One commenter asked if anyone had looked into disappearing plots in BUGS.

Let me repeat this the hundredth time: BUGS is not a site where “someone” or “anyone” does anything.

“Anyone” is for general purpose bitching, and we don’t need that here.

If you have a proposal, DO it. Stormfront has had at least ten thousand no-question-this-will-conquer-the-world-if-SOMEONE-does-its.

If you will need help, GET IT STARTED and THEN ask for help, telling them what you have accomplished.

We got mixed up and took out a subject a few days ago about 9 AM, along with several comments on it, including White Rabbits.

This not a Jewish Plot. It was a screw up.

I wonder if the people who talk about “someone” have ever done anything themselves

Summer in South Carolina in 1952 was hot. So we listened to the Republican Convention outside on our car radio. Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, who would die the following year of cancer, was neck and neck with Dwight Eisenhower.

Have you ever noticed how the establishment always wins the close ones? In 1976 President Ford won a very similar squeaker against Reagan. Taft had been the conservative candidate in 1040, 1944, and 1948, and each time the establishment beat him and put in a semi-Democratic candidate.

Taft represented a point of view which disappeared altogether with his death. He had opposed extreme interventionism in the European War, and he opposed extended American commitments against Communism.

Actually, what he opposed was what I repeatedly called “military welfarism,” a term which is now for the first time being used.

You should y now take it for granted that the same Eisenhower who used the term “military-industrial establishment” was its greatest architect. He wanted American troops on European soil supplied by American taxpayers using weapons made by American industry .

In 1959, when Europe was on its feet industrially, Eisenhower renewed the old post-War contract that drafted American troops at American expense to go to Europe and protect them. By then Western Europe’s economy and its population outstripped the Soviet Union.

But by 1959, with Taft’s death, the Republicans Party upheld military welfarism as part of its Potemkin Patriotic policy.

Ron Paul is considered a real kook for saying that country which is collapsing under debt should not get into war after war.

Paul is throwback, but a very legitimate throwback.

I am reading War Through the Ages AGAIN. It was the basic textbook on military history at West Point back when military history was considered relevant for cadets. Nowadays it probably would get in the way of today’s Relevant Reading about Human Relations and how to turn down a queer without hurting his feelings.

There is an explanation of the difference between the strategy of the Roman Empire compared the last comparable Empire, that of Alexander and his father Phillip. The Roman Legion did not, like those short-lived strategies of Phillip and Alexander, begin with a string of uninterrupted victories:

“The system went on, steadily keeping abreast of changing conditions, and each defeat they learned what they had done wrong that time.” The strategy of Alexander, the book points out, ended almost immediately upon his death, and Greeks went back to the old phalanx. It was created and disappeared in a period of half a century.

The Roman system lasted at least five hundred years.

A lot of people know about the short sword. The pilum is seldom recognized by laymen. We have a pilum, the Mantra. We throw that spear and disorganize the enemy ranks. It is vital, but it is not part of the complicated strategy that occurs next, when the Legions go in in their patented formation and gut the enemy individually with short swords.

I am sure those years of development of the Roman Legion saw endless numbers of people saying exactly what we hear on BUGS, “This shoulder to shoulder, same weapons crap is SLAVISH. I want to step out of formation, scream my battle cry, and take on the enemy the way my forefathers did.”

“You know, back when they were losing.”

The Legion was not really slavish. In fact slaves, punished the way Roman citizen-soldiers were, would have died.

No, those who slowly evolved the Legions were not slaves. In fact, the first time citizen-soldiers crossed Rome’s border to go on attack, the soldiers sat down and refused to move until the leaders told them what it was all about.

We can compare our Mantra to the pilum. As I have said, THEN we use the short sword, and we STAY IN FORMATION.

Citizen-soldiers who were ruled by two elected consuls, each ruling on alternative days, formed this “slavelike” strategy.

They were rigidly trained and consistent:

“The Romans are successful …for their exercises are battles without bloodshed and their battles bloody exercises.”

One thing everybody knew about Napoleon was that he was a midget.

As usual the lesson I want to point out to you about this has nothing to do with Napoleon.

The man was actually dug up and autopsied!

But the story that he was about 4’10” tall made it into a quote from his autopsy report I once saw.

The word is now that they quoted a British length that made him 5’2” instead of the actual over 5’6”, which was actually slightly above average in his age.

You will probably find all of these somewhere in Google, each of which could be quoted to make your point.

It’s not as if nobody ever SAW Napoleon. Half of the British aristocracy went over and met him personally during the one year of peace under the Treaty of Amiens.

Simply the complete disagreement and movie after movie showing Napoleon as short — especially Time Bandits — makes it clear that somebody is DEAD wrong.

Once you ask “Why is information produced?” you have the answer: A midget Bonaparte is more INTERESTING than one of average height.

But what most people don’t ever understand is the POWER of “Why was this information produced?”

Most people before the Internet could not have imagined that leading experts and witnesses produced AUTHORITATIVE statement that he was midget or above average height.

People laugh at us when we explain HOW mistaken information is. And our entire world view is determined by information a lot harder to get hold of Nappy’s vertical.

I think the word is smarmy, somebody who is always smiling and not quite saying anything.

If Romney says anything, it will be after he has assured everybody how handsome Obama is and bring out the endless string of clichés required of respectable conservatism.

Gingrich is often stupid and wrong, but he gets it OVER with. He just says the required horseshit and then goes on to the subject.

Romney is the perfect image of the Republicans who runs as a non-Democrat. He smiles and he smiles and he smiles.

There may be an undercurrent of the Internet Age here. One of the great innovations of this age is TLDR — Too Long, Didn’t Read. This attitude may be getting to politics. In the 1850’s Lincoln or Douglas would have an audience that brought a couple of meals and expected a short speech to give hem at least two hours’ entertainment.

Now the standard respectability ritual, which varies about as reciting the Creed does in church, causes the audience to cough and get restless.

One can see Gingrich with a wrinkle in his suit and one does not associate him with a smile. The media emphasizes this because it has always demanded smarmy conservatives who repeat the Creed carefully and in full.

I wonder what Romney would be like with a single wrinkle in his jacket or with no hint of an apologetic smile on his face?

There is nothing to choose between a Gingrich or a Romney, or an Obama as president.

So maybe, just maybe, people are getting tired of sitting through the Creed and waiting the apologetic smile.