One of the big arguments for universalism is how much alike the Great Religions are. But if you recognize the disease of Wordism and you want to get back to actual concepts of Christ or Buddha or mohammed, these “common” growths of the institutions that grew up in their names if the first thing you must jettison.

As one commenter said, I seem to love Christ and hate Christianity.

I see Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism as wordist institutions that grew up after Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed. They are, in the worst sense of the word, growths, like cancer.

And they are, indeed, very much alike. The laws which govern the survival of any institution are very much alike. So Christianity was very much at home with Roman slavery and is very much at home with etting rid of the white race today. That’s how institutions are.

With long, long Commentaries and so forth what Christ or Buddha actually said becomes incrusted with the same wordist effluvia.

It is precisely by getting rid of “what the Great Faiths have in common” that one can begin to get back to the message. Wordism is one of our BASICS. Let’s USE it.

I just said that the blacks were almost certainly right that Obama’s win would have been far greater had he been white. That is heresy for conservatives, but am anti-liberal, not conservative. The only purpose “conservatives” have is to be a harmless opposition .

I’m not harmless. So let me agree with the liberals on another point they constantly make which every professional conservative denies:

It’s racial.

For National Review, True Western Civilization consists of a sterile pedophile in a dress shouting at the ceiling in a dead language. That is the kind of “opposition” the establishment thrives on.

In the broadest sense the opposition is as sterile as the establishment. Political Correctness offer us the future of an ant colony. Conservatives differ with them only in the nature of the ants they want.

Political Correctness sees a brown stagnant future where mankind, each one of which is a carbon emitter, will fit in with the stagnant environment.

National Review sees a future Latin America, where a racially mixed population concentrates on going to church and living according to the dictates of a sterile ruling class.

In both cases one’s society is dedicated to guilt. Young people can spend their lives trying to appease God for their Original Sin or they can spend their lives being sterile to keep down their carbon emissions. In both case they are Born in Sin and deserve less than nothing.

Liberals and conservatives insist that any other scenario smacks of Racism. They are perfectly correct. This all started with white self-hatred.

Once you learn self-hatred, it spreads to the rest of your thinking.

Conservatives now insist they are far more anti-white than liberals. They are certainly more DESPERATELY anti-white. They want all humans to be guilty of being human. Political Correctness rests on the same foundation.

The bewildering and contradictory set of groups that are listed as “conservative” is easily explained.

Any group that opposes established liberal doctrine is defined as conservative. They can be libertarian and militantly atheist like Ayn Rand’s Objectivist or they can be fanatically theocratic, like Islamic militants. They can be fundamental Protestant or Tom Fleming’s total papists. All are defined as conservative or rightist.

One of the funniest examples of this was when the media started declaring old-line Stalinists in Russia as “right-wingers.”

As usual, conservatives bitched about the people they had fought almost alone to the death being defined as belonging to conservatism, but they MISSED the critical point they could have made from it.

One thing that the media let slip here was that Stalinists were now conservatives because old Communism was no longer as a part of “progressivism.”

Such is the cost of failure.

The one thing the established religion monomaniacally hides if the obvious fact that there IS “an established point of view.” There is absolutely no other way to explain the sudden change of Marxist-Leninists to conservatives except by the fact that they no longer fitted into the ESTABLISHED “progressive” framework.

Conservatives did not make that point. Conservatives did not even REALIZE that point.

That is why conservatives are so useful to the establishment. They NEVER see the POINT.

I have said many times that I am the least conservative person you are ever likely to meet. The MOST conservative people you could possibly meet make the editorial board of the New York Times.

They like the way things are going. The kept opposition thy call conservative represent a few bumps on the road, and very small bumps at that, as we can see from the 1994 Contract With America and the results of the Republican Ascendancy until it totally collapsed in 2008.

In the real world, “conservatism” is a way to make a living. Professional conservative pimps like this writer was spend most of their time finding out what the establishment opposes and then getting checks from people who want to object to it. Their only function is to provide people who don’t like the way things are going with the illusion that they are opposing it.

That is reality I find it very heard to get across.

It is the ONLY important reality. To get anywhere, you have to start with hard reality.

Not with wise-sounding analyses of what was just said in the newspaper, but with time and hard thought dedicated to the real world you are trying to redirect.