Back to basics: colored countries are never democratic. The people won't make decisions that are rational.

We are watching that today, with the "debt crisis." It's not "a" crisis. It's part of the transition to a colored country.

I pointed out repeatedly that the only indicator of real per capita income is the color of the skin. Now if you think about this, but nobody outside of BUGS will, it does not mean that at a given moment, 3 am on March 12, 2012, the country crosses from white to colored and we go from obesity to the streets of Calcutta in 1950.

In fact, very few people realize what should be obvious to someone of my age: We used to talk about and compare economic growth around the world. Today the model is stagnation. Tomorrow it will be a debate between liberals and respectable conservatives, not about whether the decline is necessary, but on how much of the liberal proposals to slow it should be adopted.

That is the how the transition from white to colored obviously will proceed.

Our real problem today is not intransigence or which side wins. A colored society invariably has different insane sides. They may simply give up the whole pretense of government, as in Somalia, or they may have a dictatorship with democratic trappings, like Mexico, but there will be many versions of the same pretense vying for power.

But when you go nuts, both sides will be two versions of basket cases. If both sides are fairly represented and both sides compromise, the compromise will be a basket case.

In our case the trappings are still democratic, a lot of the reality shows the kind of restraint white countries have. But we have two absurd sides.

Our two sides were not developed to solve problems. They were developed to represent two points of view that can be SOLD. "Both" sides in America today consist of the Mommy Professors and those they allow to exist as their token opposition. To say that "Both sides are represented is one thing." To say that "both sides" can come to sane conclusion is entirely another.

A Multiculture, by definition, is not going to put the "common good" above "parochial interests." Almost by definition, a Multiculture has no common interest.

What I have presented above is really a set of single short statements that only relate if you get the logic of the reality they have in common. You see people getting paid to puzzle over each reality every night on television.

Everything has been playing out every year for over fifty years in exactly the way I said it would. It is a little like someone running in the door and saying, "Poppa is whipping the horse," and then running in five minutes later and saying "The horse is mad at Poppa."

Can you imagine PAYING a child to run in with reports like that? To be a highly paid anchorman you have to shout it, I suppose, in a particularly sophisticated-sounding way.


Our Golden Rule says, "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you."

Confucius said, "Do not do unto another what you would not have him do unto you."

Political Correctness uses this to prove that the Orient is just like the West.

Actually, these two statements are worlds apart.

I gave the example of an Oriental Wise Man sitting and saying obscure things while children around him were hungry and had worms in their guts. But from the point of view of Confucius, that is all right. The Oriental Wise Man is not doing anything TO those children. So he is doing nothing to them that he would not have them do unto him, as Confucius said.

But the Western version of the Golden Rule is entirely different. You must stop talking crap and use your mind to do something FOR those children. You must DO something.

This is a very practical matter. In Japan in earlier times, no one was required to save the life of someone in danger. The Japanese rule was that if you saved a person's life, you were responsible for what they did after that. Throughout the very different cultures of Asia, this attitude is very common.

In the West, you have to take action.

The Orient is passive. The West is active.

Please see



For McCain and the liberals who love him, the ideal "labor leadership" was in place in the Labor Party in Britain before Tony Blair took over the Party. Back then, at Labor Party conventions, whoever owned the union cast all his member's votes for them.

So who owns the unions? Often organized crime does. Organized labor is one of its staple sources of income. The point here is not that labor is still controlled by organized crime. The point is that the so-called "labor leaders" can be puppets on a string and the media will still refer to them as "labor."

"Labor" has no use whatsoever for the opinion of a bunch of working stiffs. They are straight liberal, and supporting the political left is their only real purpose. Like all large organizations, they do as little for their clients, in this case working people, as they can. They have other priorities.

As always, the capitalized word is nothing like the real thing. When the media speak of Labor, this has little to do with labor. When the Inquisition spoke of Mercy, it meant the opposite of mere mercy, which meant not torturing people. To the Inquisition, True Mercy was saving the soul from Hell. That required a slow burning at the stake. That gave the sinner a chance to feel the fire and repent. That was Mercy. There was no room for mercy.

Think about it. If Mercy meant mercy, you wouldn't capitalize it. If Labor meant labor, you wouldn't capitalize it, but Labor is implicitly capitalized in Mediaspeak.

Yes, Labor is taking a beating in the political arena today. But that is doing labor a lot of good.


Leftists, with the help of respectable conservatives, are now trying to limit access to "Hate" on the Internet. They are also trying to get the power to decide what "hate" is, and the right to ban it everywhere.

How much power should we give liberals and respectable conservatives to decide what kind of speech should be banned? The left and its conservative allies say that free speech should be permitted, but hate speech should be banned.

So one regularly runs into a question that is debated in the media these days: "When does free speech become hate speech?

The answer is: "From the word 'Go.'" All MEANINGFUL free speech is somebody's Hate Speech.

You don't have freedom of speech if you are only allowed to say things that don't offend anybody. Real freedom of speech means precisely the opposite. Your freedom of expression doesn't need any protection if you only say things that everybody approves of.

So the first amendment right to free expression is only necessary to protect you when you say something that offends somebody. In other words, every word of real free speech is what somebody would call hate speech.

Both Hitler and Stalin could have readily agreed with the present liberal-respectable conservative definition of free speech. Both Hitler and Stalin thought that anybody should be allowed to say anything they wanted to, so long as it didn't offend their deeply held beliefs.

For example, Hitler would agree that you could say anything you want to, so long as it didn't offend a dedicated Aryan like himself. Stalin would allow you free speech except where he felt that your words were offensive or harmful to his ideas of what was good for the working class.

In other words, all dictators take the same position our American censors do. The dictators agree that people can say anything that isn't "offensive" to important opinions. They just have a little different answer as to what is "offensive."

But Stalin, Hitler, liberals and respectable conservatives all start from the same place: Some OPINIONS must be outlawed as Hate Speech.