November 13, 1999

An 87-year-old British woman who spied for Stalin says she would do it again. She will never be prosecuted. She is a media heroine in Britain.

General Pinochet was the Chilean ruler who overthrew Communist rule in his country. He is now being extradited from Britain to Spain. A British court has ruled that the 83-year-old Pinochet must be sent to Spain for trial. He is to be tried there for actions that occurred under his rule IN CHILE.

Unlike Stalin, Pinochet ended his rule by turning Chile over to an elected government. Unlike Stalin, Pinochet had no agents trying to subvert the governments of other countries around the world. None of that matters. All that matters is that Pinochet was a rightist, and the old lady who spied for Stalin in Britain was a leftist. No former Communist has ever been tried for what happened under their regime. No Leftist will ever be tried for this sort of thing (See December 5, 1998, article, “Only the Right Can Incite“).

Margaret Thatcher denounced Pinochet’s extradition as a “judicial kidnapping… which would do credit to a police state.”

Some years ago, an American who put Nazi propaganda on the Internet FROM HIS HOME IN THE UNITED STATES was seized in Denmark and sent to Germany for trial. German law prohibits Americans from putting pro-Nazi propaganda on the Internet in America, since it can be read in Germany. So this American is in prison there for four years.

American publications, of course, backed this kidnapping of an American. You see, they said, this guy was “hiding behind the first amendment” in the United States. Those were the words they all used.

Interesting. None of these publications ever says that repeat felons are “hiding behind the Bill of Rights” when they are let off. In
those cases, the criminals are just “exercising their civil rights.”

In the 1950s, witness after witness went before the House Committee on UnAmerican activities and refused to answer the question, “Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?” They claimed their right to refuse to testify against themselves under the Fifth Amendment. No one in the liberal media said they were “hiding behind” the Fifth Amendment.

Documents found in KGB files now make it clear that Soviet penetration into the highest levels of the United States Government existed at a level liberals denied hotly until very, very recently. But they would be the first to insist that this did not justify taking constitutional protection away from American citizens.

Liberals insist that the protections of the United States Constitution should not be denied to Americans even to protect real United States security interests. But they are all for allowing foreign countries to kidnap an American to protect Germany. It is necessary to protect Germany from a revival of the Third Reich, a revival which will be caused by the propaganda of one American.

And that is the least of it. Would we praise an action that takes a leftist American away from the protection of the United States
Constitution and kidnaps them into countries where those protections do not exist?

What do you think liberals would have said if one of those Americans suspected of being Communists had been extradited to Spain or South Africa, where they could not claim the protection of the Fifth Amendment? Would liberals have approved of that?

Liberals would have gone ballistic. So would respectable conservatives.

Every respectable conservative publication in America either backed this kidnapping of an American or stayed silent.

Conservatives were too cowardly to say anything when the American Nazi was kidnapped. But even some of these cowardly morons are beginning to see a pattern developing with the seizure of Pinochet.

Obviously, what happened to Pinochet is entirely a result of the fact that he was an anti-Communist, while those who helped Stalin are heroic. Many conservatives are upset about Pinochet. Now they are feeling a little bit threatened. The threat is beginning to dawn even on these cowardly numbskulls.

I keep sounding this warning: anything that can be done to anyone by the left not only CAN be done to you, it WILL be done to you (See September 11, 1999 article, “Waco: Conservative Cowardice and Stupidity Helped It Happen”).

January 1, 2000

I had difficulty deciding what to write for the millennium WOL, because I write every piece for the new century. The reason I write here is because I am a veteran of over four decades of real political warfare, and the war, not yesterday’s battle, is my area of expertise.

The issue that will be the most important in the future is invariably the one today’s establishment is most desperate to avoid talking about. Today, that issue is race.

For a short time during the integration battle in the 1950s, liberals kept saying that we had to integrate because whites were outnumbered. They pointed out that colored children were being born in ratios of at least five to one to whites throughout the world. That line of argument stopped abruptly. Liberals suddenly realized that if they kept it up, some whites might realize the real position they were in in the world.

Though few people are aware of it, this is the effect the shrinking of the world through technology is having on a lot of people. Most people are more tolerant racially, but at the same time the idea that whites have a right to feel threatened is growing.

In the long run, a victorious political strategy is one that takes what everybody knows is true and sticks to it, letting the other side discredit itself. The ruling establishment, such as that which enforces Political Correctness today, can always be counted on to rely more and more on brute power and intimidation. That is what destroys it.

One aspect of the leadership that wins in the Western world will be that it will simply talk rationally about race, as about everything else.

I have no trouble discussing white fears with real, flesh-and-blood members of minority groups. In the future, whites with normal concerns will want to be represented, and, once they are, it will become part of the routine political landscape.

I don’t think you can imagine how it would cripple leftism if we were to simply make the point that white concerns are real and legitimate, and leave it at that. Right now, every conservative allows liberals to make them prove that they have no racial thoughts whatsoever. In short, they let the other side subject everybody to a Thought Crime accusation from the word “Go.”

I have spent four decades as an expert on political warfare.

I tell you the right is doomed if they do not deal with this Thought Crime business. As long as the left has this “racism” weapon UNCHALLENGED in their hands, the right can only retreat.

January 1, 2000

Before we discuss what will happen in the twenty-first century, it would be useful to talk about what didn’t happen in the twentieth. In 1976, I began my first book with the following words:

“Our most trusted ‘inevitables’ are collapsing around our ears today. We used to hear that integration would make mankind one, inevitably. It was said that socialism was the most efficient economic system, and would be universally adopted. Bigger, more interfering government was not long ago an inevitable. The United Nations was to lead on a rocky but inevitable road to a united world. Rehabilitation, not punishment, would end crime.”

“Public confidence in these certainties has collapsed.”

Socialism, Thomas Dewey’s New Education, the criminals-as-victims theory, all these things have been obvious disasters.

As you can see, if we had entered the millennium forty years ago, trendy media opinion would have listed a number of things that would “inevitably” develop in the coming decades. Now we are reduced to one.

Today all the “inevitables” are gone but one. That is the inevitable “solution to the race problem” by immigration and integration. This “race problem” exists only in white majority countries.

A white country is said to have a race problem if there is racial friction. But there is also a “racial problem” if there is an area where there is no minority population, no “diversity.”

Over a hundred and twenty million Japanese, with a population more racially uniform than in any European country, has no “race problem.”

Red China, with ten times as many people and far more racial uniformity, has no “race problem.”

Sub-Saharan Africa, with a racial uniformity that would drive the integrators insane if it were white, has no race problem at all. A “race problem” exists only where whites predominate.

“Race problem” means “white problem.” The “solution to the race problem” always means “the solution to the white problem.”

Respectable conservatives never mention it, but the left uses code words. One of these is “the race problem.” This so-called “race problem” only exists in white-majority countries. When Australia limited immigration to whites only, it was a “race problem.” Any area which has an all-white population has a “race problem,” and needs to be integrated.

The one inevitable that every person who is allowed to speak out in our society is required to agree with is that, in the next millennium, “the race problem” will be solved.

Analog Magazine is the most prestigious publication in science fiction. Analog had always featured its cover art, beautiful representations of bold warriors and their women in ancient garb or in futuristic space uniforms doing heroic battle. They were all Nordics.

In the 1970s a liberal editor, Ben Bova, took Analog over for a short time. As a good liberal, Bova saw a future where there would be no Nordics. All white majority populations would, by then, be brown.

But Bova could not replace the Nordic features on his covers with pictures of random racial mixes. He did not want to put ugly people on the cover that was to sell his magazine. So throughout Bova’s short reign as editor, the uniforms or other clothes on the warriors covered their faces. You could never see what race they were.

Except once.

That one time during Bova’s editorship the race of the person on the cover was clearly shown. He was a pure black man, driving what appeared to be an anti-gravity tractor.

Several things were interesting about that one cover, but the one that is important here is something Bova did not even think about.

He insisted there would be no Nordics in the future, but he took it for granted there would be blacks. Africa would always have plenty of them, as would many Caribbean islands and the other solidly black countries of the world.

I am sure that it never occurred to any reader of the magazine that this was a totally racist, totally genocidal attitude. It is, after all, the only acceptable attitude of anyone who dares say a word in public in today’s society.

In many countries, you can go to prison for expressing any other attitude.

As we go into the third millennium, only one inevitable is left on which all allowable opinion agrees. That is that the new millennium will see the end of what liberals and moderates and respectable conservatives and the leaders who call themselves “Christian” conservatives all agree to refer to as “the race problem.”

All of our liberal, moderate, respectable conservative and so-called “Christian” leaders shout in unison that we must have “a final solution” to “the race problem.”

They shout about the dangers of “white racism” when we all know that we are targeted to disappear from the face of the earth. But anyone who even mentions this is declared anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. And who is shouting the loudest? Respectable conservatives, of course, the people who call themselves the “conservers” of Western society!

Outside the United States, they don’t stop opposition to the last “inevitable” just by shouting and oppressing opponents economically. They use straight police state tactics. If you mention your concern with the disappearance of the white race from the earth in Canada, you are subject to criminal penalties. In Britain, under the race hate laws, a judge officially declared that “The truth is no excuse.”

In the cause of the code words “ending racism,” freedom of speech has simply ceased to exist throughout the Western world. In Canada, this jailing of people for expressing any white racial concern at all is already expanding to include sexism, criticizing gays and all other categories of Political Correctness.

And when it comes to racism, sexism, and more and more forms of Political Correctness, the Canadian courts are following the British judge’s dictum that “The truth is no excuse.”

There is already a tiny but growing reaction to this. This sort of criminalizing of Thought Crimes will be hard to sustain in the age of the Internet. But today’s conservatives will have no part in leading or taking advantage of this reaction.

So the so-called opposition in America shouts even louder that the only real problem in our society is that old code word, “racism.” The last thing you can depend on our so-called conservative opposition to the left to point to is the REAL problem.

This conservative dedication to genocide fits the pattern of what the Christian writer C. S. Lewis had in mind when he had Satan’s Senior Demon Screwtape give his formula for tricking men into eternal damnation. Screwtape explains to his nephew Wormwood how this sort of fashionable toadying is used to destroy humanity:

“The use of Fashion in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers…The game is to have them all running around with fire extinguishers when there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm…Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality…”

So today’s conservatives are helping liberals pursue this Screwtape approach. The real danger of the new century centers around the program to eliminate whites — or “the race problem.” Along with this program goes the War On Thought Crimes that is destroying freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

Meanwhile the right, which claims to be so Christian and so moral, is devoted only to being part of Fashionable Opinion on these issues.

December 18, 1999

The Citadel Board has now joined the State newspaper in its campaign to take the Confederate flag off the State House dome. A short time ago Bob Jones joined the State in its campaign.

When Beasley turned on the Confederate flag, every single statewide Republican official backed Beasley. Seventy-five percent of Republicans had voted in a recent primary to keep the Confederate flag atop the State House. One politician, without consulting with anybody, had reversed that stand all by himself.

Given a choice between the politician and the conservative grassroots, the Republicans had, as always, backed the politico. They say they love us dearly, but when push comes to shove, the first thing any Republican does is spit in the grassroots conservatives’ faces.

Obviously, they fear no conservative backlash. It never even occurs to them to fear such a thing.

The Afrikaners” Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa stood for apartheid as long as it was profitable. Then, when the pressure was getting really strong, and the Boers needed its support as never before, their church turned and snapped at them like a snake. I remember the same thing happened to us Methodists as the integration movement grew. Our church turned on us like a snake.

When the present Bob Jones turned on us on the flag issue, he, like every conservative when he turns on us, thought he was being Shrewd. He is probably bragging about how he has proved to liberals that he is not unreasonable. Actually, the State is happy to use him. After the flag issue, it will continue its war against Bob Jones University (See March 13, “The State Newspaper Begin to Use Pro-Miscegenation Vote”)

But, for the moment, Bob Jones thinks he is being smart. After all, he can count on blind conservative support, no matter what he does. So he is using this cheap trick to get liberal approval.

Conservatives invest everything in institutions they trust. In the meantime, leftists work at taking over or subverting those institutions.

Somewhere in his public statement, every conservative spokesman always includes a knee-jerk demand for more uniforms, more soldiers, more sailors. If a bunch of men start making loud comments about how they love a guy in uniform, you have to look carefully to see whether they are on a San Francisco street corner or a conservative convention.

Conservatives fell in love with uniforms during World War II and the Cold War. Leftists were all for World War II, and they loved the military then. Even the Communist Party of America was totally in support of America’s fighting men until the middle of 1945. After all, those troops were fighting on the side of our Glorious Ally, Joseph Stalin.

But the second the military ceased to serve the purposes of the political left, the political left ceased to support the American military. When the military stopped supporting leftist purposes and was used against Communism, the left became anti-military. With the left, its principles come before loyalty to any institution.

Not so the right. Since the end of the Cold War, America’s military has consistently been used for purposes no conservative could support. During the Cold War, the left had extended its control over foreign policy and the military. Today, any leftist initiative can count on the support of America’s generals.

The right continues to worship generals, so the left continues to use them.

The blind conservative backing of institutions over principles encourages institutions to back the left. After all, any institution like
the Citadel has the right in its back pocket. It’s got uniforms, and rightists will sell out any principle if someone in uniform asks them to. Any institution that’s got uniforms has rightist support sewed, so they seek the backing of the left. If you want broad support, the ideal combination is uniforms and leftist principles.

So when Clinton made enforcing racial and ethnic balance by military force America’s official doctrine, he got a general to declare it (June 12, “Busing By Bomber”). McCain, an ex-uniform wearer, is his Republican spokesman for this policy of ethnic balance.

And how does the right react to this? The Southern Partisan editorial staff split fifty-fifty on whether to support McCain for president!

The same rule applies in institutional politics that operates in electoral politics — anyone who can take you for granted is not going to do anything for you. The Republican Party kicks conservatives in the teeth on a regular basis. Its excuse is always, “Conservatives have nowhere to go. They HAVE to support Republicans.”

I talked about this blind, completely immoral backing of institutions by conservatives on June 5 in “Blind Loyalty Is the Real Treason.” It was obvious to me when I first got into serious politics in the 1950s.

In the 1950’s, Northern conservatives blindly backed “The Party of Lincoln,” no matter what it did to their principles. At the same time, Southern conservatives just as blindly backed “the Party of Jefferson Davis.” While these dodos were blindly backing their respective institutions, liberals took over complete control of both parties. Rockefeller Republicans, who were an infinitesimal part of the Republican Party, held more power over the platform and the presidential nomination than did the overwhelming conservative majority.

The Democratic presidential nomination and platform was simply owned outright by liberals. And the majority of Southerners gave them absolute, blind, unquestioning loyalty. Can anybody call that “moral,” a word conservatives are always claiming that they own?

So our blind loyalty to uniforms and other institutions gives liberals a free ride in their campaign to quietly turn them into instruments of leftist policy. So Bob Jones and the Citadel, fresh from enjoying our support in their conservative battles, promptly sell us out.

Until we stop substituting blind loyalty for personal morality, we are going to be sold out. In real world politics, when you give your loyalty blindly, you ask to be betrayed. And in the cold, hard world of power politics, you get exactly what you ask for.

December 4, 1999

Bob Novak made a remark on “Crossfire” that seemed to contradict one of the liberal historical myths. Instantly Bill Press and the liberal guest went into a Greek chorus in which they recited — and I do mean RECITED — the required liberal myths. America fought World War II, one recited, because of Hitler’s Hate. The other liberal took up the tale instantly, reciting how the Civil War was fought against slavery.

Novak could have mentioned that the US fought Hitler because Hitler declared war on the United States. He could have mentioned that Stalin represented Hate, too, and he was our Great Ally and Hero. He could have mentioned that Lincoln made it very clear that the war was NOT about slavery.

But we all know Novak could not do any of that, because these are Official Liberal Facts. All conservatives are required to accept them or be convicted as naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.

It is true that Bob Novak is himself Jewish. But being a Jew provides not the slightest protection against being condemned by liberals as anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionsjews. Richard Herrnstein, who co-wrote “The Bell Curve,” was a Jew, but he is permanently condemned as anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

When I was on Capitol Hill, I was talking to a black school official in Ohio who opposed busing. He sounded very tired. He told me that white liberals had condemned him as a Klan sympathizer. I sort of chuckled, and he said, “It was funny to me too. At first. But I found out that these nuts MEAN it!”

He knew he would never get another promotion for the rest of his career in education. He would be lucky to keep his job.

Just a little while back, anyone who questioned the Official Liberal Fact that ten percent of all men were homosexuals was in DEEP trouble. That figure was arrived at by Dr. Kinsey, himself a bisexual, in a study which said that any man who had ever had a homosexual experience was homosexual. He also included PRISONERS in his study! So a teenager who had been raped in prison was classed in the Kinsey Study as a homosexual!

At that time, everybody had to repeat Kinsey’s ten-percent-of-all-men-are-homosexual “fact” as biblical truth. By now I doubt that one in twenty of the readers of this column even remembers this. No respectable conservative disputed this “fact” at the time. No respectable conservative has ever reminded anyone of this “fact” since it disappeared, and no respectable conservative ever will.

A study finally killed that liberal “fact.” It found that about 1.4% of men were classed as “homosexual.”

So liberals keep on making up “facts” as they go along. I’ve killed a few liberal “facts” myself. In their day, those “facts” were recited in the media thousands of times daily, and every reader of this column saw them. But I am willing to bet no one remembers them.

The best known liberal “fact” that I killed was during the Carter Administration, when the first major effort was under way to declare homosexual households to be “family units.” New types of families had to be accepted, it was said, because ONLY SEVEN PERCENT OF AMERICANS WERE PART OF A “TRADITIONAL FAMILY!”

I got the Congressional Research Service to chase down the origin of this strange assertion. They traced it to a Labor Department finding that the stereotype of a traditional family was of 1) a husband working, 2) a wife not working, and 3) the family had exactly one son and one daughter. This became the “traditional family” that had now declined to a mere seven percent of the American population.

It was like magic. I put that finding in a speech for my boss, Congressman John Ashbrook, and it appeared in the Congressional Record. Like magic, that “seven percent traditional family” statement simply DISAPPEARED from the media! No one ever mentioned it again! Certainly no respectable conservative will ever mention it again, to remind us of how liberals make up their “facts.”

But if I had not chased that down and challenged it, liberals would still be saying that only seven percent of American belong to “a traditional family,” and respectable conservatives would still be agreeing with it.