"The point is not whether the dog plays chess well, but that the dog can play chess at all."

So when a tenured professor at Emory had to resign because he had made up his facts to prove that early American had very few guns it was no scandal.

What is more important, every single respectable conservative commentator insisted that this one example was unique. Every single respectable conservative insisted that all the OTHER Politically Correct professors were scrupulously honest.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, Politically Correct fraud is so well protected that it is amazing that we ever catch anybody at it. The head of the professors' association is an open Marxist, and he states openly that truth is a POLITICAL matter.

How, exactly is that different from a Medieval Pope dictating scientific truth because it is a RELIGIOUS matter.

It means the same thing.

EXACTLY the same thing.

Under the popes, religion was declared by the pope. Under Marxism, political truth is dictated by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The head of America's organization of professors, whose only product is supposed to be truth, paid for by public money, states flatly that truth is whatever he decides SHOULD be true.

It would be amazing if what respectable conservatives all say were true.

When a group of people state flatly that truth whatever their politics say, it is not amazing that a few professors get caught on global warming or guns, but that any professor ever gets caught at all.

Respectable conservatives earn their pay. But they can only earn their pay until people stop just disagreeing with them and start laughing at them.

They earn their pay by claiming an objectivity for professors that professors do not claim for themselves.

Conservatives insist that professors are objective.

Politically Correct professors claim no such thing.

Anyone who knows anything about Marxism recognizes the term "politically correct." It is and always has been an entirely Marxist term.

The conservative Bubbah says, "Gorsh, I didn't know that! You must thin I is ignernt.

And for once, the conservative Bubbah is right.


When people tell me something will work and tell me the logic I don't want to SAY that the words I have provided were not developed in my head, but in many, many hours of successful debate. If you haven't been through all that, you would assume that sane people would get the point without repeating it. But that is where you trip yourself up.

We are not only not dealing with sane people, we are dealing with the most difficult form of insanity, one to which it cannot even occur that it considers itself to be the epitome of mental health.

That is why it took so long to develop what looks, after one has grasped it, to be an obvious truth. We are back to the Semmelweis Rule: Nothing is harder to get across than a simple reality that is being MILITANTLY overlooked.


Nobody has made it clearer that our problem is an Established RELIGION, not a viewpoint from Science or Intellectuality, but a RELIGION. A little THINKING would make this obvious.

My practical, MUNDANE knowledge of THEOLOGY is the reason I understand Political Correctness so well. It is also the reason no one who works for our Established Faith, either as an acolyte or as a Respectable Conservative, can see reality.

Political Correctness is the Truth and the Culmination of All Things to its adherents. Stated plainly, its religious nature is obvious. However, they never apply the religious wording, but apply doctrine every bit as rigidly.

There is a perfect symmetry between using "rubes" and rednecks as labels for those who do not Believe in Political Correctness and calling Unbelievers "heathens" and "pagans," both words meaning country bumpkins or rednecks.

Herodotus had this attitude long before Christianity. Being an Indo-European, he gave us the earliest remaining - historians now would say "the earliest" factual accounts of ancient sites. But he did it for what we call a Modern historical reason; He was trying to prove that the gods of Greece were descended from the gods of Egypt, not from the gods of the rednecks from the Northern woods.

And, like those who call themselves historians today, he was dead wrong.

Theology is largely an attempt to explain away what is obviously wrong in one's doctrine. History is largely an attempt to explain away what is wrong with OUR Established Religion's dogma.

For over half a millennium, the two great monotheistic faiths, Roman Christianity and Zoroastrianism, shared the world, though competitors and often blood enemies, the two empires, Byzantine and Persian, referred to themselves as The Two Eyes of Civilization. Mani, who founded Manichaeism, was trying to unite the two great religions of his day and the Western world in his death's-head theology.

Today no one would understand Mani's universalist purpose. He is looked upon as an extremist. He saw himself as a centrist. He saw himself as a center of civilization against the rednecks. That is one thing that no historian who mentions Mani even considers. But Mani was sincerely trying to join the Two Eyes of Civilization against the Pagans, the polytheists, the rednecks.

Many have talked about how ridiculous yesterday's True Faith preachers look today. The London preachers who denounced Jenner's vaccination, the top theologians of the Established Church, spring to mind.

But at least those misguided theocrats are REMEMBERED. Who today remembers the respectable conservatives of their time, the Manis who tried to synthesize two pieces of nonsense into a single, reasonable, whole pile of rubbish?

At least the doctrines are remembered. The fanatics are remembered because they had the courage to be just plain WRONG.

Those who sought to compromise nonsense are forgotten.


Shari and Joe have different loyalties from mine. In our day, it is generally accepted that my job is to make them think like I do. Shari and Joe and I cling to a distinction here that is alien to accepted ideas today. I think I have some intellectual exercises that Shari and Joe can use. They agree.

But what I have to offer them is not to turn them into tape recording of what I believe. They use me as an unfortunately unique opportunity to hone their OWN thought. This, as Shari and Joe would be the first to tell you, is called education. They consider me a qualified teacher. They can learn something from me; I can learn something from them. That's why they like the blog. That's why they consider it worthwhile to trade thoughts with Bob and his commenters.

LibAnon considers Bob's Blog, written by a Reagan appointee, to be a godsend. I have a very useful WAY OF THINKING. Joe and LibAnon and Shari want to make use of that way of thinking. In an age that seems alien today, that is what education MEANT. Education is NOT indoctrination. On the one hand, to a rational person this is obvious. But in today's society, it involves a kind of thinking on the part of LibAnon and Joe and Shari that is as alien as visitors from Mars. They are not here to become Bob clones.

If you read the comments nobody here comes close to being a Bob clone, though I feel that would be the height of brilliance. Naturally I consider that you are wrong and I am right. But just as naturally it never occurs to me that YOU need to take it for granted that you are wrong and I am right. This is so obvious that I feel a little crazy just SAYING it. But underlying this is the simple fact that we live in a society that is nuts.

In the present world it is the mark of an "educated" person that he BELIEVES all the things an "educated person" is supposed to believe. Today you judge whether a person is educated by whether he can recite the beliefs that "educated people" are supposed to have.

To me, a person who recites Political Correctness is a RE-educated person; a human robot.

During the Korean War, the group that calls itself the Greatest Generation was still a bunch of youngsters and most Americans had a pre-WWII mentality. At that time, we kept hearing about our POWs being sent to "reeducation camps." Back then the average American's hackles went up the moment RE education was mentioned. Today, no one ever hears the term "re-education." The Greatest Generation simply cannot see any difference between education and reeducation. So when any social problem comes up, everybody agrees that the solution to it is "education."

So when it was discovered recently that babies discriminate racially, everybody, especially respectable conservatives, instantly agreed that "education" was the "solution" to this "problem." Note the words in quotes. Is this a problem or a natural phenomenon?

Communists agree that what they call Greed and what others call self-interest is a PROBLEM. In the early 1950s every Intellectual had to agree that greed was unique to human beings. It was absolutely agreed that no animal desired more food than it could eat, more females than any other male. No animal held territory and kept others off of it. No animal tried to lord it over any other member of his own species. In fact, it was taken for granted that a person who believed that races or men and women were different was a product of his training, of his education. It was taken for granted that he needed RE-education.

When there were the Americans who had not yet become a product of The Greatest Generation. The objected to the concept of Reeducation because they felt that THEIR training was NOT warped. As "The Greatest Generation" took over, this idea was denounced as prejudiced. By the 1960s "everybody who counted" accepted the idea that our prejudices were warped. Those who did not admitted they were "just old fashioned." So today we accept the idea that when an animal sees some things as natural and other things as unnatural, that is a statement that comes from the soul of said animal - or aborigine - that we must listen to.

But when a white baby prefers its own kind that is something that needs correction.

The American population that passed the GI Bill of Rights, which gave money to veterans to go to college, was the same group of people who reacted violently to the very word Reeducation in Korea. They were happy to pay for education but the very concept of Reeducation turned their stomachs.

I defy you today to find one American who understands the difference between education and reeducation.

Mark and Shari are fighting it out over faith, and that is welcome. As I said, I don't agree with Shari, but she made some good points. But Shari has made it clear, up front, that her loyalty is not to her race, but to a book.

But we need these allies, and Shari spoke for a very large group of them. She did it eloquently. It is a regrettable fact that if we limit ourselves today to those who are driven by loyalty to their race alone, we would indeed be preaching to the choir.

Now I happen to know that Christianity succeeded by insisting on preaching to the choir every single Sunday. It is essential. But you can't succeed by preaching ONLY to the choir. Shari and Joe give us needed input from other points of view. In time, as race becomes more and more obviously central in America, when the illusion that we are the ruling majority which should be "objective" disappear, the Old Testament is going to be less and less a convenient excuse for avoiding this loyalty.

This is what happened in the Deep South. We were also the Bible Belt, but race never ceased to be central. Whites were never a comfortable majority, so it is only recently that we have had the comfortable illusion that we live as part of a country where whites dominate. We are simply behind the times.

At the moment when the rest of the country is gradually coming to grips with the central nature of race, Southern suburbanites are absorbing the outdated idea that race is NOT important. I see all this movement, and when someone says, "But it's all HOPELESS!" "Everything is moving in ONE direction!"

It makes me tired. Things that will make our future are happening all over the place.

So Joe, the Tough Old Guy Let's Surrender approach and Shari, the Old Testament loyalist, are part and parcel of the people we have to deal with. The crew is always telling each other Deep Wisdom and superstition, but they would be appalled if the Captain paid attention to anything but the charts and his sextant. That's the ONLY reason he is the Captain.