I don't really present ARGUMENTS. I present ways of saying the truth in such a way as to leave the other side looking ridiculous. That is exactly what you cannot do and be declared respectable in the media.

They have given up trying to argue with me precisely because my method is so EFFECTIVE.

For example I was looking at an editorial which shows that the children of Mexicans who come to the US end up a lot like Mexicans who stay down there. This is avoided by libertarians because they believe in magic. They say that the border is magic, and if the population of Mexico comes over it they will magically produce a society as productive as whites.

But there is another point here. All the explanations for Mexican failure are predictable. Nothing is their doing. We all know why that is, but we don't SAY it. The article is to be published. Regardless of the truth - WHICHEVER WAY IT GOES - every word in that article can be explained by the audience, not by the facts.

It is unlikely, to say the least, that one would say for the sake of tact happens to be also the truth.

This goes back to the Middle East history I have been talking about. There is an enormous coincidence here, too. By a miraculous coincidence, all those people who had been scouring the Holy Land for a thousand years suddenly discovered that they only had to go about a hundred miles in either direction to be historians instead of theologians.

It reminds me of the old Mutt and Jeff cartoon when Jeff found Mutt searching under a street lamp. "What are you doing?"

"I dropped my watch a hundred feet over that way."

"The why are you searching HERE?"

"This is where the LIGHT is."

It reminds me of the anthropologist some years back. He lived in Kenya. He "found the earliest man." Guess where?

The first thing you do is find out WHY someone says something. If it is exactly what he would say or do for some other reason, the chances are it isn't true.