Many people still look at religions by quoting their texts. Since each religious institution, like each country, is the product of its PEOPLE, this Wordism leaves them stuck in Never-Never Land and unlikely ever to leave it.

The old Judaism grew up in the Middle East. It was one of the very few of the thousands of smaller religions that survived the competition as society became larger.

In the time of Herodotus all of the Middle East was part of Persian Empire. He traveled on the Persian Roads in the same way that historians tell us that European travelers went on Roman Roads.

To Herodotus, in fact, as to our own historians, the Middle East was the wellspring of everything. Herodotus devoted his studies to proving that Greek gods were derived from the Egyptian ones. In fact, in that way he sounds so much like a modern historian that it sounds as familiar as it is absurd.

Herodotus spent his lifetime desperately trying to hammer the Aryan Greek Pantheon into the totally alien Egyptian Pantheon, just as historians now try to hammer the progress of Europe into something called the Renaissance, which seriously tries to say that everything we do came from Ancient Books.

What we actually got from this Renaissance crap was things like a capitol and “classical” monuments that any Roman or Greek would have laughed himself to tears about. Our history looks as ridiculous as our architecture when we try to insist that Calculus had its origins in Roman Numerals.

In the Persian Empire religions took on the look of Zoroastrianism. Jews were not monotheistic until they became part of the Persian Empire:

“No other gods BEFORE ME” as any literate person notes by now.

Zoroastrianism is by far the oldest monotheistic faith, and was The Only True Faith. But, like Judaism, it was limited to a select people: Aryans Only. There were probably a hundred sizable Only True Faiths that grew up like Judaism limited to ITS Chosen People.

Today all Jehovans are desperate to forget Zoroastrianism ever existed. As I said in “Silence IS Consent,” that is the method institutions use rather than disputing their rivals. Once established, they burn the records and make up their own history.

We know that one-celled animals do not have “wants” in our sense of the word. Yet we also know that they will get away from water that is too hot or too cold. Institutions are exactly like that.

Like one-celled beings institutions are evolved by competition. The less successful ones die. But the result is the same. Institutions are very much alike and very predictable, because they compete in the same waters and you can predict what the survivors will be like.

If you can’t look at things this way the world becomes a Conspiracy. The problem with a Conspiracy was covered by Benjamin Franklin over two centuries ago when he said, “Three men can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”

There is another problem with conspiracies. No one in the real world is that SMART. When you have spent your career watching people at the top scrambling to meet crises, the idea that someone has the whole world all mapped out is very hard to credit.

Institutions, like one-celled beings, come in a variety of types that compete for entirely different things. A lot of historians like to note that Odinism had a Trinity, Odin, Thor and Freya. That sounds good, but it is not clear and in any case Odinism at that time was COMPETING with another trinity called Christianity.

If Communism had its youth group, the Komsomols, Nazism would get its Hitler Youth. If Communism had its hammer and sickle, Nazism would get is swastika. Competing institutions look very much alike, just as one-celled beings do.

According to Islam, it will be Jesus who comes down to the Judgment. Islam is a mixture of its two main competitors and forerunners, Judaism and Christianity. Even Iranian Shi’ism is attributed to the special influence of Zoroastrianism and regards all other Moslems as heretics.

Those of us who are only really familiar with the three Jehovan religions do not realize how alike they are. We have real trouble understanding most religions where a specific God is nonexistent, as in Buddhism, or multiple gods as in Hinduism.

We have extreme difficulty with Political Correctness as a religion because it has a Satan, Hitler, and no Jehovah. We don’t understand the many religions that had their own Holy Prostitution exactly as we have our Holy Virginity.

We KNOW it, but we don’t UNDERSTAND it. Deep down we simply do not believe those were RELIGIONS, real religions, even though we know that their followers were as dedicated and faithful to them as we can ever be to ours.

We do not realize that the religions we know, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, look almost exactly alike to any other culture. Wordism takes the words so seriously it does not even see the obvious fact that, whatever the original Books say, these three institutions that survive by competing with each other are going to look as alike to the real world as different forms of Buddhism or Taoism do to us.

Each of our forms of Jehovism sees itself as The Only True Faith. In the competition, only the few that had that doctrine could survive. But in other societies not only is there no One True Faith, but each survives by NOT fighting it out to the death.

It depends, in short, on the PEOPLE, not on the WORDS.

The mainline Protestant denominations dropped precipitously in the last century while the population went up. The Catholic Church had a fairly heavy conversion rate until Vatican II when it decided to be as much like the obviously dying Anglican Church as it could be.

Evangelicals converted so many millions in Latin America they were on the way to becoming the dominant religion there. But the fire is out and they are doing their best to be just like everybody else. It no longer uses the fundamentalism because the people its leaders want to become, in part think it’s dirty.

What the leaders come to want is not the same thing that makes an institution grow.

So you see that institutions are a separate evolutionary study from everything we are used to looking at in our Wordist way. For any serious political knowledge, that blind spot is exactly like trying to understand astronomy while insisting that the earth is the center of the universe.

Wordism, after all, no matter what form it takes, puts words at the center of our universe.

The European Large Hadron Collider project is the one that has atoms smashing into each other so as to study the production of anti-matter. I understand this is part of the latest Dan Brown book after his DaVinci Code.

I happened to read of cost overruns in this project, and that “Environmentalists are using this as a reason to shut the project down.” The average reader probably had no idea that the environmental movement wanted to shut it down.

The LHC is pure research. Environmentalists waited until billions were invested in atomic power before they stopped it cold in the US. But it is not the environment that is the point here, it is the billions.

Today’s environmentalism has as little to do saving clean air and so forth as today’s socialism has to do with the welfare of the workers. In our day of ideological professionalism, old causes have long since been taken over by those who make them fronts for a particular ideology.

Note how casually the magazine referred to how environmentalists were pointing to these cost overruns to kill the LHC project. It was merely a report, not a partisan attack. What was interesting was that the writer of the piece took it for granted that no one would have any trouble understanding that the Green Movement opposes this basic research on new means of power generation.

But I am the only person who sees that report and THINKS about it. The connection between wanting a planned world and being against technology is understood, but most people don’t understand what you mean when you say it.

A planned world is a static world. Communism tried to catch up with America and other developed countries, and it was impossible. To any environmentalist “growth” is an evil word. But one thing no one on the left ever mentioned during the Cold War was the fantastic amount of environmental destruction under every Communist regime.

Only factories in capitalist countries produced pollution. Jane Fonda didn’t talk about Chernobyl.

You recognize these things as obvious WHEN I SAY THEM. But a practical dialogue about the real world is difficult unless we all get to the point where we no longer have to explain these connections in detail, a Point B in getting from Point A to Point C.

The Mantra is on the way to showing people that anti-racists are anti-white. When that is done, though the lead time will be very large, people will learn that a planned world movement naturally tends to be an anti-science movement

Complaints about how badly income is distributed have been legitimate since before Christ made them. But we all know that today, someone who talks about income distribution is almost invariably part of a movement that wants all the money to distribute for its own members.

You can’t discuss anything rationally without Mantra Thinking.

There is literally a war going on just south of the Mexican border. Any time anyone gets killed on THIS side of that imaginary line from stray bullets, it is news. Then there is the question of whether Mexicans coming here will make this the same kind of country they have.

This is the kind of connection anyone who THINKS about the situation would make. But the job of the liberal-respectable conservative duo is to prevent such thinking.

As I said in the New Rights Papers a generation ago, the reason Mexican labor is worth several times as much when it crosses that invisible line is not magic. It is because, when a Mexican crosses into the United States, he works in a country that is NOT run by Mexicans.

This is a conclusion every respectable conservative points to as heresy. They say it is racism because it cannot matter WHO populates a country. All that matters is the pieces of paper the country is supposedly based on.

So libertarians believe in magic. They insist that there is no reason labor should be worth more on this side of the border.

How many times have you ever heard anyone ask WHY Mexicans have to come HERE for opportunity. We always hear that they are only doing it for their families, of course. There is no greed in Mexicans.

We also hear that the Mexicans are not at all responsible for the full scale slaughter going on where Mexican rule begins. The media are always saying that the whole blame is on Americans, because Americans “have an appetite for illegal drugs.”

Political Correctness is a religion, but it seems to me that even after being trained act the liberal seminaries we call colleges, this sort of cant would begin to pall. But all the people around me repeat this crap like trained parrots.

Why is it that the same labor is worth so much more when you cross the Rio Grande? The only thing that changes there is the jurisdiction.

Which is why they are all shouting that Mexico is having that war within gunshot of the American border because Americans are greedy for drugs. So why is the war on the Mexican side of the border?

Americans are impenetrably stupid about immigration. But a war of that magnitude and violence inside the United States would cause even the theologically-obsessed American morons to see that we don’t want Mexico here.

So the war is kept on the other side of the border and is never used as an argument against populating this country with the same workers who make Mexico what it is.

In the longer term it will be racist to say that outright war like that should not be inside the United States. That will take a while, but, like everything else I have predicted, it will come to pass if we let the present arguments go by without comment, as respectable conservatives are paid to do.

It is population, not appearences, that makes a country what it is

The one big difference between my view of our opposition and that of the Leaders is that I regard our opponents as muddled morons. That is certainly the view of them our opponents want LEAST.

Respectable conservatives are actually chosen as the official opposition because they regard the established powers as Geniuses. They don’t even call them Evil Geniuses, as the far right does. Respectable conservatives look up to leftists.

As National Review founding Publisher William Rusher said, “People on National Review do not believe anything unless it is in the New York Times.”

Remember that respectable conservatives are the ones the left feels comfortable with. That term respectable is handed out like the New York Times Best Seller List, which is published before the sales statistics are complete or even begun. Respectability means one keeps within bounds that are comfortable to those who control the media.

This is not necessarily a conscious choice, much less a Conspiracy. It is based on what makes the voice of the establishment COMFORTABLE. That is strictly a judgment call, and least of all is it a Secret List agreed at midnight between Conspiracy Members.

Who would a liberal rather debate, Sean Hannity or Bob Whitaker? I would make it clear that he is out of date, a part of the herd. And not smart enough to challenge anything basic. Hannity would call them well-meaning, almost get into tears about their vast intellect, and say he would agree with them except that he Hears the Voice of God.

That is how you get paid the big bucks. You show the establishment that you make it look good to the yokels. It’s much like a magic act, where two different groups see two different things.

You make the yokels think you are exposing leftist error, but you make the leftists look good, too.

The reason there is so much competition for respectable status is because it PAYS. Respectability is worth big money.

But like all markets, it is subject to supply and demand.

I pointed out in another article that Senator Hollings let it all out about the Israeli Lobby owning Capitol Hill in his last major speech because he had sacrificed many years in the Senate by being a Southern turncoat , but for decades he had not even gotten mentioned for a Vice Presidential nomination in return.

Hollings’ problem was that the establishment has more Southern turncoats than it knows what to do with, and every day another thousand show up expecting to be rewarded for it.

From the moderate Republicans to the Tea Party, the competition for respectable status is vicious. Nobody tries harder than respectable conservatives to thwart grassroots upstarts, and there is no way a pro-white word will ever be spoken at a Tea Party rally, because those seeking respectability would turn them in faster than a Soviet informer.