B. U. G. S.

We are on our way. You should be able to get my whole way of thinking in the thousands of words that are already here.

The articles here will be becoming sparser, partly because any new piece risks damaging what we have done so far.

For example, I made the point many times that in my professional days I had to work with the problem having MY NAME associated with any idea prevented that idea from being spread.

As a direct result of this, over the years I evolved means of getting others to use my ideas in their own names. The result was that I had an enormous, incalculable influence on what happened in the real world.

For example, while someone like Kemp would dedicate his entire political life to promoting The Laffer Effect — the obvious reality that the right tax cuts could produce more rather than less revenue — the basis of Reagan’s successful tax cut policy — I could spread concepts just as important, one after another.

The whole idea that my name was SUCH a negative factor sounded strange, even to me, when I heard myself say it.

So I was relieved to find that this “Bob” problem continues today with our pro-white allies. The point FOR ME is that this proves I was dead on that subtle point of basic strategy.

So I was delighted when David Duke was honest enough to reject what he specifically referred to as “Bob Whitaker’s Mantra.”

Dave is an old friend, and Dave doesn’t do things behind my back.

That is what I WROTE. What did you READ?

“Infighting against other pro-whites!!!!!!!!!”

It is a damaging charge, and accusing me of infighting is also a great way to miss the point entirely.

But no one contradicted the commenter.

If I say something about one of our few allies, no one should conclude I do it just to attack them, and if someone indicates I DO, YOU should point out that I WOULDN’T.

Or you can just leave the harm to be done.

Which means the article should not have been written for THIS audience.

You have to actually READ what I write to know what I am getting at, and it is getting harder and harder for me to write.

I wrote a piece about my conclusion that respectable conservatives are routine traitors and liars.

A basic rule of interrogation is that a person who uses the word “liar” frequently is ALWAYS a liar.

For me, treason is what it was to Dante when he gave the entire Tenth Circle of Hell EXCLUSIVELY to traitors. Long before Dante, it was an honor to our ancestors to die fighting beside the leader they swore allegiance to.

Lie and Treason are big words to me.

So it was not easy for me to come to those conclusions.

I have said this many times here: It is not easy for me to conclude people are liars and traitors.

That’s what I WROTE.

What did my readers READ?

“Well, Bob, it’s easy to accuse them of that, but have you considered any alternatives?”

If you have read me regularly and are capable of asking that, more articles are a waste of time.

You see, a mathematics professor proceeds to ever more complex equations, BASED ON WHAT HE HAS TAUGHT ALREADY.

If you can only see the possibility that I am just criticizing my allies or shouting liar and traitor mindlessly, writing here is a mine field: These half-wit, UNCONTRADICTED comments are a risk to everything we have done so far.

“Even his readers are tired of Bob’s attacks on Dave.”

“Bob has started calling everybody a liar and a traitor.”

I cannot give advanced lessons in political math if I have to keep going back to the multiplication tables.

So the articles have to be more and more careful, and harmless ones are harder and harder to write.

Besides, who needs harmless articles?