Thursday, April 23, 2020

Anglo-America Lost Power to Jew-America when its Core Principle became Legality & Individuality than Identity & Unity

Rule of Law is essential. It is crucial to any society governed by principles of justice. Still, legality is a matter of goal-posts than the will to win. It's like one has to obey the signals and rules of the road when driving a car. But adherence to rules doesn't determine when, where, and why you go from A to B. Even if you obey all traffic lights and halt at every stop sign, you drive for your own interest. It is not to serve the rules but to serve YOURSELF. If you need to meet someone for a business deal, you drive to the café or conference room. Along the way, you obey the rules of the road, but your main focus is to get there on time to make a deal for your interests. Rules of the road are important inasmuch chaos and mayhem will reign if everyone drives as he or she pleases like a maniac. We don't want road warriors. Still, rules are never the goal but merely the goal-posts that provide some semblance of form to the movement or competition. Even in race-car driving where cars go crazy-fast, far beyond the speed limit allowed on roads, there are rules and regulations(that prevent the race from turning into Demolition Derby). In order to take part in the contest, all drivers must know and adhere to the rules. But they are not racing primarily to obey the rules but to win. They race for fame and glory. They are motivated by ego, pride, and money. They are fueled by the will to win, to be #1. Even as they do their best to remain within the rules, the rules are the last thing on their minds. First and foremost is their determination to beat the competition and be the first one to zip past the finish line. If one's main priority is to obey the rules, the will to win is immaterial. After all, you can come in second, third, fourth, or even last by obeying all the rules. The trick of power in a civilized order is to do everything just short of violating the rules to win. After all, rules are a drag on one's options. Yet, one must obey them because a world without rules is one of animals, thugs, and gangsters. Thus, the concept of the Golden Rule for the populace. And yet, victory in a world governed by the Rule of Law isn't about sticking to every letter of the Golden Rule but by coming closest to violating the rules without doing so. It's that factor that gives one the edge over the other.

Take a contest like boxing. There are rules such as No Biting, No Eye-Gouging, No Punching-Below-the-Belt, No-Kicking, and so forth. So, do such rules mean that it's a gentleman's game of kindness and civility? No, even with those restrictions, it's a brutal bout between two men whose objective is to knock the other guy out. Each is motivated not by his knowledge of the boxing rule-book but his desire to beat the other guy, win, and become rich & famous. So, even though they can't kick or punch each other in the balls, they do everything possible to psyche and pummel the other guy. They use all sorts of deceptive tricks to land surprise punches. When hurt, they clinch and hold onto the guy as long as possible before the referee pulls them apart. Also, even if one throws an illegal punch but isn't called out by the referee, one keeps boxing because the #1 objective is to win, not to adhere to absolutism of rules.
Rules are important but secondary. Competition is essentially ruthless, brutal, and even 'animal'. Rules exist to govern and control such aggressive impulses, not to negate and prohibit them. Thus, even in a world of Rule of Law, one must know he needs to be driven primarily by his will to beat the competition and come out on top. And the trick is not to stick to the rule-book as closest as possible but to expand one's options just short of brazenly violating the rules. Consider Muhammad Ali's third bout with Joe Frazier, aka Thrilla in Manila. Ali, clocked badly many times by the lunging Frazier with fearsome hooks, kept holding Frazier's neck to slow the pace of aggression. Ali did whatever he needed to do to win just short of being disqualified. Had he chosen to fight the cleanest fight in service to the golden letter of boxing rules, he might very well have lost. He was primarily motivated by the will to win, not to be a 'beautiful loser' with impeccable commitment not only to the rules but the very spirit of the rules. But who'd want to get punched in the face so many times by a monster like Joe Frazier just to demonstrate to the world that ONE LOVES RULES. The only reason to enter into such a brutal contest is to win and come out on top. If one loves rules above all, play Bridge or Old Maid. Win or lose, it's no big deal. But if the contest is for keeps, involves huge stakes, or decides the power & destiny of the world, one better have the mindset of Charles Bronson in HARD TIMES. It's not for weak stomachs.

Also, the contest for power can be directed on an individual, collective, or tribal basis. The individual will/drive to power is all about egomania. It's about 'me over the world'. The only concern is one's own wealth, pride, prestige, and honors. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are this kind of individualists. Sure, both fuss about philanthropy and aiding humanity, but it's all just an extension of their egomania. They know money can buy lots but not necessarily respect. So, like many other tycoons before them, they've created foundations and play do-gooder superman.
Power can be collective, but this isn't the same as tribalism. After all, labor unions work for collective interests but could represent workers of various races and ethnic backgrounds. They could represent men and women of all ages. Collective interest could be based on class, profession(medical, law, trucking, or whatever), religion, and etc. Despite intra-competition among companies and corporations, everyone in a certain industry or field has common interests with others like him. Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola are competitors, but they sometimes work together to push legislation that is good for all of beverage industry.
In contrast, tribal interest isn't merely collective but united on the basis of blood(and soil), identity, nationality, history, and/or heritage. Tribalism can be hierarchical. Despite huge divergences between the richest members and the least successful ones, they are all bound by the consciousness of race and share a sense of deep roots. Thus, a Jewish multi-billionaire in France or Russia may feel a sense of tribal bond with some humble Jewish worker in Israel. Though of different nationalities — France or Russia as opposed to Israel — , they feel as one people, brothers under the clothes. Whether a certain tribalism tends to learn more socialist or capitalist, what really matters is that everyone from those on top to those on the bottom feel that their core identity is unique/particular and that they must maintain unity so that the most powerful never lose sight of the less fortunate of the tribe while the less fortunate do what they can to support the tribal project. Thus, Israel was made by Zionists who ranged from super-rich to dirt poor. Whatever their economic circumstances, their consciousness was molded by the notion of the Jewish Covenant. It didn't matter that most pioneering Zionists were secular and didn't literally believe in God. What mattered was they were all committed to Jewish Identity as defined by the Covenant with deep ethno-spiritual roots.
So, even though the will and drive are crucial in any contest of power, there is a difference between individual will, collective will, and tribal will. A successful man of individual will may do very well, but he cannot conceive of any purpose in life beyond his individuality and self-glory. He is very much like the Ideal pushed by Ayn Rand onto goyim, especially Wasps(though she was perfectly fine with Jewish and Zionist identity and unity). Individual Will, as formidable and successful as it may be, is always a short-lived dead-end. After all, no one lives forever, and once individual titans grow old and die, they leave behind nothing but money without a clear purpose. His heirs may also be rich and set for the future, but they can only feel as lucky leeches of legacy. It's no wonder so many silver spoons kids end up none too well. Furthermore, even though their rich forebear may have created a philanthropic foundation in which the descendants have a place, as its purpose is to serve generic humanity its overall impact is dissipating and enervating on the will of inheritors. With each passing generation, the purpose of the great man's legacy, his philanthropic foundation, is not to concentrate power for a specific goal but to spread the generosity around to various genteel leeches whose whole lives revolve around pretending to help humanity while mostly attending cocktail parties. Consider the sheer uselessness of the Ford Foundation or Carnegie Endowments. They are run by genteel hacks who dole out money to fashionable causes in accordance to trends defined by the Real Power. So, no matter how much someone may achieve in his lifetime, his individual will is a mere shooting star in the firmament of history. A mere flash in the night. An individual who only cares about himself fails to realize that he is part of a deeper history and heritage. A link between the past and future. When, as a rich older man, he compensates for a life of egotism and 'greed' by playing the role of philanthropist, he may end up doing some good for people, but generic good-works don't serve as the basis of power or true gratitude/loyalty. Do all the people who benefited from the Ford fortune, Carnegie grants, or Rockefeller charities really feel as part of the Ford, Carnegie, or Rockefeller tribe? Ta-Nehisi Coates got a big fat paycheck from the MacArthur Foundation, but does anyone think he gives a crap about MacArthur or his family? No, he was just happy to take the check and spend it on himself. His personal will is driven by what he feels about his own people, the blacks. Black tribalism defines what he is ultimately about. The Anglo rich, by creating such foundations, ended up doling out cash and favors to people who don't give a shit about the Anglo people or the Anglo individuals who'd done so much to create vast fortunes. It goes to show that the big fat ego cannot buy love or respect. No matter how much money an individualist makes, his message to the world is "I got mine, and you don't." He may try to buy the love of the world by spreading the money around, but the world just takes the money and sees through the big fat ego. Who really thinks of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Jeff Bezos as true humanitarians? And even if they were born-again saints, power dissipates when spread thin and wide across humanity, most of which feels nothing in common with the giver.
What about the collective will? The fates of communism and US labor movement illustrate the problems of collective will. Masses of workers or the Proletariat are too amorphous to form an effective long-term bloc. While members of the working class have a general interest, it is mainly materialist. Workers want decent wages and living conditions... and some recreation. That's what being a worker is about. It's about the basic needs of life and some fun on the side. That's all very good as economic interests go but, once realized, hardly serves as a potent and effective locus of identity, meaning, and purpose. Working class interests are more about conditions than consciousness. Workers want decent means to support themselves. There is no other meaning to being a worker. Off work, one hardly thinks about work. Work is something you do for money, not something you do for meaning. Communism failed because it put the workers at the center. Workers are essential to an economy but so are creators, visionaries, entrepreneurs, wheeler-dealers, bankers, and the like. So, while it's good for workers to operate with a certain amount of collective will, the interests of other classes must also be respected. After all, for there to be jobs for workers, there has to be businesses that hire workers. Without businessmen, workers must build their own industries, but most workers don't have the brain power or ingenuity to create industry. As mediocrities, they are only good for being hired and being told what to do. As communism forbade business, who ran the industries that employed workers? It was all up to the state, but the central government managing all the economy was bound to fail. Just imagine the City Hall trying to run all the hotels, restaurants, factories, trucking, medical centers, food marts, clothing shops, and the like, and you know why communism failed. Under communism, the collective will of the workers overrode the collective wills of other classes and professions. As such, there was no one left to create or run businesses. The only way was for the state to play the role of avant-garde of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but the idea of a centralized system effectively running just about everything was a pipe dream.
The US labor movement and unions were far less extreme than communism; the collective will of US workers existed in tandem with the collective interests of other classes and groups. Still, the weakness of collective will based on class or economic interests was well-demonstrated by American History as well. American workers paid their Union dues and went on strikes on occasion, but their only interest in work was to get paid so they could have some fun on the side. An Irishman is always Irish. At work or away from work, he is Irish. In contrast, work is meaningful only at work. An engineer who's on a boating trip is not functioning as an engineer. Work has meaning only as activity, not as identity. If an Irishman goes from being a truck driver to a welder, he still remains Irish. But with the new job, he is no longer a trucker. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that his kids will do what he does, especially in the modern world with more individual freedoms. There were societies where the son inherited the economic niche from his father. If the father was a blacksmith, the son was a blacksmith. But in modern society, the son of a working class man can become a middle class man. Or an upper-middle class man or even a very rich man as the result of intelligence, drive, ability, and/or luck. If your grandfather was a peddler, your father was an accountant, and you're an elite lawyer, would it make sense to base your sense of identity on your profession, which is so different from those of your pa and grandpa? On the other hand, if your identity is Irish, it doesn't matter what your ancestors did or what you do. All of you are part of the Irish people and heritage. Ethnic identity and sense of culture have meaning at and away from work. And at any kind of work. Ethnicity isn't determined by how much money you have or don't have. An Irishman doesn't lose his identity for being poor or for being rich. He could have a job or be jobless at the moment. He is Irish because he was born as such and raised in the culture of Ireland and its people.

Just as the collective will of workers cannot be the core identity, the same goes for the collective will of the ruling class. While rich people have common interests of their own, they are too few in number to indefinitely demand that society revolve around their interests. To e sure, most of history has been defined and dominated by ruling classes. But back then, prior to the rise of modernity, the elites were defined not only by wealth but lineage. Society wasn't so much ruled by oligarchs as by kings and aristocrats. We may look upon such system as oppressive and unfair by OUR standards, but the combination of wealth, privilege, and lineage lent some degree of stability to the social order. The masses were led to believe that their social betters and political superiors owed their advantage not merely to wealth and (threat of) violence but better breeding. The caste system went even further in India. The elites could dominate in such a world for many eons.
But this was no longer tenable in the modern world where the rise of capitalism dictated wealth shall be created by enterprise, investment, and innovation than by old privileges and honors. Capitalism soon replaced the old aristocracy with new bourgeoisie who became many times richer than the kings and dukes of old. And yet, unlike kings and noblemen who had titles of blood and honor that meant something even when they ran into misfortune — a fallen nobleman was still a nobleman with a valuable title — , the capitalist was nothing without success in the here-and-now. One could go from rags to riches, but if one returned to rags, he had NOTHING left. Also, unlike the old aristocratic order in which society hardly changed at all or changed very gradually, the modern capitalist world transformed right before one's eyes in so many fields. Consider the revolution of airplanes from World War I to World War II. Then consider the changes that soon led to white folks sending men to the Moon.

Next, consider the Tribal Will. Compared to individual will and collective will, it is far more resilient. 'Tribality' existed before you were born, it exists through you as you live, and it continues after you die, that is IF the people of the tribe see fit to keep the torch of history, heritage, and territoriality burning. It is both a matter of inheritance and work in progress as the living members of the Tribe continue to add to the power and prestige of the Tribe(or subtract if they're a bunch of dammies, pronounced 'dommies' and meaning people who aren't really dumb but act dumb). An individual, however great and powerful in his life, is nothing after he dies. Even if he is remembered as a great man by future generations, it'd be pointless to form a community and shared identity on the cult of individuality. Stalin was once the most powerful man on Earth, but is there an identity based on his cult of personality? While great individuals can play a founding role in a community, it must ultimately be about something far bigger than the individual. Abraham, legendary or mythical, received the Covenant for his people and future generations. It was more about God than his humble self. Indeed, God chose him precisely because he was humble and understood the larger picture: God is boss. Moses played a great role in Jewish History but, again, it was in service to God and agendas bigger than himself. He led his Tribe out of Egypt, and in the end, it didn't matter that he himself wasn't allowed into the Promised Land. His ultimate purpose was to serve God and his people. Thus, under the dynamics of Tribal Will, there can be great individuals doing great or awesome things, but the achievements are ultimately in service to the Tribe, to something bigger, longer, and deeper than any single individual. A Jewish tycoon who doesn't care one iota about Jewishness and has accumulated lots of money only for self-aggrandizement has acted on individual will. And even if he later turns philanthropist and spreads the dough around, it's still about individual will, a publicity stunt to boost his ego as not only a man of money but man of heart. His various donations will eventually turn into dead-ends. Unlike tribalism that concentrates the amassed force into a spear-tip that can push forth and penetrate just about anything, philanthropism leads to the dissolution of one's wealth and power toward disjointed and contradictory goals. While philanthropy can do lots of social good — that was certainly the case with Andrew Carnegie — , it shouldn't be the highest purpose for a man of success. Tribalism is about investing in the future of your people with a deep past and dangerous future(as nothing is certain in life). Individualism, even when it is most generous and 'selfless', ends up investing in strangers who ultimately don't care for you and your kind. If a rich Anglo man gives all his wealth to Mexicans, Iranians, Hindus, Chinese, blacks, Arabs, and globalist shills, the takers will smile and say "thank you", but they will soon run off with the money and not give a crap about the donor or his race. If anything, some will only demand MORE while others will find the rich white man to have gone soft in the head. While giving to the poor of any race can lead to good results, such charity should not be the ultimate meaning of one's life. It should be about one's sense of race, culture, history, and territoriality and about one's investment of thought, energy, and money toward preserving that which is most precious and valuable. Everyone needs to think primarily in terms of his covenant with his people and his people's covenant with race, culture, and history.
Contrast the behavior of Anglo elites and Jewish elites, especially since the end of World War II. While both elites donated to humanitarian causes that benefited members outside their tribe, Anglo ethos(that was increasingly guided by Christian guilt-redemption-universalism, Enlightenment principles, and/or capitalist-individualism) moved away and then against the mind-set of Anglo identity, white unity, and racial consciousness. So, it didn't matter how rich and highly positioned these men were. Even though they were powerful white men, they invested in a future where whiteness would merely exist to meld with rest of humanity on the basis of individuality(among libertarians) or in service to cults such as 'Diversity'(among so-called 'progressives').
Jews were different. Even as Jews promoted 'anti-racism' & Diversity-mania among white goyim and claimed to embrace those ideals, their main emphasis was that Jews should focus on preserving & expanding Jewish Power and, furthermore, making goyim serve, defend, and expand Jewish Power. When we survey the Power Trajectory in the US since the end of World War II, which group has fallen and which group has risen? Just ask yourself, how did Anglo-Americans, once the titans of America, turn into a bunch of sappy-head cucky-wucks while the Jews, though only 2% of the population, came to dominate just about every sphere of American Power? And what happened to the white working class that relied mostly on collective will of class interests? They ended up worst of all. While individual will(especially those of the gifted and intelligent) and collective will(especially those of the working masses of mediocrities) tend to butt heads, Tribal Will can serve as the glue that binds the opposites. This was the key to the success of National Socialism, possibly the best ideology of the 20th century IF NOT for the fact of Hitler's pathological cult of personality and the ideology's cancerous growth into Neo-Germanic Imperialism. Tribal Will can accommodate individual will and collective will. If communism suppressed individual will, National Socialism encouraged it AS LONG AS the talented individuals were for the race, culture, and nation. National Socialism also understood that most people without special ability in intelligence or ability. They are masses of workers, but as part of the volk, they must be treated as national brethren. Besides, the mind is nothing without the body. If communism is war by the body against the mind and if libertarianism is war by the mind against the body, fascism developed as a search and struggle for unity of the mind and body. The main reason why Jews came to hate fascism was it made goyim acutely aware of the secret formula that made Jews so resilient and powerful. After all, the Jewish Covenant had an element of ethno-spiritual 'fascism' in binding ALL Jews, big and small, as a special people with unique history and destiny. Even though Jews pushed communism(which amounted to white workers against white owners) and libertarianism(which amounted to white owners & elites against white masses) on goyim, their own chosen mode for the Tribe was neither. Zionism or the Zionic Worlview focused the Jewish mind and will, consciously and subconsciously, on consolidating the existence of Jews and preparing the expansion of Jewish Power.
Jews understand that most of power is latent or unthinking. No matter how powerful it may be as a mass-of-force, it has no will or agency of its own. Take generals, soldiers, and all the tanks/ships/planes/bombs. That's a lot of mass of power, but soldiers and tanks don't decide what wars to fight and when and why. They remain at peace until ordered to fight. It's like a horse. It is many times bigger and stronger than a man, but it has no Directional Power, which is with the rider. The direction in which the horse moves is decided by the rider, the smaller-and-weaker human but with greater intelligence and will. In any power dynamics, one must ask, "Who is the rider, who is the horse?" Who or what embodies the mass-of-power but without will or agency, and who or what controls the direction-of-that-power or the Directional Power. In the most basic sense, the bosses are the 'rider' and the employees are the 'horse', but it's not that simple when we see the big picture. While higher officers give orders to lower officers who give orders to soldiers, the fact is ALL of the military is one big horse to the so-called 'civilian government' that is really a tool of the oligarchs and elites who now happen to be Jewish. In other words, the entirety of the US military is a great mass-of-power but without any will or agency of its own that is controlled by the so-called 'civilian government', the politicians and bureaucrats of which are controlled financially and/or ideologically by the Jewish globalist elites.
Among Jews, the biggest power is not with the biggest money-men. While the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg are richer than just about all other Jews and have a lot of pull, they know they are part of something much bigger, which is Jewishness and Jewish Power that are represented by Zion and modern Jewish thinkers, ideologues, and strategists who serve as modern-day Moses, Daniels, and Davids. As such, even the richest Jews defer to the Jews of Meaning and Strategy. Profits serve the prophets. Because Jewish individuality, no matter how successful or egotistical, is subordinate to the Jewish Covenant and Power, the primary Will among Jews is Tribal. Of course, Jews are mono-tribalists, a problematic matter for Jews and non-Jews. If Jews were poly-tribalists or poly-nationalists, they could respect other tribes and nations, all the while demanding that their own tribe and nationality be respected in turn. They could co-exist with other groups on the basis of mutuality. But just like the Jewish God couldn't tolerate other gods — He insisted He is the one and only God — , the Jewish Tribal Will has operated on the conviction that Jews and only Jews belong to the one true Tribe. All other tribes, those of goyim, are false tribes just like all pagan gods are false idols. So, non-Jews mustn't think in terms of their own tribal identity and interests. They exist only to serve the Jewish Tribe, the only true Tribe. This is why Jewish Power is so perplexing and/or frustrating to non-Jews who insist on honesty and consistency. Why is it that Jews who make such stink about the evils of tribalism are so utterly demanding upon all goyim to honor, obey, and serve the Jewish Tribe? On the surface, it is so hypocritical for Jews to argue thus, and yet, at another level, it all makes sense and is consistent with the Jewish priority of "Is it good for Jews?" It fails the consistency test as ethical principle but passes with flying colors the strategic test. After all, the thing in war is to do ANYTHING, especially by deception, to win and come out on top over the enemies.
Anglo-Americans once possessed something like tribal will. It was about Anglo-American identity. But due to immigration from non-Anglo parts of Europe, the emphasis went from ANGLO-American to Anglo-AMERICAN, i.e. Non-Anglo-Americans who adopted the Anglo-American way were accepted as fellow countrymen. In a way, the merging of Anglo-Americanism with Ethno-Americanism made America stronger. If various nations were often contentious and often at war in Old Europe, white folks of all stripes merged into one as 'Americans'. Because Anglo-Americans got a head-start in America politically, economically, intellectually, culturally, and demographically, they could absorb and 'conquer' all white immigrants, even non-Anglo ones. Non-Anglo whites arrived en masse to be mentally conquered by the Anglos-as-founders-and-builders-of-America. The Ancient Romans, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Poles, and etc. all had failed to create a united Europe. While certain nationals were more powerful in Europe in certain periods and conquered & ruled over others, the conquered folks never felt as one with the conquerors and, if anything, hoped for emancipation from foreign rule. Also, when one power got too big, the weaker powers united to bring it down. Napoleonic France was brought down by alliance of Britain and Russia. Germany was surrounded by alliance of France, Britain, and Russia. Of course, the British played an anti-gravitational role in continental politics by aiding the weaker powers against the most dominant at any given moment. At any rate, the failure of the various European empires is testament to the fact that no single power was prestigious enough to win the loyalties of the conquered who weren't willing to surrender their own identities to merge with the imperial one. Even the mighty Romans failed at this in the long run. For one thing, the conquered people felt that foreigners were occupying their turf, the homeland of their forebears. So, even as they collaborated with the empire, their true dream was to be liberated and regain sovereignty. Especially as there was precious little mobility for most people who lived and died pretty much near where they were born, an alien presence of a foreign power wasn't well regarded.

But America was different. For one thing, all the non-Anglo-white immigrants had no claim to the land, which had been taken from the American Indians. (The Mormons did try to fashion a Narrative that aligned New World history with the Old World one, but that was mostly for kooks. Besides, Mormons were mostly Anglo.) If Anglos had occupied the European homelands of non-Anglos, the latter would have resisted. But the dynamics of loyalty in Anglo-America was different because non-Anglos freely chose to emigrate to it, one they hoped and presumed to be superior to their own nations. As such, they were in no position to complain about Anglo-American dominance. After all, there was a reason why they chose to leave their homelands for Anglo-America. There was more land, more opportunity, more freedom, more dignity for the common man, and more rule of law. They felt that the American Way was preferable to their own, at least when it came to political rule, liberty, personal dignity, and of course property rights. Also, as Babelic ethnic immigrants came from various nations, what they all had in common was that they rejected their own homeland to seek new freedom and fortunes in America. Besides, Anglo-Americans themselves had set the template of divorce from the Old World. Even as Anglo-America was, in so many ways, a continuation of Anglo Civilization, it also represented a break founded on the mythology of brave liberty-loving colonialists who had had just about enough of British tyranny and struggled for independence, a clear break from the Old Ways. Thus, every act of immigration was like a personal revolution, a choice made by the immigrant to break free of his homeland, reject his heritage, and start anew as a free 'American' with a host of new opportunities. (As most European nations were non-democratic and dominated by elite minority of aristocrats and oligarchs who'd already gobbled up most of the land and wealth, many European common-folk came to associate their own nations with tyranny and poverty. Their main concerns that molded their core consciousness were political and economic than tribal and patriotic. Patriotism in many cases was a hard sell because the elites themselves were more interested in their own wealth and privilege than the national good. Aristocratic legacy had the elites looking upon the masses as subjects than as national brethren, and in some ways, capitalism made things worse as the bourgeoisie were even more wealth-obsessed than the old aristocracy. Furthermore, as capitalism often favored Jews or foreign investors over national elites, it further fostered division between capital and workers. It's no wonder that so many working masses in Europe turned to socialism or emigration as the way out of dire conditions. It was either socialism at home by forcing the elites to share more with the people or capitalism in America where even a common man could own land or start a business as a citizen with rights. Either way, their main concern was materialist and personal than tribal/national. They were even willing to give up their own nation and culture for better material life and more personal freedom abroad. Also, in some ways, national consciousness paradoxically grew weaker just when national self-rule was coming to define Modern Europe. A people under foreign rule are likely to care more about their national identity. They hunger for national liberation like a hungry man dreams of bread and wine. When Greeks were under Turkish rule, they dreamed of national independence. Greeks in Greece and abroad did what they could to hasten the emergence of free Greece from Ottoman Tyranny. And many other Europeans shared similar hopes and dreams. But once they gained national independence throughout the 19th century and 20th century, they became less and less nationally conscious. Compare Irish national consciousness under British Imperialism compared and how it fared since independence. The fulfillment of the national dream made the Irish ever less concerned with national matters — for awhile, only the issue of Northern Ireland kept the Irish concerned about national identity. They came to take the existence of Ireland for granted because they no longer had to struggle for it. Yet, such a lax and lowered guard meant that Ireland became ever more infested with foreign influences of all kinds... and now the much deracinated Irish are just like deracinated cucky-wuck Britons in worshiping globo-homo, Diversity, degeneracy, and abortion as right of hedonism. Just like a satiated man no longer thinks of food, a nationally liberated people tend to think less of nationalism, and that means their nations can be slyly taken from them by globalists who lull them with hedonism and the neo-religion of PC that instills goy nationals with the notion that anything related to blood-and-soil is evil. Some people say Jews lack a sense of honor because they hadn't an aristocratic heritage, but one advantage of Jewishness was the emphasis on the Covenant and the unity of all Jews as equally precious in the eyes of God. In contrast, the aristocratic mindset of the goyim led to elites feeling as superiors and the masses feeling as inferiors. As elite/noble bloodlines were regarded as distinct from those of the masses, it led to a kind of intra-'racism' among the people of the same nation. It was bound to lead to distrust and resentment, which is perhaps why goy elites are more likely to cuck and collaborate with foreign/alien powers while goy masses are more likely to switch allegiances to the New Boss, like when German-Americans and Japanese-Americans sided with Anglo-America against their own nations of origin. Can anyone imagine Jewish-Americans siding with an America that turns anti-Israel or anti-Jewish? It was precisely because Jews understood America to be en Empire of Treason — people from all over the world becoming 'Americans' and supporting the US empire against nations of their own origin — that they made sure that Americanism = Zionism, thereby making it less likely that the American Empire will call upon 'good decent patriotic' Americans to support the War against Zion or Jewish Power. Indeed, in some ways, the rise of Marxism-Communism among Jews had to do with the fact that many intellectual and less fortunate Jews felt betrayed by rich bourgeois Jews, who soon got the message, which is why Jewish capitalists soon forged alliances with Jewish leftists. Jewish profiteers know they better take care of the Jewish would-be-prophets lest the latter turn on them with hellfire and brimstone. In the Coens movie HAIL, CAESAR!, the Jewish writers, the would-be-prophets, are bitter that they are insufficiently respected by Jewish Hollywood moguls and act as communist subversives, akin to heretical Jews who became the Early Christians. But over time, Jewish Money took good care of the Jewish Mind, and since then, the so-called Jewish Left expends most of its time and energy on supporting Jewish Power. Another reason why Jews are stronger in nationalism is they were later than Europeans to have a nation of their own, and their nation, Israel, is tiny and surrounded by hostile powers. One could argue that many Europeans weren't truly nationally independent until the fall of USSR, but even under Soviet rule, the borders of republics such as Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Armenia, and etc. were acknowledged as autonomous. If the point of Americanism was to turn everyone into an 'American', Sovietism was not about turning non-Russians into 'Russians' but allowing them to be autonomous in culture and territory to a large degree. Sovietism was about shared ideology, not shared identity, whereas Americanism was about erasure of Old World identities to take on the new identity as 'Americans'. Nations under the Iron Curtain, such as Poland and Hungary, were still recognized as separate entities with their own folks, governments, and national priorities. In contrast, there was no Jewish nation until the creation of Israel, and just about the entire Jewish Narrative of Zionism has been "Poor little Israel surrounded by hostile forces and struggling to survive". And the Holocaust Cult informs Jews that, "It may happen all over again, new hitlers are just around the corner, and so, Jews must think in terms of Jews, Jews, Jews and Never Again." Such sense of tribal vulnerability will do wonders for National Consciousness.)
As Anglo-Americans had set the template for this liberation/independence or treachery/treason — depending on how one looked at it — , ethnic white immigrants were far more likely to cut ties with their national origins and allegiances. Besides, humans are largely materialist and hedonistic creatures, and there was no doubt that the bountifulness of land and resources — and the managerial skills of Anglo-Americans and Germanic-Americans — meant far better living standards than in the Old World. One might say it was a form of bribery, but More Money has always been effective as enticement. The overall effect was like shared amnesia, and America became like 'Amnesirica'. Memory tends to divide. Amnesia tends to unite. This was especially true in Europe where various ethnic groups had bitter memories of the Other. Indeed, national passions were often founded on how WE were attacked by THEM or how WE beat THEM. To this day, Greeks and Turks have bitter feelings about one another due to historical memory. And Russians and Poles still regard each other in relation to the past, with both sides feeling wronged or wrongfully accused. If two guys often fought, their memory will keep them divided. But if we could wipe their memories clean, they have a far better chance of getting along. Americanism had that effect on the various white groups. Sure, some animosities did linger, and new ones developed in America, what with the Irish, Italians, Anglos, Poles, and other ethnic groups not always seeing eye to eye and contesting for the bigger slice of the pie. Still, as all of them adopted American-style English or 'Ameringlish' as their primary language, were brought up with Anglo-American Narrative as the national mythos, attended the same schools & played on the same playgrounds & baseball diamonds, and developed a self-image based on Popular Culture(all the more so with the advent of radio, cinema and television), they eventually became more-or-less One People. Also, there was the impact of the sexual melting pot, as so many whites married across ethnic lines. As Irish might marry Poles who might marry Italians and etc, it was Catholicism than ethnicity that came to matter most in their sense of who they were. But in the long run, Christianity as identity was bound to fail as it's a credo-religion than a ethnic one, like Hinduism or Judaism. The collective amnesia that defined America led to great things, something impossible in Europe with deep memories that were rich and meaningful but full of bitterness and distrust.
But if culture and civilization are about memory and heritage, then the American Experiment had a dark and tragic side. All that amnesia led to greater unity but also a certain generic blandness to Americanism that eventually came to be about consumerism, hedonism, libertine-ism, trend-ism, and fashion-ism. For too many people, Americanism came to mean stuffing yourself with turkey on Thanksgiving, setting off firecrackers on Fourth of July, and Black Friday madness to start off the holiday season. Anglo-Americans, in order to accommodate non-Anglo whites, came to reject too much of their own cultural and historical essence. Over time, Anglo-Americanism survived only as country club class snobbery among the elites, preening 'progressive' do-goodery among the educated, and moonshine-swilling hillbilly antics among the unwashed. Or, it was the Texan specialty of the deep-fried ice cream. As for non-Anglos, their effort at assimilation meant the loss of their pungent cultures of origin. In their admiration for Anglo-America, they chose to become ersatz Anglo/Americans and became valuable citizens of the nation. As the result, their identities with deep roots were almost instantly forgotten and cast away. Still, it could have been a happy story, more or less. Great gain at great loss but a gain nevertheless. But three factors destroyed the Dream of Amnesirica: Blacks, Jews, and Neo-Imperialism.

Two major groups in the US had legitimate gripes against Anglo-America. American Indians obviously because their lands were taken by Anglo-Americans. Still, as American Indians were too few in number and remained mostly on Reservations(and had a rather stolid countenance like Chief Broom in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST), they came to play an insignificant role in the American Conversation. In contrast, blacks constituted the largest racial minority. Unlike ethnic whites who arrived as free men and were provided with opportunities by Anglo-America, blacks were brought over as slaves. Sure, one could argue that blacks also gained a lot by coming to America. After all, they'd been jungle-jive savages in the Dark Continent. In certain respects, one could argue that blacks benefited the most by far from being brought to America even if they started out as slaves because they underwent an instant transition from primitive savagery to participation in the most advanced civilization. Even if ethnic immigrants hadn't come to America, they still would have had civilization in Old Europe, and indeed, living standards rapidly improved in Europe as well as in America at roughly the same time. In contrast, if blacks had been left in Africa, they would have been nothing but jungle-jivers chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums.
That said, blacks were brought over as slaves and made to pick too much cotton. And if they got 'uppity', they got whipped until they said their name is Toby than Kunta. Also, whites got into the habit of calling them 'niggers', which wasn't very nice. Besides, as blacks had been brought to the US before the Revolutionary War of Independence, they developed roots in America, something that couldn't be said for ethnic immigrants who arrived en masse in the late 19th century and early 20th century. And those roots filled blacks with bitterness, not unlike the kind of bitterness found among peoples of Europe in relation to other more powerful nations/peoples. More problematically, Anglo-American idiots brought over a race that happened to be stronger, wilder, and more aggressive. As a result, whites had to be extra-brutal at times to maintain order among blacks. It's like you have to assert greater authority if you're raising big wild animals than if you're raising dogs. Dogs will obey and listen. But wild animals tend to be defiant and erratic, and so the human master must go the extra step to teach them who is boss. As wilder blacks instinctively sensed that they could beat up the white boy and hump the white woman, they were more bound to act jiggity. White men sensed this as well, which is why they felt they had to lynch a black thug in an especially gruesome way on occasion to send a clear message to blacks not to mess around. If a cat scratches you, you can ignore it. But if a puma growls and acts threatening, you have to remind it who is boss because it can do real harm if it grows bolder. The combination of wild black nature, bitter black memory, and explosive black demographics(quite large and with higher birthrate than whites) threatened to undermine the American Project. Also, a nation isn't just about individuals but idols, the mytho-champions people look up to as the embodiment of the nation's glory. As sports came to dominate American Culture, the black takeover of sports threatened to undermine White American Identity and Pride. How could the US be an extension and even the greatest culmination of Western Civilization while having jigger-jiving blacks as its main champions, heroes, and idols? Blacks were winning the contest of idol-imperialism or idol-hegemony. In that sense, ethnic white immigration was a blessing as growing white numbers ensured that whites would remain the dominant majority in the foreseeable future.
Still, despite the Black Problem, blacks were good only at certain things. Apart from sports and music & dance, they weren't good for much else. And being generally less intelligent than whites, they had little chance of taking over the uppermost levers of power. In contrast, Jews had intelligence higher than most whites. Also, there was the matter of personality. Though Episcopalian Anglos were noted to have IQs equal to that of Jews, their personality was weaker than Jewish personality that was brazen, shameless, and obsessive in its passive/aggressive drive for more and more. If Anglos were adventurous, Jews were insatiable. When it came to power, Anglos liked to hunt the animal, Latins liked to cook the meat, and Jews liked to eat the food.
More importantly, Jews were one people who could not and did not take part in 'Amnesirica'. After all, Jews were nothing without memory, especially in exile as, without the cult of memory, they would forget who they were/are, possibly become Christian or Muslim, and just assimilate & fade into the rest of humanity. Jews kept their identity through compulsive resilience of memory. This meant a deep and rich appreciation of their history & heritage, which was admirable, but it also meant Jews had a long memory of grievances and hatreds, especially as the Jewish Narrative made the Goyim the Perennial Villain in all Jewish-Goy conflicts. So, Jews didn't come to America with a mere chip on their shoulder but the entire tree and all its roots. And yet, Jews understood the value of Amnesirica. While the goyim would lose their original core identities and grow weaker, Jews would keep their own and remain strong. Jews would urge increased amnesia on the goyim while clinging to their own memory. If goyim were to remember anything, it would be determined by Jews who would take over media and history departments. Just as Jews wrote ancient history to fit their narrative in the Torah, they would Torah-ize Western History by selecting, deleting, emphasizing, and/or marginalizing the past in accordance to "Is it good for Jews?" It's like Jewish psychoanalysts sought to gain control over their clients by interpretation of memory. In some cases, Jewish mind-doctors sought to plant certain memories while wiping clean others. It's like the technology of memory-wiping in ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND. Or consider how the corrupt cop manipulates the 'hero' in MEMENTO by messing with his faulty memory.

All of academia, media, and so much of technology are used by Jews to mess with our memory. Jews at BBC and other European Media are now working to convince whites that European History was filled with blacks and non-blacks. Mythic or historical Figures like Julius Caesar, Lancelot, and Achilles have been made black. In a way, Jews fear the idea of whiteness as a race because it is the element of race that binds Northern Europeans(who were later to come to civilization) with the glories of Southern Europe that built high civilization in ancient times in conflict and concert mostly with the Near East and North Africa. In ancient times, Greeks admired Persians and Egyptians far more than Northern Europeans who were deemed barbaric and backward. Romans felt much the same way. Even as Romans defeated Egyptians and the tribes of the Near East, they respected them as fellow-civilized folks. In contrast, they regarded the Germanic and Celtic folks as barbaric and backward. So, purely from a cultural and civilizational perspective, one could argue that the Ancient Greeks and Romans belong in the shared cultural sphere with Jews, Persians, Arabs, North Africans and the like. After all, Christianity developed as a fusion of Jewish, Roman, Greek, and Syrian cultural, philosophical, political, and spiritual forces/elements. Then, how did Northern Europe come to be associated with the glories of Greece and Rome? Why did Greco-Roman classical civilization come to be grouped with Northern Europeans, who played hardly any role in its birth and development. Greeks, for instance, borrowed ideas from Egyptians, Persians, and Phoenicians but hardly any from Europeans-to-the-North who were mainly captured and used as slaves.
The reasons are twofold. First, for whatever reason or circumstance, the achievements of the Greeks and Romans came to flow more upward than southward or eastward. Possibly, the Egyptians and Persians were less enamored of Greco-Roman arts and culture because they had illustrious and proud cultural capital of their own. After all, Egyptians and Persians built awesome monuments and produced great art works long before Greeks built their first cities. In contrast, Northern Europeans lacked a notable civilization or any kind of civilization at all, and they were understandably impressed by the achievements of Classical Antiquity of the Greco-Roman World. The relative cultural vacuum of Northern Europeans led to the rapid spread of Greco-Roman arts and designs in their world. Also, especially with the spread of Islam that came to dominate North Africa and the Near East, Christianity became, for a long stretch in history, essentially a European religion. But there was also the factor of Race. While one could argue that the Greeks and even certain Romans were as close to many peoples of the Near East as to the Northern Europeans — there are plenty of people in Turkey, Syria, and Iran who resemble Greeks and Southern Italians — , the art works of the Greeks and Romans clearly show that they were essentially European in feature. Even though there are many peoples in North Africa and the Near East who look European(and are indeed genetically close to Europeans), those parts of the world became more racially mixed with non-Europeans over the centuries. On those grounds, one could make a racial case that, even though Ancient Greeks and Romans had more cultural interaction with Semites and Hamitic peoples of Near East and North Africa, they were nevertheless racially closer to Northern and Eastern Europeans. It's like Japan led the way in opening to the West and, for awhile, leaned more to the West in culture and ideas in the 20th century, but they are racially closer to Chinese and Mongols than to Germans and English. To the extent that Greek and Roman genius wasn't merely a matter of borrowing from non-white folks but igniting a unique spark within the European soul(that transformed foreign influences into uniquely European expressions), one could argue that the achievements of the Greeks and Romans did represent, at least for a time, the particularity of the European soul. And perhaps one reason why the Greco-Roman legacy was so appealing to other Europeans was it struck a chord with their deeper nature. Besides, any European was more likely to identify with figures in Greek and Roman sculptures than non-Europeans who might admire the craft and creativity but not feel as one with the figures. Likewise, when Europeans wondered at the great sculptures and temples of India and Cambodia, they were filled with admiration but knew that the stone figures were representatives of other races. Europeans could admire the particularity of genius but couldn't claim it. In contrast, any white person who looks at an ancient Greek or Roman statue feels a sense of identification.
Oddly enough, because Europeans became Christians and drew inspiration from the Bible, they applied classical European features to the Semitic figures of Jewish history and tradition. Along with paintings of Jesus, the Neo-Classical sculptures of figures like Moses and David created the impression of Jews as part of the white race. In a way, Jews were flattered(not least because they prefer 'Aryan' looks over Semitic ones), but in another way, they were offended because European aesthetics, especially beginning with the Renaissance, began the process of 'whitening' non-white figures. In a way, it was like what Jews are doing to European History nowadays by having blacks and other non-whites play white roles in TV shows and movies commemorating the past. For Jews, it's sweet revenge. Europeans 'aryanized' Jesus and other Jewish figures, and now Jews return the favor by Africanizing not only the future of Europe but its past as well. Henceforth, BBC and other European TV channels are committed to making historical programs that feature blacks and non-whites as crucial players in past European History.
Another reason for the failure of Amnesirican Experiment was the spirit of imperialism that never went away. Despite the American mythology of resisting British Imperialism to create a Republic committed to justice and freedom, America exists only because of the British Empire. Also, white Americans couldn't resist gobbling up more and more land to the West all the way up to the Pacific Ocean and taking a huge chunk of Mexico. US also tried to take Canada, but the War of 1812 ended in stalemate. Still, over time, Canada essentially became the front yard of America, just as Latin America became its back yard. Now, given the vastness of America and its riches, one might think Anglo-Americans and other white Americans would have been satisfied. One might think they would have been grateful for having more than enough to live in a safe, secure, and bountiful nation, especially with the addition of Alaska bought at a pittance from the stupid Russians. But the very spirit that made America possible in the first place never faded away. This restless drive made the US dominate Latin America. Then, it made the US seek new imperial possession across the Pacific in Asia. This led to war with Japan, which the US won, making it the premier naval power in all of the Pacific. The departure of European imperialists also created a vacuum for America to fill, especially as communism engulfed China. Smaller Asian nations, fearing the communist behemoth, welcomed US imperialists as protectors. Also, American Imperialism was more palatable to the locals as Americans were more open, doled out more money, and were more generous with an economic policy that allowed both sides to profit, with the caveat that Asian nations in the empire take their political orders from the US. So, Japan and Singapore could become rich, but they pretty much surrendered political sovereignty to the US and became military dependents of the empire.
This state of affairs might have been stable for the foreseeable future except the fact that the US ended up with a new boss. The US-Asian relations were established when the US was essentially an Anglo-American-dominated White Christian nation. But the mutual understanding and contract between the US and Asia are being undone and redefined in a radical way because Jews are the new elites of the US. Jews seek to alter the premise of the old understanding/contract between the US and Asia. The old contract was between majority power and majority power. For instance, Anglo-American rulers and elites regarded themselves as representatives of White Christian majority America, and they had no problem with, say, Japan being a Japanese-majority nation ruled by Japanese elites. White rulers representing the white majority came to terms with yellow rulers representing yellow majorities. But Jews hate the idea of goy majority power in the US. They constitute the minority-elite, and their design for America is More Diversity via Mass Immigration-invasion so that there shall no longer be a majority in the US to challenge the minority-supremacism of Jews. In time, every racial and ethnic group will be a minority, and Jews plan on ruling over all of them via divide-and-rule. As Jews have designs on EU as well, they've pushed Americanization or, more precisely, Amnesiricanization on that part of the world. Jews want the borders among European nations to be eroded, followed by fading of borders between Europe and the Middle East & Africa. It is then no wonder that Jews are pushing feminism, minority-elitist globo-homo craze, and mass immigration on the East as well. If the old white majority elites had no problems with Japan as a Japanese-majority nation, Jewish globalist minority elites are pushing Diversity on Japan. And of course, Jews push globo-homo stuff because vain homos in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea represent sexual minorities who are more than willing to collaborate with a foreign power for their own self-aggrandizement. Same goes for US and Europe. When US was ruled by white majority elites, they had no problem with Germany being a majority German nation governed by German elites, or with UK being British and ruled by white majority elites for white majority masses. But as Jews became the masters of the US, the center of the West, the new decree to all European nations has been that they must favor and prioritize the minority — Jews, homos, and non-white immigrants — over the native white majority.
Indeed, the new core morality of whites is to praise, protect, and promote Jews, homos, and Diversity over whites who are increasingly associated with 'racism' and 'Nazism'. With the world being turned upside down as the result of dictates and decrees of an ever-imperialist US, the quasi-utopian dream of Amnesirica is no more. Instead, there is Empirica. If not for the Jewish factor and the restless ur-imperialist element, it's possible that Amnesirica could have been content with itself as a safe and secure republic that has more than enough to sustain itself in peaceful relations with the rest of the world. A land of lotus-eaters lacking in a deep sense of roots and origins but peaceful and prosperous. Imagine a Jew-free America where both Anglo-Americans and Ethno-Americans agreed to be nice, generic, and bland White People. But Jews did arrive, and they were not going to become fellow lotus-eaters. They were going to remain tribal carnivores or leeches and exploit the dissipation of identity and memory among goy whites. While whites were opting for either individual will or collective will, Jews were resolved to keep with Tribal Will.
In a way, it's understandable why Jews weren't willing to forget. Even as they found better and safer lives in the US for themselves, they felt anxious about Jews in other parts of the world. An Italian in America didn't worry about Italians in Italy. After all, Italians were masters in their own nation at least. Likewise, there was no need for Swedish Americans to worry about Swedes in Sweden. But Jews were minorities in all of Europe, and in some nations, especially those in the East, there were explosions of violence against Jews. Even in peacetime, the fact that Jews were minorities held in suspicion and even hostility by European populations made American Jews more eager to press upon the US to DO SOMETHING about world affairs to make it safer for Jews. Back then, many Jews were mainly worried about the well-being of fellow Jews, and this concern was understandable as there were hardly any taboos against 'antisemitism' back then. Today, as masters of the US and EU, Jews make the US play a more aggressive role as the mega-instrument of Jewish supremacist power. Hundred years ago, Jews were pleading with the US to "protect more Jews". Today, Jews are pressing upon the US to "kill more 'enemies of Zion'" wherever they exist in the world. And who are these 'enemies'? Any nation or any people that dare to defy the Jew World Order.
Whatever one thinks of Jews, they are animated by Tribal Will. It is this Will that makes Jews win. Of course, Jews play dirty, fast and loose with the rules. But even if Jews played it absolutely fairly, they would still win against a people without the tribal will. As David Duke said in the video "How Zionists Divide and Conquer", athletes who play as a team will beat athletes who play as individuals. Even if those with team spirit and those without it play totally in accordance to the rules and don't commit a single foul, the former will defeat the latter. If everyone on a basketball team prioritizes his own scoring at the expense of teamwork, his side will lose to the side with team spirit. For most of American history, Anglo-Americans had a kind of tribal will. As Christians with universalist ethos, individualists & freedom-lovers, and social reformers, they didn't have a sense of identity, history, and unity as powerful as those of the Jews, but they nevertheless operated on the basis of sensible race-ism that bound the people together. Consider how, after the Civil War, most whites in the North understood that they were closer to White Southerners than to blacks. Even Abraham Lincoln who emancipated the black slaves felt far more camaraderie with southern whites than with the blacks.
At the crossroads of American History, Anglo-Americans(who set the template for the rest of the white race) had to choose tribal race-ism over rules-based-order or rules-based-order over race-ism. It wasn't a matter of either/or but one-over-the-other. Anglo-Americans could have both race-ism and rules-based-order, and it was really a matter of which one took precedence over the other. It's like one can be for both peace and war. The choice is not between pacifism(that rejects all wars) and warmongering(that itches for just about any war). Rather, the question is which should have precedence. Faced with conflict, should one opt for peaceful means before they are exhausted and war becomes inevitable OR should one go for immediate aggression on the belief that quick victory(if possible) is the best way for peace? At the crossroads of American History, Anglo-Americans had to choose between making the rules ultimately serve a proud White America or making White America serve the universality of rules, even if it may well endanger the future of White America.
Anglo-Americans opted for a rule-based-order, and again, this might have worked if the US had no Jews(and better yet also no blacks) and was made up only of Anglo-Americans and Ethno-goy-Americans. Anglo-Americans, with their power and success, could have served as the model for Ethno-Americans who would have adopted Anglo-American values and principles. And they all could have gotten along in a rule-based system. But there were Jews and blacks. Without race-ism to limit the cold logic of rules, blacks were bound to beat up whites in sports and gain dominance. Thus, black success in sports came to represent a new kind of racial supremacism. The message was 'blacks kick white ass, so whites should kiss black ass'. The rejection of white racial domination only led to black racial domination as national idols.
And of course, Jews weren't willing to surrender and submit to the rule-based-order but to exploit it for all it was worth to push their own tribal agenda. They could do this because they forged for themselves the Holocaust Moral Pass that gave them license of racial 'exceptionality' and unity that was denied to other white groups. So, if whites chose the rule-based-order and decided to operate as individuals in accordance to meritocracy and rule of law — 'may the best man win' — , Jews were hellbent on playing as a team, like the mafia.
Anglo-American elites became most interested in the role of referee. They were most committed to calling foul on those who didn't play by the rules. They became less interested in the game of winning than in making sure that all sides, including their own, played by the rules. And perhaps, such a strict rule-based-order might not have been so bad for whites who are generally among the most talented people in the world. But referees don't have the ultimate power. They can be fired. They can be pressured to favor one team over the other. They can be corrupted with bribes. They can be blackmailed. Also, there was no guarantee that Constitution-loving Anglo-Americans will always preside and dominate as referees. Certain Anglo-Americans, with the virtue-vanity of 'white guilt', felt it was only right to call foul on whites while letting blacks easy via programs like Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact. Later, more and more Jews took over as referees in media, courts, & law firms, and these verminous Jews were brazen in their bias and prejudice in favor of Jewish Power(and of course Israel). If Jews really care about the Constitution and Rule of Law, why are they so committed to using their firepower to shut down BDS and justice for Palestinians? Why don't they speak up against US foreign policy that rewards Israel with countless billions in aid even though Israel has hundreds of illegal nukes while punishing Iran with ruthless sanctions even though Iran has no nukes? Anglo-Americans came to think in terms of 'follow the rules' whereas Jews thought in terms of 'WE must rule'. Anglo-Americans came to prioritize conscience whereas Jews were all about conviction. But in the end, even conscience bends under the weight of conviction. Conscience reacts to abuse of power whereas conviction reaches for more power. In the end, those with more power decide who are to be chosen as politicians, appointed as judges, hired as lawyers, or promoted as academics & journalists who get to serve as our eyes and ears. It's like most true artists lose out to the often trashy and vulgar entertainment industry that makes most money and gets to decide what most people see and hear. True conscience loses out to Official Conscience that isn't real conscience but merely the pseudo-moralistic voice or megaphone of the Power. Take the New York Times that yammers endlessly about right-and-wrong but mostly offers moral cover to Jewish supremacist rulers of the US(and by extension the World). Would the NYT or institutions like Harvard hire truly independent minds that might speak truth to power? Whatever one thinks of Chris Hedges — I don't much like him — , he is more motivated by conscience than most journalists are, and guess what? When his reporting became too inconvenient to Jews who control MSM, he was fired in favor of malleable hacks who spout what the Power wants them to say. Thus, genuine conscience loses out to faux-conscience. In the end, when push comes to shove, those who obsess about the rules of the game lose to those who are win the game to rule.

No comments:

Post a Comment