It is HILARIOUS that our established religion’s idea of futuristic power sources is WINDMILLS! But no one is allowed to laugh in church.

The only major advance in social science in half a century has been the study of animal behavior. Instead of seeing herd animals as mindless brutes who clump together ONLY for fear of predators, we have discovered that they have class systems and dictatorships more rigid and cruel than the greatest tyrannies Rousseau and Marx faced.

Today’s social science chugs along on the assumption that all inequality is the result of economic disadvantage. All inequality is UNNATURAL, not like the innocent beasts of the field. That crap is as out of date as the 4500 year old earth.

Boone Pickens made himself a saint of our established religion when he tried to make WINDMILLS the Way of the Future. He lost two billion.

If you watch old movies, you know how to identify Men from the Year 2000. They wore a uniform , tight, solid color, with little gold epaulets on the shoulders.

All of them. Men and women, children and adults. It saved the B movie makers a MINT. I am sure that the same 2000 AD uniforms used in Things to Come in 1937 were used on TV’s Buck Rogers two decades later.

But no one took it seriously that we today would be WEARING a solid color uniform. If that uniform were adopted today as The Inevitable Future, every Mommy Professor would line up to get studies financed that proved that that is the direction fashion is going, and every documentary on clothes would end with a Sermon on how, with all the apparent contradictions, clothing has been moving in that direction since Egypt.

Our ancestors would have laughed out loud if they saw The Sermon on our documentaries today. The Technology of the Future, they say, a blaring of trumpets and then — WINDMILLS!

Oh, yes, Futuristic Windmills with the funny pointed shapes, but always the same ones, every bit as predictable today as the uniform of the Man From the Year 2000 was in the B movies.

It must save the documentary makers a mint.

I wrote a piece in which I warned you that a Wordist should be regarded in the same way you regard a psychopath. As in my fifties rants about integration, this will seem to be alarmist and paranoid.

But it is actually a reference to your own common sense, something you already know. Anti-racism has been described as “successful social engineering.” The prejudices common to the generation before the Slave Generation have been, through an intensive program, been denounced by a majority of Americans.

The words social engineering have not been applied to this program except among those who subscribe to it all. That was the way I saw it in the 1950s. A concentrated campaign to change the basic loyalties of a population cannot be anything BUT social engineering. Once you admit that, what I said follows.

The reason people object to “social engineering” is that you are dedicating your society to changing a basic set of loyalties, aka, “prejudices.” But that is not just social engineering, that is social surgery. Cutting out a set of values, whether you call them prejudices or loyalties, is like cutting into a live human body.

Obviously your first question is, “What ELSE are you cutting out?”

It is not really surprising that the 60s, which began with a revolution on race, ended with hundreds of thousands of Americans marching with Viet Cong flags in their demonstrations. You never saw a swastika at an America First rally in 1940.

When Vietnam fell, leftists and McGovernites called each other and cheered.

What respectable conservatives called prejudice had been discredited. But so was what they called loyalty. Being for your own had been under attack as Evil for many years. No one else has made this obvious connection in print, but when you cut out one natural prejudice you cut on the whole organ.

When September 11 made a majority of Americans question the whole American commitment to Israel, the left dreamed of getting back the glory days of what they call the Hippie Era of Vietnam. But most Americans don’t sympathize with their basic program of making anti-Iraq War into Anti-Americanism.

So, to keep anybody but their own out of their demonstrations, they named themselves the Movement Against War and Racism. This kept out anybody but leftists. The left certainly recognizes the anti-white campaign as their key to victory.

If you want to be a professional conservative, you never mention that.

No one asked what the hell the war against Iraq had to do with “racism.” The silence was deafening.

But a society which has been subjected to social surgery is never the same again. And a person who takes social surgery as part of his thought pattern is not the same person Americans once were.

This is a warning, a very personal warning. A warning either has truth in it or it just paranoia.

I’ve been called paranoid before, and all my nightmares came true.

War in a society is different from what we are fighting. There is a Geneva Convention-type atmosphere in a regular war in a regular society. Russians who surrendered in WWII starved to death in German camps, not because of the Germans, but, as Solzhenitsyn pointed out, because Stalin disclaimed all POW rights for Soviet soldiers who surrendered.

So Stalin treated German prisoners the way Confederates were treated at Camp Douglas, where a much higher percentage died than Yankees at Andersonville,. There was plenty of food up North, but the prisoners didn’t get it.

General Lee died regretting that he never saw what I am pointing out. Any conditions in war depend on both sides being a part of the same value system. Their loyalty to their side is mitigated by their common loyalty to a common race and culture.

General Lee died bitterly regretting his thinking that the Yankees he was fighting were the Yankees he had been with at West Point. He surrendered honorably, by that code, but he subjected the South to an enemy who denied the whole concept of HIS IDEA of honor.

But the Soviets and the Yankees were Wordists. They had no common ground with other white men, something Lee took for granted. Soviets were Wordists. They had no common ground with anyone who was not of their Faith.

The Founding Fathers were very aware of this difference. To them the Inquisition and the Calvinist burnings of heretics was recent. They watched the Hispanic world become a colored mass whose only concern was religion, not race. In their day the Inquisition was still a reality.

There is a very slippery slope here. Do not get the idea that the person talking to you is anything but an alien if he speaks in terms of “all people.” One who claims loyalty to Humanity is an entirely different animal.

This is a lot like dealing with the millions of actual psychopaths around us. As long as they are hemmed in by a society, they do a better job of acting normal than we do. So General Lee thought he was dealing with other white men who would deal with the people he was surrendering accordingly.

When I was negotiating air deals with Communists, they were a bit comical, drinking straight vodka with bananas and stealing pencils from the negotiating room. But they were the same people who shot anyone who tried to escape the countries they owned and considered torture a routine assignment.

Wordists remind me of Asimov’s definition of robotic thinking, “Logical but not rational.”

This is a warning it will be almost impossible for you to remember when a Wordist “Christian” is simpering at you when it suits his purpose: “Trust me, I’m just like you.”

If a person cannot think, “He is a white person, I’m a white person.” you are not dealing with a person who recognizes any rules at all beyond what you can enforce right now. Something that belongs to everyone belongs to no one. In EXACTLY the same way, someone who belongs to All Mankind is part of NOTHING.

As with a psychopath, the Wordist does what he can get away with at the time. When you are e arguing with him, you think he is just too biased to keep this thinking straight.

His thinking IS straight. His only interest is his Wordism, which is always referred to by its code name, “Loyalty to Humanity.” The good of all mankind is his Word. His ideology or religion. There is nothing else there.

One who has loyalty can stick to the truth. The truth, after all, is something which affects him and those to whom he is loyal. But the person you cannot but think of but as looking like you and talking like you has only one loyalty, loyalty to his Truth.

He is a psychopath. You need to rethink all you normally assume about such people. Or you can make the same mistake a lot of women did about that nice Ted Bundy

The advantage of seeing Political Correctness as an established religion is that it follows the continuum of history. A person who is a complete temporal provincial sees what is happening in his own time completely out of context.

It took a long time for commentators to see that the dichotomy between Modern Marxism and Middle Age Religion was totally bogus. Marxism was imposed on Christian countries exactly the same way Christianity was imposed on pagan lands.

Christianity came as the Gospels, the Hope, the Salvation and Good News. It offered hope to the poor who had nothing. It was represented by poor men taking enormous risks out of a pure love of their fellow men.

Once countries were converted, the Old Testament, the Laws and the Prophets, and the burdening of heretics began. Kingship began in Northern Europe along with bishoprics. Two thousand years before Aryans had invaded southern Europe and brought various forms of government, all republican, from Greece’s democracy and the vicious equality of Sparta to Rome’s Republic.

Roman history began with the overthrow of the Tarquinii Etruscan kings.

Christianity brought kings to the North. Iceland was settled by people running away from Norway’s first King, and first Christian ruler. Regular historians always described Iceland as INVENTING a parliament. But the Iceland’s elected legislature was simply a continuation of northern government as usual.

History got it backwards because “king” was the “old” form and democracy the “new” form.
Marxism came in the same way Christianity did, with Idealists giving Hope to the common people. Once it took power, its kings and bishops came in and the Inquisition began.

This is, at long last, fairly easy to see. But you do not understand history IN THE LEAST if you do not see its CONTINUITY. You have seen people ALMOST get a point and then ruin it by showing they did not get the REAL point.

The way you completely miss the point made here is to say “Marxism (Political Correctness, no one but Marxists ever used the term) is a new twist on an old theme.”

It is emphatically not a new twist. It is EXACTLY the same old theme. That is the reason everyone, including people RAISED in Marxist countries, did not realize Political Correctness was the same old thing. One man raised in a Marxist country told me they called it “political rectitude” in his language. “Political rectitude” is an exact synonym for political correctness, but he was so used to having everything spelled out to him he didn’t RECOGNIZE it!

And if you think Marxism is a new twist, you are being as dense as someone who has lived under Political Correctness all his life and doesn’t recognize it.

There is no “new twist” in Marxism.

Political Correctness is familiar to anyone who has read Marxist letters. But they cannot attach them to this world. This sort of cowlike absence occurs when someone hears “bourgeois values.” If you read at all, you know you still hear this condemnation of middle class values in one of twos place: Among aristocrat-worshipping monarchists or among Mommy Professors and their pet limousine leftists.

But hearing both, the drooling college graduate with the absent eyes sees no connection at all.

This is the only place you will see this connection written down:
The “bourgeois” is the group which presumes, with no royal title from the Old Regime and no Doctoral Degree from the group that fools the herd by calling itself a New Order, to own its own property and make its own rules.

But when a person hears hippies using the term and the French Old Regime using the same term, they may as well be hearing from different worlds.

Thinking is making connections. When you’re six it is all right not to realize that if three plus three plus three plus three equals twelve, then four times three makes twelve. But if you become an adult and STILL not do make this connection instantly, you need help.

“Officer Brian, you reported an armed robbery. Do you have a description of the suspect?”

“Yes.”

“Well, give it to us.”

“I said I HAVE it. I’m not sure I can give it to you.”

“Why, didn’t you see him clearly?”

“ I didn’t say it was male.”

“Was it a female?”

“Sergeant, more than half of the people in this country are female. If I said the person was a female you would suspect millions of people on no basis but their sex?”

“Well, how tall was the suspect?”

“Sergeant, are you going to go out and start rounding up people on the basis of their height?”

“For God’s sake, man, which direction was the suspect going in?”

“If I give you the direction, you will start looking at everyone going in that direction. A person is innocent until proven guilty. Thousands of people are going in every direction in this city, innocent people. There could even be roadblocks set up which implied that this group of people is more likely to be armed robbers than people who choose to go in another direction.”

“Were they in a vehicle?”

“If they were, it might mean they had a handicap because they could not walk or run. If so, this would be profiling of everyone who is old or differently abled. Otherwise it would profile those who are not.”

“Officer Brian, is there ANYTHING you can tell us about this perpetrator?”

“ALLEGED perpetrator, sir.”

“ALL RIGHT. Is there anything you can tell us about this alleged perpetrator that would aid us in finding him or her?”

“Not without profiling. It was just a person, regardless of race, color, creed or national origin.”

“Officer Brian, turn in your badge and gun. I just checked with headquarters and you are fired.”

“Not for refusing to profile I’m not. The ACLU will beat you on that.”

“The ACLU is against you. You continuously referred to your subject as “a person.,” so PETA has filed a joint action with the ACLU for your removal for specieist profiling.”