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.