I talked earlier about how much more effective it would be if, instead of complex debates, people said, “I don’t believe you.” Respectable conservatives get paid precisely to take total absurdities from our established religion and make them sound intelligent by debating them in detail.

No one could be a professional conservative and use the Mantra. In a debate on television, once you had made it clear that the anti-white position is simple genocide, how would you pass the remainder of the time?

I mean this as a serious question. How can all the professional proponents of our established religion allow people on who simply chop them up and leave dead air? Not to mention that, since it IS our established religion, real heretics are not allowed exposure.

We have this problem in dealing with Obama. Obama is doing precisely what he said he would do: being an old style leftist, for which the codeword is “Change,” The fact that it requires a code word shows how successful it has been.

What is wrong with it, the reason liberalism and socialism need a codeword, is simple, 1) it has been tried, and 2) it does not work. Obama is trying Change and it does not work.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. But you won’t hear any professional conservative putting it that simply. And that is why the argument against this stuff doesn’t work.

It is not plain and simple. It treats this nonsense as if it had a point. It is part of the pretense that the national debate has two sides. The fact is that the so-called national debate has one side, our established religion of Political Correctness, and a group which serves as its respectable opposition.

In short, there is one side that is discredited and another side that tries to keep it credited.

That is why there is only one side, and that is why the one side is our established RELIGION. It is based entirely on faith that what has failed, from democratic socialism in Britain to liberalism in the US to state Communism in a third of the world, has failed and failed and failed and failed.

Its failure is not the point precisely because it is a religion, faith without evidence and, in fact, faith contrary to evidence.

But until we start saying things like “This is a religion” respectable conservatives will be able to keep up the pretense, which makes them their livelihoods, that this discredited nonsense is a Point of View.

More than that, that it is THE Point of View against which those who are called “conservatives” are merely the opposition.

I also keep emphasizing how important it is to realize that our so-called “National Debate” and all the highly publicized Movements are a means for hundreds of thousands of people to make a LIVELIHOOD.

What is debated is as much a market product as your cereal.

When you look at this “National Debate” ask yourself the one important question: Why is this information produced? It is produced by a market.