What is the difference between a cultural outlook and a prejudice?

There is none. Not only is there no difference, but only the most nauseatingly ignorant person thinks there is.

I made my living for decades operating among highly intelligent, ruthless people who wanted my blood. That is an experience that makes you instantaneously boil things down to basics. It doesn’t take long for you to stop noticing whether the person you are talking to uses big words or has an accent; all you learn to notice is whether he is buying what you say or not, whether what he is saying is drivel or not.

So almost everything that impresses other people completely disappears for you. In such a raw fight for power, you not only ignore people’s pretenses, at some level you don’t even notice them at all. Let me give you a shocking example of this.

Have you ever been standing in a line at a supermarket and seen a charming baby on in a crib? Us older folks do. But instead of grabbing at the child, a mature person looks it in the eyes and grins and maybe says some words. Very often this is delightful to the infant, and they grin and kick and blow bubbles.

Have you ever seen a respectable conservative when a liberal praises him for being “cultural” instead of “prejudiced.” It takes a very experienced, cold, professional eye to see how exactly a Buckley reacts the reaction of that baby being smiled at by an adult.

A Buckley, senior or the departed senior, does his own version of grinning and kicking and bubbling at the mouth. So does every respectable conservative. You see, the liberals who call the shots have the same frigid professional eye that I do. This reaction to liberal praise is the sine qua non of being given the absolutely essential credentials of being labeled a “respectable” conservative by media liberals.

So a Buckley will bubble and grin and kick in an entirely different way. Me will not be wearing a diaper, but an expensive suit as approved in New York and New England. He will raise his eyebrows in the way he would expect one of his gods, an Ivy League WASP or a Jewish Intellectual, would expect him to.

Where the baby goes “Goo!” the Buckley will use big words.

But to a really cold, professional eye, all this is superficial. In fact, you learn very quickly it is fatal to let these superficial differences impress you at all.

This very hard-learned ability to see right through the superficialities becomes automatic, and it is absolutely essential if you are to be hired and trusted at high levels. People with power and money don’t hire people who don’t have this Cold Eye.

But, in all honesty, this Cold Eye has certain drawbacks you don’t see until you have been through the mill and developed that Cold Eye.

Once again, I am not being cynical, but dead honest: One of the things that comes with this Cold Eye is nausea.

In my seemingly endless list of life experiences, I once worked in a retarded home. My stomach is churning right now as I try to write this down. No matter how hardened you are, that room full of grown men in diapers, the few extreme retards who make it to beard-growing age, makes your stomach turn. They are smiling, every one of them, delighted to see you. You CAN’T hate them.

But I will never forget that one of the most extreme bleeding-hearts I even knew saw them and said, Bob, I never thought it would be possible that I would ever agree with the Nazis about euthanasia in any case, but God help me, I would do it to these people.”

Now you get an idea why the Cold Eye carries with it a threat of nausea.

It is critical to understand that there is not a bit of cynicism in what I am saying. It is a REAL problem for me. With my combined experienced and the Cold Eye I could not help developing, watching a respectable conservative react to a liberal telling him he Cultural and not Prejudiced is literally nauseating. I can’t help it and I certainly don’t LIKE it.

You see, a Buckley or a Hannity or a respectable conservative Southerner looks at an establishment liberal exactly the same way that baby ion the supermarket looks at me. Hannity and Buckley and a Southern apologizer have EXACTLY the same attitude to Ivy Leaguers and Jewish Intellectuals that that baby has to me. To Buckley, who is not tainted in his own mind with a Southern family but is also Catholic and IRISH, of all things, the true Yankee or the true Jewish Intellectual is the True Adult, the True Final Judge.

This was true of Buckley, it is far more true of somebody down the line like Hannity. Buckley senior must have pointed out a thousand times that he was born in NEW YORK. He and his family never allowed anyone to call their background without answering, ANGLO-Irish.”

To someone with my Cold Eye, these inferiority complexes stand out like a black man at a Nuremburg Rally.

Too often, this reaction to respectable grin and bubbles at any liberal praise really reminds me of those smiling men in the diapers, and I anteing cynical and it IS a problem for me.

Everyone has a problem seeing why A Plague on Both Your Houses was such a radical book in 1976. Almost everything that hit people between the eyes back then is a matter of routine discourse in politics today. Jeffrey Hart, an English professor at Dartmouth, talked about he books, “coruscating insights.” But those roiling new insights strikes one today as basic logic in politics.

It is actually impossible for anyone today to put himself back in a time when the only recognized “lobbies” in America were big business and defense spending. These were the bugbears of the liberal media. Back then, it was staggering for anyone to talk about the National Education Association as lobby, even though all its money was appropriated by governments. “Lobby” or “pressure groups” were dirty words, applied only to those who used it for Evil Purposes. You cannot put yourself back in those days, when to mention liberal pressure for government money in the same breath with the “military-industrial complex” was not only heresy, but the kind of heresy no one had actually discussed before.

For the first time ever, conservatives at the national conventions were actually discussing what a large proportion of Democratic delegates were NEA members.

In the House, the Republican head of staff made a bet with his Democratic opposite — was it Chris Matthews that far back? — that the budgets for Health Education and Welfare than the Defense budget.

Of course it was. But that had never occurred to either side. Only the Defense budget was discussed. We’re talking about the two staffers who had most to do with formulating the budgets. For the rest of the world the whole thing was unheard-of. And that was just one of the coruscating ideas in there that seem so logical today. By 1980 the whole picture of politics came from what FILTERED DOWN from that little book.

I put filtered down in caps for a reason. I was the intellectual leader on the populist side, which sounds like a contradiction in terms. William Rusher, publisher of National Review, was the leader on the respectable conservative side. We were setting up the 1980 coalition. combining working class conservatives, then called “Wallace voters” with the regular conservative base.

But there was one insight which did NOT go public. This was my undeniable assertion, not discussed before, that the Federal Courts are the last bastion of passing establishment. Bill Rusher gave me full credit for this insight in his history of the conservative movement, but nobody took it up.

The point itself is obvious. One of John last acts as the last Federalist Party president in 1801 was to appoint John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Marshall was Chief Justice after the Federalist Party died out completely. But her was a thorn in the side of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson before he died in 1834.

In 1857 the Supreme Court made the totally pro-slavery Dred Scot Decision, because it had been appointed by Democrats when Southerners dominated that Party. By 1938 Roosevelt had his famous “Court-packing” scheme, his first major political loss, because the Court was still full of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover appointees. And in 1976 the Judiciary was, with the cooperation of respectable conservatives, solidly liberal. I cannot imagine how anyone with a general knowledge of American history wasn’t aware of this phenomenon.

It just hadn’t been MENTIONED specifically.

And it has STAYED unmentioned. Bill Rusher, all unknowing, cut its throat.

The reason is critical, and the reason is this: My “coruscating insights” in Plague were in a small book read largely by a small group of insiders. If you were to trace the movement of those ideas to the mainstream, you would see that they were reworded and discussed by an astoundingly wide range of people. left, middle and right, each of whom TOOK CREDIT for them. But when Rusher attributed an idea in a major book to ME. he cut this process off.

Anyone who wanted to reword it and take credit for the Federal Courts as the routine last hold on power of the passing establishment would have been told by someone on the staff, “Oh, you mean Whitaker’s idea. Rusher discussed that.” Nothing is more discouraging to people who make their living getting credit for new ideas than being told it is old hat, yesterday’s news.

This matter of credit taking is not new. Ben Franklin discussed it as a way to promote things in his autobiography. Once YOU take credit you take it out of the taking-credit market before it gets to a Major Spokesman, you kill it, unless you NEED the credit, as a professor or a Major Spokesman does.

I was after POWER, not credit. Credit is what you give to Major Spokesmen to carry on your concept.

So I want it to be THE Mantra, not BOB’S Mantra. I want to write about Wordism unless Buchanan or some other Major Spokesman takes it on. IT is not likely to be Buchanan, but it is a concept just too perfect for everybody to avoid it very long.

You notice that every time we hit them with the Mantra, including Buchanan’s pages, by the time the link is mentioned in Comments it has been removed. That is not so great a problem, because it is obviously a group effort. For now, THAT IS FINE. It is just inside our branch of the political spectrum, just the few writes we are aiming to HEAR it, that it is recognized. It will one day be taken up by someone in the middle or the left.

I am giving you information on how to proceed in a whole field of power politics no one has really even talked about since Ben Franklin. But in an information society, this is the essence of real power politics.

Since Rousseau, Marx and all the rest wrote the basis of modern Political Correctness, every assumption they made has been destroyed. In fact, just repeating what their concept of human nature was based on is like telling people about bleeding and Galen in medicine.

Two or three centuries ago modern medicine would seem to be a hopeless cause. Since any step forward required a rejection of EVERYTHING medical teaching was based on then.

We are trying to do the same thing in social science, so do not despair.

Rousseau, Marx and Political Correctness are all based on the concepts that “Animals do not fight wars,” “You have never seen an animal ask for another animal’s passport, “The class System is a purely human invention.” and so forth.

We all have seen POPULAR documentaries that make hash of this nonsense.

No, chimps do not ask for passports. They silently patrol their borders together and tear apart any chimp who is caught crossing them.

The animal class system not only gives the upper class absolute power, it often forces all males outside it to be sterile.

War? Watch two sets of meerkats go after each other.

And so forth.

You tend to look at the world from the point of view of the latest buzz. I look at the world from the point of view of the surprisingly many doctors who recognize the germ theory three centuries ago and are now forgotten.

This is a very important distinction. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis tried to get doctors to wash their hands when they came to deliver babies STRAIGHT FROM THE DISSECTING ROOM. He was so overwhelmed by the number of women and babies dying in agony from the rejection of his deduction that he died insane.

And Semmelweis is the only martyr to such a cause THAT WE KNOW ABOUT.

If I thought the world’s future was as this century’s buzz makes it out, I would probably be giggling to myself in a cell right now.