Actually all those campus protests in the 1960s had nothing to do with political leftism. The day that the military draft disappeared was the day that students totally lost interest in anti-war protesting.

What happened to the fashionable war protests in the 1960s was exactly what happened to the fashionable campaign against profiling after September 11, 2001.

Until the Vietnam War got serious, nobody minded the draft much. Working people got drafted but anyone who mattered could get an exemption by going to college or something.

During the Vietnam War very few upper income people were drafted and even fewer were forced into combat. But in the 1960s the slightest threat to the comfort of the class of people who fly commercial airliners today caused a major political explosion.

Even a hint of a serious military draft could cause a political revolution, and a serious draft has been politically impossible for decades.

Now if there is any kind of draft, Congressman Rangel has put liberal fingerprints all over it. He is stupid enough to be a respectable conservative.


There are a LOT of people in the 25-40 age bracket who have become the New Dispossessed, and are beginning - vaguely - to realize it.

Their "high tech jobs" are gone and their low skill jobs are being taken by the illegals.

The upcoming economic shifts will cement them as a political force to be reckoned with.

MTV is part of the Directed Society, where the telescreen told you what was right, and what you should do. The Internet removes the power of the Directed Society, and those who can - I repeat, those who can - will use it to find the truth the Directed Media would never allow them to see, and to say it, to other people of like mind.

"Small" has its place, particularly in a Collapsed Society.

The failure of the BNP, and Stormfront, is also due, in part, to the failure of conventional politics defined by the political parties - to deal with the crisis that is upon us.

Harold Covington's Ideal of a Northwest Republic is one solution; his "Northwest Trilogy" lays out some ideas on this.

It's organized along the lines of race.


THE YELLOW CLOUD | 2002-08-31

This particular leftist conference of European and Third World Wisdom is going to tell America how to handle the environment. A large part of the delegations are coming to South Africa from under the "yellow cloud" that is forming over India and southeast Asia.

This yellow cloud is something unprecedented, but it is perfectly predictable by anybody who does not represent World Environmental Wisdom.

As any reasonably intelligent person knows, a primitive industrial economy produces far, far, far more pollution than a more advanced one. If America had produced a tenth of this Asian "yellow cloud" of pure choking pollution, it would have made world headlines.

Long before Chernobyl, Communist countries always produced a lot more pollution and environmental destruction than the more advanced and productive western economies, but World Opinion never breathed a word about it.

But this particular yellow cloud is not coming from Red China. This one is coming from the leftists' pet, that Wise and Wonderful Third World in lower Asia.

Those Third World Idealist geniuses who are going to tell us how to run America's environmental policy are leaving their own lands at a good time. For a while they won't choke on the results of their own environmental policy.

This yellow cloud has already spread around Asia, and we are going to probably see signs of it over here before long.


As an experienced old man, I have a set of basic rules about human behavior that are useful for anyone to take into account. That is what I want you to absorb.

Let's take "money buys power" and run it through my way of thinking:

1) A person who has little or no money will tell you all about how rich people get rich.

2) A person without power will be glad to explain to you about where all the power is, who has it, and how they got it.

3) A person who has neither power nor money will tell you that money = power.


Any opinion that is explicable is probably WRONG.

We take this for granted every time we watch a commercial or an infomercial: This person is trying to sell me something, so he is not being completely truthful with me.

But since our Obedience Training in World War II, this rule ends right there. We have things called "professional objectivity" and "peer review," both of which should make a rational person laugh out loud.

A lawyer or a doctor may not be trying to SELL you a specific product, but they have a very definite idea about WHO should end up with a huge share of the money and power. Social science professors are the same way.

In fact, my main view of the future is a battle I talked about in my first book over thirty years ago, but which no one is aware is developing. It is the war between social science and hard science.

This latter combines my rule on EXPLICABLE opinions versus simple truth. We all know that hard science is pretty reliable until it begins to conflict with social science. Then the "scientist" who wants to keep his job bends over backwards and lies with absolute shamelessness. That is because the only excuse social scientists have for demanding power and money is their doctrine of Political Correctness, and since professors rule campuses, it has been easy for hard science to stay out of PC's way.

Until now. But the power to bring endless life and happiness, once the province of the theologians and now the province of Political Correctness and Marxism or Libertarianism is becoming REAL. And hard science will have it.

It is as simple as that.

Just as science could not continue under the rigid rule of theologians, it cannot go ahead under the rules of PC. The conflict is just in a few areas now, and is hardly noticed. But what makes the future is NEVER noticed in the present.

Which leads us back to another basic thought: Opinions which are EXPLICABLE are not true. Which is why the field of Futurology is a bad joke. What does Futurology EXPLAIN? Does it have anything to do with explaining the FUTURE?

Of course not! Futurology depends on funding and publication TODAY. A professional Futurologist must predict a future that will hit the mass media and appeal to the "peer review" committees that give out money TODAY. All Futurist predictions are explicable in those terms. I gave you a good example of this by telling you why demography is known among sane economists as "panic science." Population predictions that make it to the media and produce movies like Soylent Green get fame and funding.

And this leads me back to the original subject. Why does money NOT buy power? For the exact reason that Futurology money produces nothing but misinformation about the real future. Funding produces experts who tell rich people how to influence "the people," but those "people" are as alien to real people as any E.T. They are "the people" Marxists talk about, "the people" professors talk about, and therefore "the people" that the rich believe in. Just how many members of "the working class" she has talked about all her life has Jane Fonda ever LISTENED to?

This rule was stated LONG before Bob discovered it: "No one ever tells the truth to a rich man or a beautiful woman."