thousand times.

But what if we go in there knowing that there are a lot of people out there who are on our side but not only fear to say it in their own names, but who have no idea how to say it at all?

I have fought many, many battles watching conservatives cringe away and standing there alone. My boss in congress, John Ashbrook, did it all the time. He and three or four others would keep congress from adjourning and get huge concessions for it, while conservative congressmen around him bitched at him.

They hated him more than the liberals did for that because they knew he was right and didn’t have the guts to do likewise.

The PC crowd always assumes it is the major, if not the only, point of view. This can be done if 1) yours is the only point of view allowed and 2) no one knows how to get snout-to-snout with you and tell you yous is not.

As revolt goes on in the Middle East, Professional Journalists are asked about the rebels. The question of whether the US should support the rebels would be influenced by what the rebels themselves stand for.

I guess I am going to be the only one to bring up a major point about this. Professional Journalists are asked about opinion among those rebelling. In every case, they simply say “I don’t know.”

But everybody is supposed to realize who the Professional Journalists are.

When Patty Hearst was kidnapped, the Professional Journalists were playing touch football on the lawn of the Hearst Mansion, while a non-Professional went out and found out where she was and who the black group was that had kidnapped her.

As usual, a Professional is one who is credentialed by other Professionals. They don’t have to produce a damned thing.

No one is going to ask a Professional Journalist, “Well, why DON’T you know, or at least how do you plan to find out?” It never occurs to the public to wonder about that.

Intelligence is the same way. An admiral who ran the CIA effectively ended all on-the ground information gathering, the sort of thing I dealt with elsewhere, so when 9/11 came along, people were finally jolted out of their sleep by the fact the CIA had no moles, no inside people , no NOTHING.

The point was that the man was an admiral and therefore a Professional.

We just went through a period when approved Financial Professionals were handling the banking system, and the banking system exploded in our faces.

One again, the Financial Professionals we not required to show anything but that they were approved by other Financial Professionals. Someone who hired a Financial Professional to handle his investments got the same average returns as someone who did it himself, minus the Professionals’ commissions.

Tens of billions of dollars went to Professionals inbuilt huge buildings and put the Professionals in penthouses, and they did not produce one single net dime. Then there were Professionals who rose into handling the whole financial system. The result was the same as turning the banking system over to Joe Blow, except that nobody would let Joe Blow get away with it.

A long, long time ago a liberal who worked for my first publisher was comparing types of bravery. He said he had worked for a branch of public broadcasting and they had been openly Marxist.

This stopped the comparisons.

You see, people on my side got their careers ruined for expressing their sentiments, we didn’t get PAID to do it.

But the left absolutely spills over with money. Whenever I see those programs about protecting the whales, my first thought is how much that gigantic, highly maneuverable luxury boat costs.

People sit drooling at their bravery. But in any large movement you can find people who are physically brave. I spent a lot of time among mercenaries. It was a great cover. What people exposing you want to find out is something like “Were you a mercenary?” Then no one asks why you were in the area. It’s a lot like pleading guilty to shoplifting so someone will not consider you for the armed robbery that took place nearby at the same time.

To our establishment working in intelligence against the Communists is being a terrorist. When they look into the background of a Red spy he is looked upon as a good guy who was overzealous. An anti-Communist who was in on any rough stuff against the Reds is a Bad Guy.

This has implications. If you read abut the Democratic congressman who got support for the Afghan rebels against the Soviet Occupation of their homeland, you will see the vast opposition he faced, and you can imagine what they would have done if he wasn’t a congressman.

I wasn’t a congressman.

So when a guy tells me how brave he was preaching Marxism on public money, a stance his bosses approve and no conservative will ever have the cajones to do anything about, I am not impressed.

All this is not to prove how brave I am. I had quite enough of old guys bragging abut their incredible bravery from the Greatest Generation, thank you mucho, but this is a practical matter. We are afraid to go out on a limb because we know the people on the right are cowards.

In fact, one of the requirements to be on the respectable right is that you are a coward. No establishment will tolerate people it cannot cow.

It is not an accident that the only one of 538 senators and congressmen, and the delegates, in congress who got out there and forced them to support resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was a Democrat. I worked for Republicans and went through battle after battle on Capitol Hill, and they have as strong a filter against Republicans with balls as they have against anyone showing up with a swastika.

That Democrat was also a Southerner. He got the black vote up against the congressman he replaced, and that’s about all you hear about him. He explained he did it all because of a personal grudge against that man for killing his dog.

In real politics the guy he replaced was as pro-black as any other Democrat. I heard him say that on an interview, but it got tuned out somehow.

The sum of what I am saying here is not Deep Wisdom. What I am saying is that, since the left dominates the media, even the most desperate don’t deny that since the Obama campaign, it is the media who get to select their own “Opposition.”

If you got to select your own “opposition,” would you pick people with any backbone, any brains, any irony, any depth,?

ANYTHING?

If you don’t believe me, take a good look at every one of the professional, quoted conservatives.

This is not a conspiracy, this is a fact of life.

What the word “irony” really means is that something is absolutely ridiculous and usually cruel, but it is also absolutely true. Most Politically Correct doctrine falls into this category.

We all know that colleges simply will not hire more than 10% conservative faculty and we all know that any criticism of this is declared in the media to be a violation of “academic freedom.” This is irony to those who allow themselves to think about it.

Most illegal jokes in other tyrannies are also ironic. The Soviet joke, “Saudi Arabia has just gone Communist and the government has announced that there is a shortage of sand,” was profoundly true to those who lived in Eastern Europe on a level far, far below the poverty level right across the line in Western Europe.

Respectable conservatives had long articles about the philosophy of Marxism versus their pet authorities when every single Communist country was surrounded by a wall or a guard strip that would make a prison proud. There was no theory about it, people wanted OUT.

In over thirty years, National Review never mentioned that simple fact ONCE. In thirty years, that fact was never mentioned by a conservative “opposition” voice on the national media. Because it was irony, it was, and is truth: “Why argue about Communism when all Red countries are prisons?”

I went to a refugee conference in 1959 in West Berlin. East Germans fourteen years old or older were accepted alone in West Berlin. Half of the working-age population had already been “lost” to the West because of that outflow to the giant refugee camps we visited.

So they built the Berlin Wall to face down the new president, John Kennedy, in 1961. Anyone trying to escape was shot.

Respectable conservatives give you the impression that the Berlin Wall is special. I have been on the borders of many Communist countries, and every one of them had at least land-mined strips and guard towers with orders to shoot on sight.

Robert Morley, very pro-Communist himself, was vociferous about the time he was just walking along the Hungarian border on the inside and suddenly realized he had a machine gun pointed at him ready to shoot.

But I have never heard ANY respectable conservative mention this.

A person who understands irony ruins the debate. If a conservative said to a socialist, “So you want the whole economy run like the U.S. Post Office” the Serious Two-Sided Discussion would collapse in laughter. A respectable conservative can not make a living if he sees THROUGH things.

In other words, there is a very strict upper limit on the intelligence of respectable conservatives.

From time to time there are those who are allowed to make a living as respectable conservatives who are intelligent, Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan come to mind. But in every such case, there is a reason. The reason Buchanan was allowed to be a major voice so loud was because, as he started getting some national attention as when he ran for President they could depend on his ending up a religious nutcase.

His advertisements denounced funding for gay rallies but his sister decided that putting those gay marches on national television would be pornographic. So all you ever heard of those ads was that they were not real pictures, which was true, and the rallies themselves were made to look respectable.

Pat actually denounced suppressing fundamentalist Creation doctrine in the schools, which would have been legitimate on the basis of local opinion running schools, but instead he went into the same old nineteenth century crap about how he was no monkey.

People can respect a person who gets his science out of the Bible, but nobody’s going to elect him to national office, much less the Senate.

To be a respectable conservative, you have to have some mental handicap that makes you harmless.

From time to time some young person on campus asks me how much he can say and still not be liquidated career wise. Some are actually staying on for an academic career, and they do not look forward to all those years of hypocrisy until they get tenure.

I am not very comforting, nor do I think I am the person who could advise them best:

I went back to grad school briefly in 1992,and from that and other sources I know that the suppression of thought is much greater seen than when I was in academe, and it was rough then.

I am able to say what you want to say because I am safely retired from a workaholic career.

You can probably get away with some version of Mantra as a “special concern,” but you had better be orthodox on all else.

It will be of interest to me if you get away with some version of the Mantra before you get warned.

You can do good field work as you find the answer to your own question. What CAN you say? You will have to find that out in the field rather than from a person who’s a generation out of date.

I think you can get away with some version of the Mantra. But even tenure won’t protect from this kind of heresy,

Like the Soviet samizdat writers, “You will NEVER be FREE.”

So, as always, I want to remind you that YOU have to learn all this in ACTION.

My drilling can be very useful to you, but one reason it is is because I read GCVI carefully, and I read the reports people send to me.

Calling my stuff your drill has some lessons in it. The most obvious thing you find in military history is that professional soldiers fight exactly the same way they lost the last war. The strategy of France against Germany in 19870, 1914, and 1940 was exactly the same, and each time they got stomped on.

This may be part of the explanation why so many pro-white leaders keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. They can’t overcome their DRILLING.

You note I am wrong about a lot of details and even spelling. You will correct me if I go too far over the edge, and the only facts that would make my writings seriously wrong would be if someone actually showed me an Ancient Civilization whose people collapsed PERMANENTLY and who didn’t turn into brown people, or how the world was anxious to get rid of any other race than ours.

I give you pivotal realities, and the details are part of the explanation. But the real test of what I say is when I am out there trying my stuff on real people. My advice to you is tested daily on the battlefront YOU are on.

As we get more participants, we will have some who report their experience among the Thought Police, who make no secret of their existence, on campus.

In the Soviet Union, samizdat writers had no guide but how many of their fellows were arrested for a particular article, to the extent they could find out.

But, as one commenter pointed out, the samizdats did not make real progress until they broke through the Silence, exactly the way BUGS is aimed at doing.

A totalitarian today makes as few open martyrs as he can. Everywhere the modern tyranny ruins or commits people, it doesn’t smash their door down.

The Silence has been imposed steadily on America. Racists used to be interviewed by talk show hosts, under very unfair conditions, but they were interviewed. Then all the hosts decided that anyone who even interviewed one would be committing heresy. They were no longer subjected to ridicule, because Archie Bunker showed a lot of people saw through the game, so they were subjected to the Silence.

Today respectable conservatives are the “other side,” the ONLY “other side.” In their later years, the Communists adopted this strategy.

In East Germany I saw the headquarters of the Social Democratic Party of the DDR, an “opposition” voice supported and chained by the still-Stalinist Communist Party which ruled East Germany. The Russian Orthodox Church was a branch of the State in Soviet Russia, which paid the priests’ salaries.

Those who thought the Church would oppose the regime were sadly disappointed.

Respectable “Christian” conservatives know which side their bread is buttered on.

This is a life-and-death game for young people who expect to depend on academe for their livelihoods. Nor is any other pro-white’s livelihood much safer.

In a case like this, I am not about to play The Wise Old Man at the risk of people’s ruining themselves taking my advice.

If you have some good advice on this and you withhold it from Comments, you are taking the same risk with your comrades’ lives.

The final authority in BUGS is not Bob, it is reality.

Conservatives have just adopted a “new” policy on crime. It calls for more parole, shorter sentences, and less prisons.

It is pure déjà vu. But ALL new conservative policies are déjà vu. The National Review article announcing this great new crime advance is exactly like the ones I read from liberals who were demanding all the same things in the 1950s. They were adopted and crime went out of control. Like the liberal articles then, the NR one carefully said that none of this was being soft on criminals.

Likewise, the new heroine of paleoconservatives declares the Tea Party’s Worship Martin Luther King Day, while at the same time yelling about the borders not being protected. We kept telling conservatives that “a little bit of integration is like a little bit of pregnancy,” once you start along that road you can’t preserve ANYTHING.

I can tell you from personal experience that nobody, from open Marxist to pro-white, wants to hear plain political reality.

Those who won the media have a buyer’s market. There is a huge glut of turncoat Southerners and respectable conservatives to choose from, and it doesn’t take a Conspiracy to get them to select ex-school teachers like O’Reilly or pure wimps like Hannity. A Catholic with a Southern background like Buckley had an agonizing desire to be respected by his WASP Yale colleagues.

Underneath Buckley’s genuine dislike of leftism was his groveling need for approval from the John Galbraiths of the world.

When James Edwards polled his listeners about who THEY wanted him to interview again, they chose me. In fact, the last time he interviewed me he told me he had twice as many listeners as he did when he had Bay Buchanan on, back when the Buchanans were hot. But when his listeners chose me again, he was a bit embarrassed that he hadn’t invited me on for six years.

This is to be expected. Bay Buchanan is a name one can tell other leaders about and get admired and praised for such a catch.

Even National Public Radio had me for few shows and when they realized what I had to say they dropped me –no surprise.

No one interviews me more than twice.

Not a single person I interviewed with had the Mantra right or could even cite the key words.

I wrote a number of articles for National Review, too. They were widely quoted and were not even heresy. They were simply too common sense.

And that, not heresy, is why I am so unpopular.

And why YOU are so unpopular.

When I explain that obviously the left is going to choose to argue with conservatives they consider reasonable, and who admit that every conservative policy of a generation ago was evil, and lead the lynch mob against anyone who takes the same stand they did back then, it is not exposing any conspiracy.

Hannity’s boy Colmes was selected, and liberals were astonished to see that he was a complete wimp, just like the conservatives they choose.

Like the market system, the stable political system makes choices without any conspiracy to it. Just because something is predictable does NOT mean that it is a plot.

In fact, like the free market, the system organizes itself much more effectively than any conspirators could.

It goes like this: a liberal policy is introduced, tried, and fails. A generation later conservatives pick it up, and, no matter what a failure it is in practice, it becomes “the way America works,” adopted by BOTH sides.

In the meantime, instead of noticing the pattern, the paleoconservative screamers and the Conspiracy types yell.

So we get a Sara Palin declaring a worship MLK Day while leading the shouting about what happened to our keeping Mexicans out.

The more you fit into the system, the more publicity you can get. Anyone who fits at all into the system doesn’t want to hear from me. But that is not because they are not sincere. A violence-demanding extremist is far more welcome to the system than I am. Someone who demands that you read huge books and adopt more World Views in order to oppose obvious insanity is far more welcome than any BUGSter.

And that is in ALL parts of the system, the Bad Guys AND the Good Guys.

Both the white hats and the black guys have a role in the movie, but they are united in opposing anyone saying on screen that it IS a movie.