The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state must approve homosexual marriages. All the precedents are on their side.

In 1945 the California Supreme Court struck down that state's ban on interracial marriages. The California Supreme Court defied all constitutional history to do that. Everybody who ratified the California state constitution was for a law against interracial marriages.

The California Supreme Court simply and openly dictated social policy and it won.

Every state that ratified the United States Bill of Rights had and enforced laws against interracial marriage. In 1968 the United States Supreme Court struck down every law in this country against interracial marriage by saying they violated the Bill of Rights.

People like me said that was a dangerous precedent. Everybody said we were just being alarmists.

You can scream all you want to about homosexual marriage. You lost that fight thirty-five years ago.

TRUTHS THAT WORK | 2002-12-21

A long time I ago, by trial and error, I found the perfect answer to use on a Yankee who badmouths the South.

No matter what he says, my first reply is

"You know, we didn't fight a war to keep YOU."

If you say that and stop right there, it leaves them furious and frustrated. Anything they say is going to be on the defensive.

The greatest war in American history, the war in which more Americans were killed by far than in all America's other wars combined, was for the express purpose of keeping the South IN the union.

All we wanted was to get away from Yankees.

MODERN SLAVERY | 2001-04-21

The slave ship fiasco in Africa brought the modern slavery situation into focus.

The International Labor Organization estimates that there are 250 million children between the ages of five and fourteen in slave labor around the world -- predominantly in Asia and Africa.

Two points about this need to be made.

First, This slavery involves few if any whites.

Second, these slave traders bought their slaves from Africans and Asians, usually the children's parents.

Liberals want to talk about slavery in 1860, not about who is guilty today. No way that liberals will OK the discussion of the color of today's slave traders. But I thought that respectable conservatives might dare talk about it anyway.

'Fraid not. Even I constantly underestimate the pure intellectual cowardice it takes to be respectable.

So let's look at the rest of what these ideological Bobsey Twins are not going to bring up.

The liberal line today (and therefore the respectable conservative line) is that Southerners were responsible for the slave trade because they BOUGHT slaves two centuries ago.

It's a funny thing, but few if any whites were going to buy today's slaves, and nobody wants to discuss that.

Slavery was often brutal, but even the Confederacy HANGED people who engaged in the slave trade. Half the blacks were expected to die in misery on a slave ship.

It is New England fortunes, not Southern fortunes, that were founded on that famous Triangle Trade.

One John Brown, for whom Brown University in Rhode Island is named, amassed a slave trade fortune. Most of the other such fortunes were in Massachusetts.

But modern history has to lie even about those bestial slave traders in order to be Politically Correct. So the History Channel tells us that "whites kidnapped blacks in Africa."

The networks produced the movie "Roots" in which whites -- with a couple of black helpers -- were shown capturing Kunte Kinte. In that movie, it was only a few black "allies of the white man" who were mentioned as helping kidnap blacks for the Triangle Trade .

After he was Born Again, an actual eighteenth century slave trader confessed the horrors he had perpetrated in that trade. But even he said that the one thing they were not guilty of was chasing down and enslaving blacks.

No white slave trader ever did what the History Channel constantly says they did and what the networks said they did. It was not that they were too good to kidnap Africans. It is just that, in real history, they would never have found any reason to do it.

Yesterday, as today, slaves are too cheap in Africa to be worth chasing down oneself. Exactly like today's slavers, all the old slave traders bought their ENTIRE cargo from black Africans.

It was and is cheap and easy to buy slaves from black Africans.

What the Confederacy NEVER ALLOWED is what Africans have ALWAYS engaged in.

That would have ruined the "only whites are evil" theme of "Roots", wouldn't it?

FOOTNOTE: The only people conservatives allow to speak for them about race issues today are "neoconservatives," who were hard-core leftists in the 1960s.

I discussed these "neos" on March 24, 2001 in THE "NEOS" HELPED CAUSE TODAY'S SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH.

Neos like David Horowitz have found some of the points I make here useful in representing the "conservative" side on reparations for slavery.

My problem, once again, is that I have a memory. Today's "neos" were shrieking us down when we made that kind of point in the 1960s. The shouting down of free speech never had more loyal allies, on and off campus, than today's neos when they were liberals.


One of the three men who got an award for pushing through the original permission for The Human Genome Project (HGP) gave his entire award to The Black Panther Party.

It was a guarantee that HGP, thought it was in the forbidden area of genetics, would NEVER contradict the doctrine that race does not exist.

I think any realistic person can imagine, as the HGP slowly got its approval, how many guarantees were made that the Human Genome project would repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat that race does not exist.

My proof that race DOES exist is typical Whitaker:

Every forensic pathologist must do two things:

First, he must be able to determine the race of a corpse from desiccated remnants or bones and swear to the race of said corpse in court and second he must swear in court that race does not exist.

Practically nobody ever considers these points together. Their thinking is rigidly what Orwell called Doublethink. Without Doublethink you don't get your degree, and you sure as hell don't get professorial tenure.

One cannot explain this routine Doublethink unless he realizes that Political Correctness is not LIKE a religion, it IS a religion. Once you realize that, today's situation fits neatly into history.

I think most people are aware of the difficulties Galileo ran into when he looked through the telescope invented in Northern Europe.

Galileo saw that the Bible was just plain wrong about earth being the center of the universe. It is not true that he was immediately condemned. He was warned repeatedly that he had to find a way to meld his ideas into the Political Correctness of the day.

As I will explain the HGP people are trying desperately to get their latest discoveries to meld into Politically Correct theology. Galileo didn't even TRY.

Moslem scholars were smarter. They had a phrase, "This is true beneath the moon." They said that the Old Testament was perfectly correct, but their observations were those of mere men, not of the Imams.

They carefully separated what was true "beneath the moon" from the Revealed Truth which only the Imams were able to see. They didn't get away with it in the long run, but they fared a lot better than Galileo, whose Nordic honesty got him shut up for life.

Recently the Human Genome Project (HGP) has discovered what is called "the benevolent gene."

Darwin's "Nature, red in tooth and claw," said that each animal is totally ruthless and fights only for its own individual survival without mercy. Contrasted to this was Civilization, which taught humans to have some mercy and some benevolence toward their fellow men.

So only the Revealed Truth from the Middle East, the Old Testament, gave barbarians the slightest hint of human decency.

Darwin was personally anti-Christian, but nobody did more to advance the concept that only Middle Eastern Civilization made man anything but a ravenous animal.

Robert Ardrey did a lot to bring this nonsense to sanity. He pointed out endless examples of social animals that sacrificed their own lives to save the troop, something I was always taught that only The Greatest Generation ever did.

It is now generally recognized among serious students of human development that group loyalty, benevolence, is one of the strongest incentives real social beings have for survival.

Now the HGP has actually found the very gene that promotes human benevolence. It was there a LONG time before the Old Testament was. It was in our very nature long before Political Correctness supplanted the Old Testament.

A sane person from another planet would naturally assume that when humans found they had natural benevolence they would celebrate. Finding one is naturally decent would seem to be good news.

We know different. Everybody from priest to preacher to Mommy Professor would burn them alive for that discovery if the old laws prevailed.

Those who claim to have found the genetic structure that produces benevolence are in DEEP trouble.

The problem with this benevolence being in our nature is that, once stated, it is obvious to anybody but a truly determined Doublethinker or a certified moron.

But a major portion of our society, the DOMINANT, RULING part of our society, makes it LIVING by being determined morons and Doublethinkers.

Imams, lawyers, popes, preachers and above the largest clergy of our time, Mommy Professors, make their living that way. Meanwhile, back on the earth "beneath the moon, benevolence is a genetic survival mechanism.

It exists because any given social animal wants to preserve its own kind.

Its OWN kind. Not humankind.

Its OWN kind.

For a few million years those who do not have PhD's or theology degrees have noticed that birds do not fight to preserve Birddom in general and humans do not preserve Humanity in general.

Alfred Hitchcock came up with the concept of a war between birddom and humanity and he was not fool enough to take it seriously.

In fact, as is true in the case of all Politically Correct dogma, precisely the opposite is not only the case, but also the OBVIOUS case.

You hear birds chirping loudly to announce their territory. But, unless you look like you might steal their eggs, they have no interest in YOU.

But if another bird, a certified member of the Brotherhood of Birddom, comes anywhere inside their territory they will attack it.

This gets WORSE the more KIN that fellow member of Birddom is to the bird doing the chirping. A robin will REALLY go after another robin who violates its territory.

Chimpanzees can live comfortably with baboons in the same area, but try to force some more chimpanzees in there and see how much blood flows.

By the same token, men do not ask birds for their passports. They ask other MEN for their passports. I feel a little crazy having to explain this, but the whole religion of Political Correctness sees this as alien to their worldview.

So I am trying to state reality to the priesthood. At least I'm in the best company.

The Church crushed Galileo's for merely saying what he saw when he looked through that telescope.

Comparing myself to Galileo is a little scary, but it also makes he feel good.

Why is the benevolent gene such a HORRIBLE thing for the Genome Project?

The reason is that one of the absolute bases of the Politically Correct faith is that babies are not racially prejudiced AT ALL. That has been required doctrine all my life.

The Human Genome Project has found that the natural tendency of a BABY is to prefer its own race.

Which, if you have the slightest inkling of how evolution works, is not exactly rocket science.

Now everybody has suddenly forgotten that they ever said that small children were naturally unprejudiced.

The Human Genome Project faces a crisis. It has done what it SWORE that it would NEVER do. It has heavy evidence that human beings like any other social animal; want to preserve their own kind against interbreedable types OF THEIR OWN SPECIES!

The Human Genome Project has stuck its foot in it, big time. So what can they do now?

What they are doing is insisting that this discovery of innate racial prejudice just makes the case for Political Correctness stronger. They are insisting that integration needs to be forced long before Kindergarten.

Yes, it is true that science tells us the obvious fact that races prefer to survive. But the HGP assures us that that is a truth that is "beneath the moon."

The Human Genome Project is saying that, in the reality that only Mommy Professor or an Imam or a Pope or some theologian of another faith can discern, the Truth Beyond the Moon is what matters.

HGP agrees that anybody who says racial prejudice is natural should be burned alive. They will gather the wood and light the fire, if no respectable conservative does it first.

Those who say that man's natural feelings should take precedence over the dictates of the priesthood are naziswhowanttokillsixmilliojews, and they want to outrun William Buckley in suppressing them.

It worked for Buckley. Will it work for the HGP?

Moslem scholars tried it, and they survived longer than Galileo did. If you have morals, it's a good strategy.

Buckley showed that it works for a while. The Islamic scholars made it work for a while.

The bottom line is that at no time in history has this strategy worked for very long.

History tells us that this crap won't work.