For humans, St. Peter insisted on The Golden Rule.

Animals, he said, were “made to be taken and destroyed. “

That’s safely in the Memory Hole, of course, since there is a whole industry called Animal Rights. In fact, there is a Memory Hole about the Golden Rule, since so many people make their living by interpreting the Ten Commandments.

Gavin says:

“So the mistake of the Google age is…not looking at why a piece of information is available?”

I read this article several times and got kind of frustrated that I couldn’t seem to pick out the point.

Two things the world really needs is writers who have the guts to admit they screwed up and readers to say they just don’t GET it.

Most of the old writers who make total goofs of themselves are crippled by readers who think that if they do not understand The Master, it is because of a lack in them.

Often I know I’m saying something important but I haven’t gotten it straightened out in my mind.

So I thought about the basic point here again.

How’s this?

In the Chained Book Age , when books were so few they were chained and guarded, someone who could read Greek and Latin and had access to the chained books and had actually READ them, was King.

In the University Age, professors used this old superstition about Classic Authorities as a front, telling each other, as they had since the Chained Book Age, that the public should be ordered around by the Intellectuals. Those who did not agree with Father Mommy Professor just Didn’t Understand and should leave the world to their betters.

Now we are at an opposite pole in ONE sense: We have information by the ton dumped into our laps.

But the basic problem is the same one we had in the Chained Book Age: Is it all true? How much of it is embarrassing tommyrot?

If there is tommyrot, why would anyone PRODUCE that tommyrot?

The world has changed greatly since I wrote about this problem in my first book in 1976. Back then, the idea that the National Education Association had a vested interest in big government that was as blatant as big business’s financial and power interests was entirely new.

Those who live off of government want big government. That was wildly radical in 1976, and many conservatives who thought of themselves as the PROPER Ruling Elite resented it as much as leftists did.

Try Googling any subject and you will get nothing unless you understand why what comes up under your subject is there. There are ads. We know why they are there. There is Political Correctness, you know why that is there, and it is not just because it is The Truth.

But most people think it IS the truth. To really understand Internet information, you must understand why it is THERE, why it is PRODUCED. You understand instantly why you get so many ads, but you don’t go into the SUBTEXT, you don’t do the Mantra Thinking, which is taking the obvious and applying it to its full depth.

All information is produced for a reason. If you don’t think about that reason, you cannot analyze the data.

All this makes the subject much clearer to ME, and I wouldn’t have done it if Gavin hadn’t just flat said, “This is not clear.”

A British reader repeated the observation that, to an Englishman, Conservative means The Conservative Party.

One of the first accomplishments of Whitaker Online was to invent the term “respectable conservative” and make it part of American discourse. Our problem was not the slightest bit different from yours. Here, “conservative” meant Republican or Reagan or, God forbid, William Buckley

Our very few readers at the end of the last century were from the League of the South, who had an enormous acquaintance among professional conservatives. National Review readership is, in fact, very concentrated in South Carolina.

Within months, National Review began to have mentions of why they needed to be, SPECIFICALLY, “respectable.” Please note the highlights and the quotes. It was MY terminology.

The BNP, like other conservatives, spends a lot of time trying to get camouflage behind the other side, minorities on their board, etc. To them, the very IDEA of taking on the very terminology of politics is as alien as it would be to Jared Taylor.

You have exactly the same terminology we do. There is no European terminology, European “opinion” is entirely filter-down from the Boston Globe.

The same is true of American dialogue. The first thing the Tea Party did was have a public worship of MLK.

I am an ex-AMERICAN football player. I am no good at soccer and, God knows, no good at Cricket.

But in many ways, the game is the same. Everything I do is against the tide of what the average person understands.

In fact, the very reason the Mantra works is because it declares OUR wording.

If Brits cannot imagine that a conservative can be anything but a Tory Party membership card, you have your work cut out for you.

The American Groveling-to-British Titles Habit, which made the world what it is today by getting us into both World Wars, is well under way as Elizabeth II approaches her Diamond Jubilee.

This is one of the few points on which Sam Dickson and I differ. He has what he considers the classical conservative respect for the monarchy.

This is one of many reasons I am NOT a conservative.

The Queen, who generally keeps out of politics, made it clear a long time ago that anyone in the world who considers themselves Her Subject has as much right to live in Britain as anyone who was merely born there.

In other words, HER birth as Queen is all-important, but no Englishman or Scot or Welshman or Ulsterman has any right to the place where HE was born.

Race treason is part and parcel of the British Monarchy. It is much part and parcel of Classism as it is of Wordism.

One of the lesser known reasons for the Revolution, because it did not affect New England, was when King George decided that the Indians between the Appalachians and Mississippi were his subjects as much as those white looking ones, and forbade any of the whites from settling west of the Mississippi.

To a Classist, the color of the subject truly and genuinely makes no difference. It’s all a mattah of Claahss.

That is, in fact, why black slavery was introduced to the Americas.

By a priest.

Around 1500, local Indians were being forced into slavery in the West Indies. Since they were hunters and gatherers, they died quickly when forced into slave work. So, in the Spirit of Christ, a priest organized it so that slaves were brought over from Africa.

To save, among others, the Caribs.

There were, in fact, plenty of Indian slaves who could work and live in the West Indies. They were residents of the old civilizations of the Aztecs and Mayas. The Aztecs’ slaves were the ones who considered themselves lucky they weren’t used for the mass sacrifices that made up the Aztec religions.

But the King, Whose Ass They Longed to French Kiss, had forbidden Indian slavery. They were His Subjects. So the Good Father brought slaves from Africa.

The Caribs died like flies. For all the talk about the diseases brought by Europeans to America, Africa was the place where WHITES died of local disease. Senegal was know as “The White Man’s Graveyard.” The West India Indians were wiped out in record time.

So we were stuck with Black slavery, which, in the name of Christ, was abolished by killing 600,000 white men in the Civil War.

By the way, the shortest book n the Bible, the Book of Titus, says “If you are a master, be a good master, if you are a slave, be a good slave.”

You’ll find it in the Memory Hole

And no, I do NOT wish that loathsome race traitor Ass Kissee well.

I use the word “subtext” a lot because it is the only word I know that covers the concept. Normally, subtext is used to describe the reason an Old West movie is not supposed to get a helicopter within camera or sound range.

But what about all the sermons we hear about “The poor we have with us always,” that go on and on about the poor. The poor were the SUBtext. What Christ SAID was that the crowd should realize that the poor they have with always, but HE was right there in front of them for a very limited time.

Preachers didn’t preach about THAT, even in the old days. Today they use that quote to concentrate on their REAL religion of Political Correctness. Before it ended up being about the poor or about tithing.

To Jesus, speaking to the people and knowing that His death was near, was not thinking about contributions to SPLC or money to make fat bishops fatter. It is even a bit much to say that ALL the sermons preached on the subject with that title were not even subtext to Jesus when He said “The poor we have always with us.”

And what He MEANT is not even up the level of subtext in any sermon I have ever heard on the subject.

But the only accurate word I know is subtext. As I say, it usually means what is taken for granted, as in “The Old West had a distinct shortage of helicopters.” But when someone says so and so saw him, the subtext is that He saw that somebody.

When Derbyshire and Buchanan were fired, the columns they had written about blacks were unquestionably true. The important subtext is that The Truth is No Defense. That has a deep history in the United States. The Truth is no Defense was rejected by Americans by means of jury nullification in a famous New York case as early as 1735 in the trial of John Peter Zenger, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were thrown out, not by courts, but by the electorate.

In fact, the issue of the truth is no excuse a major basis of the 1800 election, and it was the ELECTORATE, not the courts, who got rid of them.

In fact, rejection of the Alien and Sedition Acts threw out the last Federalist House, Senate, President. The last Federalist official to hold national office was Chief Justice John Marshall, who stated that the Supreme Court IS the Constitution.

With the SUBTEXT, it is odd to look to the Supreme Court to DEFEND the Bill of Rights.

Voters in 1800 would have recognized the reason the right fired Derbyshire and MSNBC fired Buchanan. Raoul Williams kept insisting that the words he got fired from PBS for saying were perfectly correct.

But you can only deal with subtext by SILENCE.

The minute the difference between the US freedom of speech attitude and the British, The Truth is No Defense, is put into its historical context, a breach between us that never healed and makes us non-Britons, it is LOST.

So all the left, the center, the tame conservatives, AND the “extreme right” either join in silencing that question or have never heard of it and wouldn’t use it if they had.

When you’ve got a TAME opposition, you don’t need a Conspiracy.