Thursday, January 31, 2019

Jews from Christ-Killers to Christianity-Killers — Death of Christianity and the Coming of a New Prophecy, or the Long Night and New Dawn of the West.

For much of Christian history, Jews were regarded as Christ-Killers. Whether Jews of Old were most responsible for the death of Jesus or not, Jews of Now can certainly take the title(with pride or shame) of Christianity-Killers. In the West, Christianity hasn’t just been weakened. It’s been effectively pimped, groomed, raped, and murdered(though there are holdouts in Orthodox parts of the world). What lingers as ‘Christianity’ is Zombie-Christianity. It’s like a conch. All shell but no meat. Christianity has been hollowed out into body without soul. But then, without soul, even body perishes eventually. Would Christianity be alive and well if not for the ascendancy of Jews? Perhaps not. Surely, advances in sciences and secular knowledge would have led to erosion of spiritual faith just the same. Also, the rise of prosperity and consumerism would have favored sensual pleasure over spiritual concern. Indeed, the rise of modernity led to weakening of religions everywhere. Furthermore, there were plenty of anti-religious and anti-clerical forces among Non-Jewish Humanity(or NJH). Still, there is a difference between the weakening of a culture/faith and its utter degradation, defilement, & death. It's the difference between an old man dying peacefully in bed or being tormented or mocked on his final day. The fact is Christianity has been dragged through the mud and effectively murdered in the Christian West, and much of the blame(or credit depending on how one looks at it) must fall on the Jews.
Furthermore, the impact of Killing Christianity will be far graver than the Killing of Christ. After all, Jesus needed to be killed or ‘sacrificed’ in order for His spiritual seed to take root and sprout, thereby offering the fruit of salvation to mankind. Thus, the Jewish Killing of Christ(if indeed they played the crucial role in His death as the Gospels tell us) had to have been part of God’s plan. Indeed, there would be no Christianity without the story of Jesus’ trial, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. Paradoxically then, the Jews, in killing Christ, birthed Christianity, a religion born of the ‘conservative’ Jewish ‘murder’ of the Son of God and the ‘liberal’ renegade-Jewish resurrection of His memory(to be molded into myth). Even though Judas, Jewish rabbis, and Jewish mobs were most cursed by Christianity for the death of Jesus, it was somewhat unfair because Jesus Himself knew that He would have to be sacrificed in order to realize God’s design for Him on earth. One might even say it was like a con-game where Jewish elites and mobs were manipulated into killing Jesus as heretic without realizing that their act would lead to His apotheosis as the Son of God, the Messiah, the greatest spiritual Houdini act of all time. Indeed, had the Jews left Jesus alone, there would have been no myth of the Resurrection, therefore no Christianity.

Anyway, if the Jewish Killing of Jesus actually birthed a religion, the Jewish Killing of Christianity really means the end of a religion that had a great run. Many Christians, upon realizing what Jews have done, may come to hate Jews. And even non-Christian atheists such as myself feel a certain revulsion for what the Jews have done. Even though I never followed any faith, who can deny the greatness of Christianity as a religion, history, and culture? To befoul such a religion as the Jews have done is unpardonable... and yet, maybe Jews are once again acting as a necessary agent in history. Perhaps, the time has finally come for Christianity to fade into the night and be replaced by something else of the new dawn. Maybe the Jewish Killing of Christianity(a kind of Negative-Prophecy or Anti-Prophecy) will herald a New Age of Prophets striving for a New Vision, New Foundation, and New Destiny for the West. When even a dunderhead like Mike Cernovich can read the writing on the wall — Christianity as moral/spiritual force is all but dead or zombified — , maybe it is time for the West to forge a new path.
People of the West mustn't forget Christianity and should always honor its memory, but what is dead is dead(unless someone conceives of such an inspired reformulation of Christianity that it can be resurrected as a spiritual force once again). What is dead must be buried and honored, but it makes no sense to pretend it is still alive. A dead horse is a dead horse. Even with the best taxidermy, the upright creature is stiff and soulless. Only a fool would saddle it and climb on top. The proof that Christianity is dead can be seen in its passive resignation and/or humiliating self-abasement before its enemies. Indeed, even though modernity has weakened religious authority all over the world, consider Islam’s muscular and proud push-back against some of the excesses of materialist society. Now, there is no doubt that some of the Islamic Reaction have been excessive, ugly, and even demented, but the fact that Muslims are still capable of being roused up by what they regard to be an affront to their faith is proof that Islam still has a pulse. Islam submits to Allah, not to the Other. In contrast, current Christianity is all about apologizing to the Other, atoning before the Other, aiding the Other, submitting to the Other, and appeasing the Other.
Now, the atoning & apologetic element in Christianity has mostly been a positive force through European and American history. After all, how could there have been moral progress, redress, and reform UNLESS one was capable of being confessional, self-critical, and mindful of others? There is no doubt that Christianity, like all credo-systems, has been guilty of many abuses and hypocrisies, and if the Christian world made more moral advancement than the Islamic one, it owed to a deeper sense of guilt, atonement, and redemption premised on a profounder understanding of morality and justice. While Muhammad was a political and pragmatic as well as spiritual and moral figure, Jesus pursued the purity of spiritual vision and died in practice of what He preached. Therefore, the element of guilt and conscience is more powerful in Christianity. (And yet, in some ways, Christianity has been more arrogant on the basis that its founder is the Son of God, the Messiah Himself, than merely the Prophet, what Muhammad claimed to be.) When Western Christians had command and control of their own social orders, narratives, spirituality, and moral/intellectual institutions, they could utilize Christian Morality in ways that suited them the most. It could be used as hammer against enemies & heretics or a moral whip to flagellate one's own moral betrayals. If Christianity could be more self-critical and reformist when the West was secure and confident, it could also be more judgmental and aggressive in rivalry with outsiders and other civilizations. But once Jews took over the institutions & industries of the West, gained control of information, and planted new narratives into elite goy minds(who, in trickle-down effect, passed them to mass minds as well), Christianity was no longer the sword & shield of the West. Not only were new breeds of Christians profoundly affected by Worldview enforced by Jews in media and academia but even those Christians who resisted the New Narrative came under tremendous social, cultural, economic, and political pressure to fall in line(or else). So, if any Christians still insisted that Jews killed Christ or that Jews will burn in Hell unless they accept Jesus, they were effectively turned into outcasts.
But, things got even worse. Christianity didn’t just become overly conscientious and pathologically burdened with guilt(vis-a-vis peoples, especially Jews, who generally lacked a sense of reciprocity and mutual understanding) but became utterly ‘cucked’ and corrupted in service of the New Boss. Though excessive conscientiousness is dangerous and suicidal, there is at least consistency in moral logic and sincerity(like with the raped nun in BAD LIEUTENANT by Abel Ferrara). If white Christians really do feel that they betrayed Jesus’ teachings by having committed all manner of ‘historical sins’ upon rest of humanity and need to atone and make amends, there is at least the saving grace of goodwill(no matter how naive, foolish, and suicidal it may well be). But much of Current Christianity is just as much about sucking up to the New Power and committing yet more(and potentially even greater) historical crimes to curry favor with it. Take scum like John Bolton and Mitt Romney. Both claim to be Good Christians and make noises about celebrating Diversity and rejecting White Consciousness to make up for past crimes of ‘white supremacism’. So, one might expect them to condemn ALL forms of supremacism and call upon the world to choose peace over war. But in fact, these servile dogs are so enamored of the awesomeness of Jewish Power that they will go to any length to bark & bite and destroy entire arts of the World to win doggy-biscuit wafers from the Masters of Zion. So many American Evangelicals claim to feel oh-so-very-sorry about Slavery and myriad other American ‘sins’. They say they love, love, and love Jews and condemn the slightest whiff of ‘antisemitism’ to make amends for centuries of Christian violence against Jews. But these very same people have been supportive of the Military-Industrial Complex that has been warmongering around the world and destroying any people hated by Jews(and homos). Also, is the promotion of Homomania(now even in Mormon and Evangelical churches) really about reforming Christianity to live up to Jesus’ true principles? Was Jesus and Disciples really about 'non-discrimination' against sexual deviants? Where does one find that in the Old or New Testament? And even if we were to argue that what matters more is the ‘spirit’ rather than the ‘letter’ of the Gospels and that the true message of Jesus was ‘love’, how can there be any religion or spiritual order without judgement, which necessitates some form of discrimination? After all, isn’t it more difficult to enter Heaven than Hell precisely because God discriminates against blasphemers and those who refuse to accept His Hand and Truth? While one could legitimately argue that Christianity is open to all sinners — even the worst and most depraved murderers — , it is on the condition that the sinners confess, repent, and try their best to be men and women of cleaner spirits. Without conditions, Christianity is useless, but then, that goes for any religion or ideology. Without conditions, Christianity might as well be open to polytheistic pagan witches. Or take Judaism. Without discrimination based on fusion of faith and blood, just about anyone could easily become a Jew. Then, what would happen to Judaism or the meaning of what it means to be ‘Jewish’? While religions do and indeed must come under reformist pressures — all religions progressed and changed over time — , there is a limit beyond which the thought-system will fall apart and lose meaning. It’s like an elite institution can bend the rules a bit and use stuff like ‘affirmative action’ to let in people who aren’t the smartest, but if gates were flung open to all comers, it would no longer be an elite institution, period.
Surely, if the Christian Church opens its arms to repentant murderers, it should be open to homos who repent also. The problem is that Homomaniacs refuse to regard their sexual deviancy as a sin and refuse to repent. If anything, they demand that the Church bend over and celebrate homosexuality as a blessing of God. Now, I suppose one could argue that being ‘gay’ is different from committing murder. Murder is an act whereas being homosexual is a condition which one has no control over. Since homos were born ‘gay’, they must have been ‘created’ that way by God. Since God made them that way, could one argue that homosexuality is a blessing of God, therefore to be valued? The problem with such argument is that all humans, straight or homo, are born with all sorts of dark, dangerous, and deranged drives. We have within us the capacity to kill, steal, rape, and/or revel in mayhem. It’s like even good little dogs can ‘go wolf’ and act like bloodthirsty predators. So, just because we were born with certain ‘conditions’ doesn’t mean those are good or the blessings of God. Some people are born with conditions that predispose them with greater likelihood to become compulsive liars, cheats, sadists, alcoholics, drug-addicts, thieves, rapists, and/or murderers. Most of us have the potential to be killers but are not natural-born killers. Some people are born with higher-level of killer-instinct and have a greater likelihood to become psychopaths, serial killers, or sociopathic gangster-mercenaries. They are born with such condition. Still, they can choose not to follow their natural instinct by the grace of God or, even if they do succumb to their dark instincts, they can still seek salvation through confession and repentance. It’s like studies show that most pedophiles are predisposed to be sexual perverts. It's not like, one day, they just freely chose to be degenerate. Something within them propels them to sexually approach children just like something within homos makes them search out butts to bugger. Still, condition isn’t the same as action. One can want to do something real bad but still not do it, perhaps with the grace of God. Or one can indulge in sin but still make an honest effort to confess and purge oneself. And in that sense, the Church must be and indeed is open to all. After all, Jesus looked upon even the mob that cheered His death with sadness than anger. He believed that even such wretches could have a change of heart and choose the righteous path(through Him). But the nasty and narcissistic homos won’t have any of that. They insist that homo fecal penetration, ass-buggery, and bung-donging are not only glorious but blessed by God and Jesus. Instead of homos repenting before God and Jesus, God and Jesus must pander to homo as if the Kingdom of Heaven is some catering company serving yummies to globalist elites, who really are just bunch of hipster-hicks with too much money and no taste. These scum are into self-worship. Just listen to that globo-homo demento-freak Tim Cook who says God blessed him with the desire to indulge in buggery. Right, God equipped him with a dong to be smeared with fecal matter and with a bung to be penetrated by the dongs of other homos. This vile disgusting freak has the temerity to preach to us about ‘sin’ and pledges(just like Mitt Romney and John Bolton) to work with Jewish globalist-supremacists to shut down dissident speech of those who’d speak truth to power. Needless to say, Tim Cook totally supports the Zionist tyranny over Palestinians and uses Apple to shut down BDS voices alongside Dissident Right voices. Homos prize their junior-partnership with Jews who use the globo-homo banner as the battle flag of the New-Jew-Supremacism. Globo-Homo is Shlomo indeed. Even a lifelong and committed atheist such as myself can’t stomach the sheer putridity of this orgiastic cabal of supremacist degenerates whose highest value is their own preening vanity and their flavor-of-the-month vices.
How did Christianity go from a religion that commanded sinners to prostrate and repent at its feet to a cuck-cult that bends over to homo dongs, elevates Negro demagogues, and sucks Zionist-supremacist cock? There are surely many reasons, but the most important is its having caved to Jewish demands and its all-too-willing self-transformation into a junior partner of the Jews(or Holy Holocaust people as a moral-spiritual voice in the world). Why was this fatal to Christianity? After all, didn’t Jews suffer greatly in World War II? Couldn’t one argue that some of the animus against Jews that made Shoah possible stemmed from centuries of Christian hostility toward the Tribe? Also, didn’t Jews make just a tiny minority in any goy-majority nation? So, why not indulge the Jews a bit and be 'nice'? Also, given the gravity of the Shoah, a historical madness on a scale that had few precedents in Western History, maybe Jews were a truly tragic people who deserve sympathy. And maybe their tragedy imbued the Jews with wisdom and understanding beyond that of goyim who also suffered a lot but maybe not as much(at least in the sense that Jews kept a deeper historical record of their sufferings, victimizations, and grievances).
But such assumptions were a huge mistake on the part of Christian goyim. Now, it made good moral sense for goyim to acknowledge the horror of Shoah and give Jews their due as one of the great tragic peoples of the 20th century. But over-defining Jewishness with the Shoah overshadowed the other side of Jewish history in the modern world. While 20th century had its dark and tragic moments for Jews, it was also an era of tremendous rise of Jewish Power. Same could be said of Germans, Japanese, and Chinese. They all suffered greatly, deservedly or not, but they also made tremendous gains. Furthermore, just as the Japanese, Germans, Chinese, and other goyim committed great evils as well as great good, Jews not only suffered horribly during World War II but played key roles in world events that led to the death and destruction of millions of innocents. And in the 21st century, Jews are, far and away, the greatest force of evil in the world. In other words, one should never go too easily on a great people, and Jews are a very great people, good or bad. Going easy on Jews is not like going easy on, say, Eskimos or Hawaiians. White folks can indulge Eskimos and Hawaiians all they want; the fact is Eskimos and Hawaiians will never amount to much to make a difference in the world. Your average Eskimo(or Inuit) just wants to drink cheap whiskey and chew on blubber. Or, he will make false teeth out of wolf bones to get a chick. A fat Hawaiian is content with a bag of Doritos, case of Pepsi, burnt pig, and TV in front of his couch-potato self.
In contrast, it’s hard to think of another people as driven, ambitious, intelligent, clever, energetic, paranoid, vengeful, nasty, vicious, vile, brilliant, inspired, insightful, penetrating, sadistic, cruel, neurotic, resentful, arrogant, envious, profound, exasperating, contemptuous, monomaniacal, egomaniacal, megalomaniacal, self-righteous, deceitful, visionary, prophetic, and manic-and-panic-prone as the Jews. Jews are quite a handful alright. So, if you give Jews an inch, they take a mile. If you give them a mile, they take a light year. Give them a light year, and they take the entire cosmos. This is why one should be warm of heart but cold of head. Sure, because of the tragedy of Shoah, amends had to be made. Jewish suffering had to be acknowledged and remembered. A cold heart is a dead heart. But then, a warm-fuzzy head is a dead head. The mind must always be cold, and the White West and Christian Church should have been cold in assessing the Way of the Jew. They should have pondered without mushiness and sentimentality, "Given what we know about the Jewish Tribal Character, what would they do IF we indulged them and elevated them as morally equal or even superior to us Christians?" This question wasn’t raised, and the result is the Globo-Homo-Shlomo World we see today. Christianity should NEVER have let go of its conviction of spiritual and moral superiority over Jews. Of course, Jews needn’t agree with anything the Christian Church says. From the Jewish Perspective, THEY THEMSELVES are morally and spiritually superior. After all, they are the Original People of the Book. They are the Chosen. They are the ones who made God known to other peoples. In order for Judaism and Jewish Identity to have any validity, Jews must cling to their own sense of specialness and superiority. If Jews decide to believe that their blood, culture, and religion are of equal value with all other peoples, cultures, and religions around the world, there would hardly be a compelling reason for Jews to cling to Jewishness. In order for Jews to preserve and maintain their blood, culture, history, and territory, they must believe in their own specialness. But then, this goes for Muslims too. Muslims must believe that their religion is superior, the final vision and message of the Last Great Prophet for Mankind. Otherwise, without such conviction and pride, what is the point of being Muslim or trying to convert others?
Then, the same logic applies to Christianity. Whatever Jews or Muslims(or Hindus or Buddhists) may think or feel, Christians must believe that their religion is the true religion. Their Messiah is the true Messiah. God and Fate are on their side. Without such conviction, could Christianity have lasted for so long since the Fall of the Roman Empire? Of course not.
Now, it’s necessary for peoples of different creeds and beliefs to tolerate one another and get along in the world. In the age of nuclear weapons, the last thing we need is one bunch of people trying to forcibly convert all others. Even among Christians, sectarian conflicts led to so many deaths, e.g. Thirty Years War in which it’s been estimated one-third of the German population perished. And Sunni-Shia conflict in the aftermath of the US invasion and ‘liberation’ of Iraq resulted in deaths in the 100,000s(though some estimates go as high as one million). History teaches us that differences will always exist, and wherever possible, it’s better for peoples to choose peace, tolerance, and accommodation than open conflict. So, let Christian minorities maintain their customs & worship in the Muslim world, and let Muslim minorities keep their faith & rituals in the West. That said, true conviction requires you to believe in the special and/or central meaning of your creed, faith, or value system. If not, why favor it and prize it over all others? Whenever you choose something of substance(than merely of style or flavor), it’s an act of preference based on your belief or feeling that it is somehow better or worthier. While it’s possible for individuals to choose and favor what they consciously deem to be inferior over the superior, most people usually choose what they deem to be better. So, while it’s possible that some will consciously choose silver or bronze over gold, most people choose gold in the conviction that it is better. Of course, what seems like ‘gold’ may differ in the eyes of the beholder. To Muslims, Islam is the gold standard of spirituality. To Jews, it’s Judaism. To Christians, it’s Christianity. And of course, it must be that way. Now, some may argue that Christianity demands of its believers to favor the inferior over the superior. After all, Jesus preached that we should give up our comforts & wealth and go among the poor. Choose the inferior poor and wretched over the superior rich and privileged. But in the eyes of Jesus, being poor(especially in accepting poverty as a virtuous path to spiritual salvation) is superior to being rich, which may be superficially impressive but is hollow because wealth is the product of prioritizing one’s life toward material gain. Anyway, if most people don’t choose the very best, it’s because they can’t afford or make the cut. Most people in state colleges would prefer to attend elite colleges IF they could. Most people who drive a standard car would prefer to drive a luxury car if they could afford it. Because it doesn’t cost anything or much in material terms to become a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist, one must choose or hold onto one's faith on the conviction that it is the best spirituality. If one is a Christian but sincerely believes Islam is the true faith, then he or she should convert to Islam. Why keep with a faith that one no longer believes or believes is inferior to another? Religion, especially a credo-religion, demands sincerity. It’s not like a marriage where a man or woman sticks with the spouse even though he or she could ‘do better’ by leaving him or her and going off with someone else. In marriage, there is something higher than the individuals involved. Their bond and pledge to another — ‘til death do us apart’ — count for most. In religion, what is most important is one’s sincerity of faith. Even in cases where one had sworn devotion to a certain god or set of gods, if he comes to believe in the greater truth of another god or another faith, it wouldn’t make much sense for him to remain faithful to(what he has come to regard as)the false god or inferior god. In a way, spirituality is both always promiscuous and always faithful. Many people switch faiths, going from one religion to another or from one sect to another, and in this, they are not being loyal. And yet, in their search for the highest eternal truth, they are always searching for the same thing. No matter which vehicle they get on, they are headed to the same destination: The Ultimate Truth.
Because of the nature of religion and spirituality, the ONLY kind of people who deserve respect are those with true conviction rooted in the foundation of their faith. So, even though I’m an atheist, I respect a Christian who believes there is no Salvation for me until I seek out Jesus. If the so-called Christian says that I don’t have to believe in God or Jesus to enter Heaven just because he doesn’t want to hurt my feelings, I would feel no respect for him. It’s like when a boxer enters a ring. He respects the opponent who also came to rumble and hungers to win. Win or lose, a boxer often hugs his opponent after the bout because both came with the will to settle things in the ring. No boxer would respect an opponent who entered the ring just to smile and hug on account that hitting back might hurt the other fella’s feelings. This is why, despite Jewish hatred for Muslims, there is still a grudging respect. Muslims mean business. They aren’t pathetic dogs who cuck to Jews. Okay, Saudis are dogs, and Jews don’t respect them much. But Jews do respect Iranians even though they feel much hatred. Why? Iranians don’t cuck. (As for the Saudis, even though they politically cuck to US and Israel, at the very least they don’t cuck to globo-homo degeneracy.)
In contrast, Jews feel nothing but contempt for Current Christianity because it’s no longer rooted in true conviction and determination but reliant on appeasing Jews, Negroes, and Homos above all. Today, MLK and Mandela are bigger than God and Jesus in the West. Worshiping Shoah and Israel is bigger than God and Jesus. Bending over to homo vanity and tranny narcissism is bigger than God and Jesus. Even most so-called Christians are more offended by ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, or ‘antisemitism’ than by the worst kind of blasphemy against God and Jesus or the worst kind of defamation against Christians and the Church. Your average worthless Mormon or Mainline pansy will be more offended by a ‘gay joke’ than by vicious things said about God, Jesus, and the Church. If Jesus returned to Earth and if Jews spat on him & whipped him, Negroes ‘twerked’ in front of him and bump-n-grinded him, and Homos demanded he bend over and take it up the arse or bugger them in the ass, AND IF IN RESPONSE, Jesus condemned Jewish perfidy, black savagery, and homo degeneracy, THEN even most American Christians would pile on Jesus and condemn him of ‘antisemitism’, ‘racism’, and ‘homophobia’ than stand by his side. That is how much Christianity has degenerated and rotted into a pile of puss. And it is a sure sign that Jewish Power has indeed killed Christianity because no true living religion could submit to such levels of humiliation and degradation.
RISEN directed by Kevin Reynolds
Anyway, we were discussing why it was foolish for Christians to get fuzzy-wuzzy warm in the head about Jews. After WWII, they regarded Jews as a sorry and tragic people deserving of sympathy and in need of help. So, they figured it’d be no big deal to tone down Christianity and other goy beliefs to make things nice for Jews. This was naive wishful-thinking because Jews are not an ordinary people. They are a great people, both in the best and worst ways. Therefore, unless Jewish Power is pushed back, it will push and push until you’re gone over the cliff. It’s like there’s a difference between being nice to a dog or cat and being nice to a tiger or hippo. Or to weasels, a species that isn’t very big but, pound-for-pound, among the most powerful, tenacious, predatory, relentless, and resilient. And, not for nothing have Jews also been compared with rodents. Rats are a great species. Not the most pleasant but among the most adaptive, resilient, resourceful, ferocious, and maniacal. So many impressive species have gone extinct over the years, but rats still remain as powerful and numerous as ever. Unlike most species that are adapted to a specific environment, rats can live just about anywhere. Likewise, most goy cultures tend to fall apart when removed from its roots and roof. But Jews have been able to maintain their identity and culture even in diaspora over millenniums because of their concept of the Covenant that bonded blood with spirituality and history.
In contrast, Christianity doesn't guarantee, ensure, or demand the survival of any particular culture. If a Jew neglects his own history and identity, he can’t be Jewish. Jewishness isn’t merely a credo, a belief in abstract notions. It is about blood, history, and spirituality bound into a bundle, a fasces. In some ways, it is the ‘first fascism’, and this is why Jews feared fascism so much. It could serve as the foundation of the creation of covenants for particular goy folks. If a Jew mustn’t deny his identity and history if he wants to be a Jew, it doesn’t matter to Christianity if someone denies his blood and history. If an Irishman or Chinaman came to a Church and said, "I don’t care about my Irishness or Chineseness, I don’t care about my Irish or Chinese history & heritage, and all I care about is being a good generic Christian" the Church will welcome him(and even praise him for abandoning his particular identity). While Christianity doesn’t require that one give up one's identity or history, such is not crucial to being a Good Christian.
Furthermore, even though there is a history of Christian civilizations and the various Churches, there is no essential Christian history(as component of its spiritual validity). While it's nearly impossible to conceive of Judaism without taking into account the story of the Jews as told in the Torah, Christianity would be just as spiritually-and-morally valid without the slightest knowledge of its 2,000 yr history. The entirety of Christianity was embodied in the single lifetime of Jesus who died at the age of 33(oddly, the year in which Hitler came to power). Christianity is based on biography, Judaism on history. According to the Faith, Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, and He revealed the Final and Eternal Truth. So, there is no more need of the Old Testament or Old Histories. And there is no need to seek new future truths. He has blessed Mankind with The Truth, and that’s that. So, even as human history continues, there is no longer any need for the History of Spiritual truth-seeking. Why seek the Truth in the past, present, or future when it was revealed by Jesus in His lifetime? In contrast, History is crucial in regards to Truth for the Jews because the Torah is a history of Truth as revealed in increments by the Prophets. Torah is a puzzle, and the Talmud is a literary manual of working on the puzzle. And since Jews don’t believe the world has been visited by the Messiah(as true Christians believe) or by the Final Prophet(as Muslims believe), more truth is yet to be found in the future for the Jews. Because Jews are still in truth-seeking mode, they are intellectually and culturally more engaged than Christians and Muslims are. (Neo-Pagans of the Renaissance and 19th Century Romanticism in Europe were notably creative in ideas and expression because, instead of holding onto Christianity as the fount of eternal truth, they ventured into other sources to envision alternative visions inspired by ghosts from forgotten pagan past or by specters of an uncertain but fascinating future.)

Anyway, against a people as strong-willed and prophetic-minded as the Jews, the Christian West needed a powerful push-back mechanism. It needn’t be insane like Nazism, but there had to be something. It’s like a lion-tamer needs a strong whip and sturdy chair to remind the lion not to get too aggressive. Without defenses against Jews, they will gnaw you into mincemeat like the rats that were about to carve up Winston Smith in 1984(by George Orwell). Without the cage to hold back the rats, Smith’s face would have devoured to the bone. This is why Christianity always needed a Cage against the Jews. It was the ONLY WAY to keep Jews from attacking and defiling everything. And Jews wanted to destroy Christianity because they regarded it as a stolen religion, and in a way, it was. Remember the movie TIME BANDITS(by Terry Gilliam) where god is pursuing a bunch of dwarfs who stole the Secret from him? Jews see Jesus and the Disciples(and especially St. Paul) in this manner. Them were renegade dwarf-Jews who stole the Jewish secret and passed it off to the God-forsaken gentiles.

And, in a way, Jews have a right to be upset because, not only was their God stolen from them via Christianity but the New Religion came to blame Jews of Deicide, condemned them, and even persecuted them at times. Now, suppose a non-European people stole European gods, such as Zeus or Odin or bunch of others, reformulated them in their own image, claimed true ownership, and then invoked them to wage wars on Europe. White pagans would have been upset.
A lot of white patriots are upset with the globo-homo media portraying Great European historical figures and mythic heroes with black actors; they feel this way because their own racial and cultural heroes are being ‘appropriated’ and ‘stolen’ to honor and embolden ANOTHER people, especially the blacks who pose the greatest racial-sexual threat to whites. Then, one can understand how Jews may have felt through the ages when their Book and their God were ‘stolen’ by Gentiles who claimed them as their own on the basis of the ‘New Covenant’ promised by St. Paul. Of course, some may argue that it makes no sense blaming the Gentiles since it was the renegade Jews who concocted the New Religion and proselytized them to non-Jews. If anyone did the 'stealing', it was the Jewish Early Christians. Gentiles only received contraband goods from Jews who stole from other Jews.
But then, Jewish Early Christians could have argued that they stole nothing. If anything, they first tried to share the New Truth with the Jews, but they not only wouldn’t listen but attacked and even killed many Jewish Early Christians, and that was why they, the Early Christians, had no choice but to take the New Faith to the Gentiles. Whatever the case, Jews have always hated Christianity as a Stolen Religion, and on the subconscious level, their Africanization of Western Mythology and History could be payback: "You whites made the Jewish Religion white-and-gentile, so we Jews will make Western Civilization black-and-African." Keep in mind that Martin Bernal, the notorious author of BLACK ATHENA, is a Jew.

Anyway, in order for Christianity to maintain its pride and prestige in the modern world, it had to remain anti-Judaic, which isn’t the same thing as being anti-Jewish or ‘antisemitic’. Even though Christianity was right to warn Christians not to harm Jews(at least not for the hell of it), it had to uphold a spiritual and moral doctrine preaching Christianity as an advancement over Judaism. Thus, even as Christianity had a ethical duty to denounce physical violence against Jews(at least those who didn’t cause trouble), it had a spiritual and moral duty to preach against what it believed to be the moribund or past-expiration-date religion of the Jews. (Again, Jews in their own domain had every right and obligation to preach against Christianity as a heretical deviation from Judaism, the one true faith for the Chosen.) Without such an adverse position on Judaism, Christianity had no real leg to stand on. After all, it came into existence in rebellion against Judaism like Zeus arose in rebellion against Cronus. Though, in some ways, a continuation of Cronus, Zeus was also a usurper who took the title from his father. If Christianity cannot claim to be better than Judaism, it has no justification. After all, if indeed Jews are just as blessed as Christians and can enter Heaven without accepting Jesus, what is the whole point of Christianity? If Jews are blessed without accepting Jesus, then it implies anyone can be blessed or enter Heaven without accepting Jesus. It renders the life of Jesus, His Sacrifice, and Resurrection all superfluous because the implication is that you don’t really need Jesus to have blessing and ticket to Heaven. If Jews are just as blessed as Christians and can enter Heaven without accepting Jesus, then Christianity’s claim as the True Faith has had its heart cut out. It means its entire premise was wrong for the entirety of its existence.
Now, some may argue that only Jews and Christians are blessed by God and Jesus. Jews are blessed because they are the Original People of God, and Christians are blessed because they are the New Peoples of God. But, this goes against the true meaning of Christianity that was something more than ‘Judaism for non-Jews’. If indeed the main point of Christianity was to offer a kind of extended membership to non-Jews into the Jewish House of God, then one could say Jews don’t need Jesus to have God’s blessing. After all, they had the blessing already, and only non-Jews needed Jesus to serve as spiritual middleman. But the Jesus myth and Paul’s message took hold in opposition to Jewish traditions. Gospels say Jews not only rejected Jesus but called for His death. And after His death, Jews sought to chase His followers down and kill them too. Then, Paul came along and formulated an idea to universalize the Jesus Myth in profound opposition to Jewish dogma, rituals, and customs. Thus, New Testament was something much more than a Universalized Judaism or Judaism-for-Dummies. It was far more than generic copies of the original art work to be sold to tourists. It was a new beginning that claimed that the Jews had lost their way, forsaken the blessing of God, and became most guilty in the eyes of the Lord for having killed Jesus, the Son of God and Messiah, and then for not atoning for what they’d done. According to Christian Myth, Jews had been awaiting the coming of the Messiah, but when He finally came, the bloody idiots had Him killed instead of welcoming Him. They had a second chance as Jesus called for forgiveness and love. But Jews didn’t just kill Jesus but tried to chase down every Jewish Early Christian who preached the Gospel. There may have been a time when Jews could have remained Jewish even as they accepted Jesus. But Jewish sins were so grave that the ONLY way left for Jews to be saved is by wholeheartedly accepting Jesus and becoming Christians. Such Anti-Judaicism is crucial to Christianity. Without it, Christian Myth has far less value. If the Church says that Jews, despite what the Gospels say about them and their role in the killing of Jesus and persecution of His followers, are just as blessed and headed to Heaven as the Christians are, then it means Christianity has been based on what was, at best, a conceit and, at worst, a mendacious lie that defamed a wholly innocent people, the Jews. Thus, Christianity goes from a religion-as-advancement from Judaism to a religion-as-abomination against Judaism. If Jews without Jesus are so blessed and guaranteed a place in Heaven, what were all the troubles over Christianity for? Christian history had its great ups and downs, triumphs and tragedies, but Christians felt it was all worth it(even the darkest moments) because Christianity was the one true faith through which Mankind could be saved and redeemed. That knowledge and conviction made it all seem worthwhile through thick and thin. But now, the church says Jews don’t need Jesus to have blessing and entry into Heaven. And in order not to offend yet others, many churches say even Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, and Atheists are Okay if they are ‘good’ people and have good hearts. At this point, the church might as well even embrace Satan Worshipers lest it be not ‘inclusive’ enough.
Now, I’m all for Christians being kindly and polite with non-Christian communities. There’s no reason for Christians to holler all day and night that heathens will burn in Hell. I personally despise self-righteous Christian types who get thrills by holding up signs like ‘God Hates Fags’. But Christian Doctrine is what it is. Without it, there is no religion. It’s the same with Buddhism that believes in reincarnation. According to the laws of Karma, eating meat is a transgression against cosmic justice. So, a meat-eater like myself could be reincarnated into a goat or spider in the next life. Should a Buddhist reject the theory of Karma that punishes meat-eaters because my feelings may be hurt? Then, he’s a wuss and wimp, not a real Buddhist. Or should a Jew water down his idea of the Covenant because it might offend me as one of the Un-Chosen? Of course not. While Jews need to make an effort to get along better with non-Jews, they must preserve the Covenant IF they are to survive and remain as a viable ethnic, spiritual, and cultural community.
What history teaches us is that we shouldn’t always act on our beliefs. Catholics and Protestants did that for awhile, and they bled each other dry in some of the bloodiest conflicts in Europe. We mustn’t expect the Kingdom of Man to ever become our vision of the Kingdom of Heaven. Still, the point of having creeds and convictions is to take them seriously and be true to them, and this requires courage. Most people don’t want to hurt other people’s feelings, and that’s a good thing, but if we mold our core beliefs on sensitivity, there can’t be any depth or real meaning. Tolerance is necessity but a very weak virtue. Or, it has social value as a matter of ‘business’, a means to facilitate interaction among people with different ideas and values. After all, if people lack even this modicum of civility guided by tolerance, we end up with self-righteous deranged mobs that attacked Charles Murray at Middlebury College. But when it comes to true conviction, one must hold steadfast to what he believes in.
Morons protesting Charles Murray at Middlebury College. Self-Righteous Supremacists vape Virtue Vanity.
Because Jews are such an intense people driven by ego, passion, intellect, ambition, vision, hatred, and contempt, you need something powerful to hold them back. You need a dam against the Jews. It’s like the quarterback in football is helpless without the offensive linemen who push against the defensive linemen whose main objective is to sack the quarterback or smother the running back. What was so useful about Christianity was its powerful sense of moral superiority over Jews. Because it was staked on the Narrative that said Jews rejected the Son of God and even pressured Romans to have Him killed, it put Jews on the moral defensive. Also, because it said all those who accept Jesus, regardless of their race or color, are the new-and-true blessed of God, it advantaged Christians over Jews who ‘stingily’ clung to the Old Concept of God as tribal property instead of sharing God with all of humanity on an equal basis. Christianity accused Jews of being scrooge-like hoarders of God; Jews were all about property-rights when it came to spirituality. In contrast, Christianity was spiritual socialism where God and His Truth would be equally shared by ALL, master-mister-or-slave, who would accept His blessings, confess, and repent.
Now, from their own perspective, Jews had totally legitimate and admirable reasons for defending their own religion and customs, and indeed such were necessary in order to maintain Jewish pride and power. After all, if Jews had joined the Church, they would have faded as a people & culture and just become part of generic Christian and Goy community. So, I don’t begrudge the Jews — if anything I admire them — for rejecting Christianity. That said, from the Christo-Gentile point of view, the New Faith was so inspiring and appealing precisely because it promised the faithful that THEY were the new flock of God. They were the community of the New and Improved Religion, whereas Jews obstinately clung to an obsolete faith overburdened with outmoded ideas and attitudes. Jesus, as the Messiah, had realized the final synthesis and resolution of the countless contradictions in the Torah, but Jews, out of either pride, vanity, or arrogance, chose to stick with the Old Ways.

Modern Christians, especially after WWII, hoped that Jews could reciprocate in kind IF Christians offered their hand in the spirit of friendship. Granted, Christians didn’t have much to apologize for. The great horror against the Jews, the Shoah, had been perpetrated by Neo-Pagan National Socialists. Also, Jews(at least the radicals, perverts, and gangsters among them) had driven many Europeans toward either supporting or tolerating far-right movements. After all, prior to Nazi madness and WWII, the biggest bloodbaths in Europe had been carried out by the Bolsheviks in the Inter-War period. Though not all communists were Jewish, Jews played a prominent role on the ruthless & remorseless Radical Left. Also, Jews were significant figures in the cultural decay of the Weimar years(and now we are seeing a repeat of this in our time). Jews were also heavily involved in organized crime, sexual degeneracy & exploitation, and financial fraud, something so many vicious Jews repeated all over against in post-communist Russia. So, it was not like Europeans just went crazy one day and decided to pile on innocent saintly Jews. Jews, along with Germans, Russians, Poles, British, French, and etc., had done their part in driving Europe to the edge of the cliff... though any honest person must blame Hitler and his Nazi cohorts for pushing it off the cliff.
It would have been promising if indeed Jews and Christians could have arrived at some deeper understanding after World War II. Christians and Goyim could have acknowledged the tragic side of the Jewish experience(especially during WWII), and in turn, Jews could have realized their responsibility in radicalism, crime, and corruption had driven so many non-Jews into fits of fury. But unfortunately, only the Christians worked in good faith while Jews, nasty as ever, decided to exploit this kindness as weakness, an Achilles Heel. Now, one could argue that it made more sense for Christians to be nicer since they outnumbered Jews by a huge margin. Also, the West was then firmly in control by goyim, and besides, so many Jews had perished in the conflagration of World War II and Shoah.
But, one cannot judge everything by size. Great Britain is a small nation, but it once came to dominate a third of the world. A tarantula is many times bigger than a hornet, but the latter’s sting usually paralyzes the big spider. A tiny thorn in a lion’s paw can incapacitate it. Just a small cluster of cancer cells can spread and destroy the entire body. A small poisonous snake can bring down a big animal. David beat Goliath. In quantity, Jews were no match for goyim. But in quality, Jews were pound-for-pound the most potent and intense people in the world. Indeed, Jews evolved culturally and genetically to be POP or People of Power.
Another thing we need to consider is the Context of Power. Just like different organisms have advantage in certain realms but are disadvantaged(even rendered helpless) in other realms, human power operates in similar ways. A polar bear is many times bigger than a seal, and indeed, polar bears feed on seals. Bears do this by dragging seals out of water-holes onto the snow. But in the water, even the smallest seal has advantage over the bigger bear. While polar bears are good swimmers, their aquatic ability is nothing compared to that of seals. A great white shark is one of the most frightening creatures in the sea. But on land, even a small dog can tear into it. Human power works the same way. Blacks can beat whites in the sporting field. Whites can beat blacks in the classroom. Because Jews weren’t numerous or physically imposing, their advantages were in elite fields of business, science & math, media, academia, and other endeavors involving brain power. So, Jews understood that their power would have to start at the top than at the bottom. Because Jews had no chance of demographic takeover(except in Palestine via massive Jewish migration-invasion), they had to focus on elite seizure of power. And because Jews had higher IQ, more drive(& resentment), and more pride(going back to the Covenant), they worked very hard to take over the ivory towers and gold vaults. Because of such intensity and potency(and even hostility) among Jews, European nations had instituted policies and erected barriers to prevent Jewish takeover of uppermost elite institutions.
This is why Jews came to favor communism and Americanism in reaction to European-Christian norms. Communism eradicated cultural distinctions in the name of equality. So, Jews didn't face discrimination in the Soviet Union. And because Americanism was about individualism and meritocracy, Jews could make a legal and ethical case against any form of racial or ethnic discrimination in the US, thereby clearing the path to Jewish ascent to the very top. In time, why did Jews come to favor Americanism over Sovietism? Stalinism turned out to be tyrannical and brutal, especially after Leon Trotsky was purged and exiled. Also, as communism is about equality, Jews could be equal with goyim but couldn’t really rise high above them. Even though communist systems did have hierarchies, there was a severe limit as to how much wealth and privilege one could accumulate. Communism was about equality of outcomes. In contrast, Americanism was about equality of opportunity, and that meant that the smart, clever, enterprising, resourceful, and cunning could use meritocracy to accumulate tremendous amounts of wealth(and then use that wealth to favor one’s own kind over others, thus subverting the very meritocracy that had allowed them to rise so high; while many Jews in high positions are the best talents in the field, there are also a lot of Jews who were favored for their identity — Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook who is smart but not THAT smart).
Anyway, Jews knew that the elite fields were their realm of choice. To gain power, even supremacy, their only chance was to shoot straight for the top. Of course, gaining control of the top also meant holding sway over the masses. After all, head controls the body, and elite institutions and industries, via control of academia-media-and-state, function as the mind, eyes, and ears of the System. When elite Jews take over mass media, they are in the position to shape the hearts, minds, eyes, and ears of the masses. Still, as Abraham Lincoln said, you can’t fool All the People All the Time.
Also, there are times when the body has a way of defying and rebelling against the wishes of the mind. If someone wants to sit on the couch and watch TV all day and neglects his bladder, eventually the body is going to force him to go to the john even if his mind wants to sit and watch TV. This is why Jews fear mass-power more than elite-power. Even though Jews resented goy elites such as the Wasps, their problem was not with elitism per se because they knew that, under individualism and meritocracy, they could seize it from the Wasps who, though talented than most groups, weren’t going to hold their own against Jews(just like white athletes were bound to lose to blacks in meritocratic matches). Jews knew it was only a matter of time before they take near-complete control of elite positions. And indeed they did. But Jews could never gain mass power because there weren’t enough of them. Jews totally kicked Wasp elite ass and reduced Wasps to a bunch of pansies, wussies, gimps, and cucks, BUT Jews could never gain control of the masses like they did with the Wasp elites. For one thing, the masses tend to be unruly. Also, unlike Wasp elites who are well-read and well-educated(therefore easily indoctrinated by Jewish-controlled ideas and narratives), the masses tend to read less and rely more on gut instinct. On ALL IN THE FAMILY, Michael is a ‘Polack’ but an intellectual who reads all the time, and so, just like Wasp elites, he’s fallen under the sway of the Jew-run media and academia. In contrast, Archie Bunker, though ignorant and bigoted, has an instinctive sense of reality. He's better at bullshit-detecting. Because the masses don’t read much and aren't swayed by Big Ideas, Jews sought to undermine them with mass idolatry. Make whites lose racial pride with a combination of Mandela and Mandingo. White Guilt and White Cuckery. Have ‘white trash’ worship black rappers and black saints. (Or divert white masculine aggression toward hating Muslims and Arabs through Hollywood movies where 'Muzzies' were often the bad guys.) Still, the fact remains that white masses have been far more difficult to quell, control, and manipulate than the white elites(who just cuck to PC ‘intellectualism’). This is why Jews push for mass-immigration-invasion. Jews had the talent and the numbers to take over the elite realm, but they just couldn’t always control the goy masses who sometimes went against elite wishes. Among the white elites, the cucky-wucks are totally supportive of Wars for Israel, but notice how so many among the white masses were thrilled to hear Donald Trump denounce the Iraq War and the Neocons who'd pushed it. Jews fear that, one day, the masses will connect the dots and come to realize that Jews have been the ‘Barzini’ in the equation. "It was Barzini all along" or "It was the Jews all along."

So, Jews have decided that the ONLY SURE WAY to deal with the white masses is to weaken their mass-power with Mass-Immigration-Invasion. The voting bloc of non-whites and white proggies who’ve been suckered by the Jew-run Media will destroy white majority power forever. Also, intersectionality is prized by Jews because it really means gridlock among goyim, thereby making it impossible for goyim to unite against elite Jewish Power.

But that is not the ONLY reason why Jews won. Sure, Jews were bound to win in the elite realm because of their intelligence, drive, and pride. But as Power and Privilege are magnet for criticism and condemnation — just consider the hostility aimed at Wasp elites by the working class, ethnics, blacks, Jews, and etc. in the past — , Jews knew that talent and money alone wouldn’t secure the future for them. So, they had to compete and operate in the Moral Realm of their own choosing, one where they'd be favored to thrive more than their rivals, especially whites. Imagine a fish tank with a certain chemical. Suppose this chemical allows Organism A to take in more oxygen from the water while having the exact opposite effect on Organism B. So, while members of Organism A are absorbing much oxygen and feeling energized, members of Organism B are taking in less oxygen and feeling enervated. Indeed, in order for members of Organism B to take in more oxygen, they need to buy special tablets from members of Organism A. Suppose Organism A offers tablets only to members of Organism B that obey the commands of A. In such a chemically laced realm, members of Organism A would have decisive edge over members of Organism B.

How did Jews ‘chemically’ alter the Moral Atmosphere of the West so that the Narrative, Culture, and Icons(and Idols) became ‘tonic’ for Jews while toxic for Whites? How was the West turned into one huge gas chamber for the White Race? (If whites want gas-masks in this atmosphere laced with Zio-Klon B, they better do as the Jews say.) Jews filled the air with sounds, images, and stories that all pointed to ‘white evil’, ‘white guilt’, ‘white privilege’, and ‘white-must-kiss-Jewish-black-and-homo-ass-forever’. Jewish elites with control of academia, media, and state employed selective ‘narrativity’ to make Jews and blacks(and homos) seem totally innocent and wonderful while making whites seem as the worst monsters of history, that is UNLESS they suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos, the only way to obtain gas-masks in an air that is increasingly toxic for white people. The current air morally invigorates Jews while morally poisoning whites. Then, it is no wonder that Jews keep kicking white ass since the very cultural, intellectual, and ideological air that we breathe has been chemically altered to favor some people over others. It's a Ziosphere. It’s like a certain additive will do wonders for some creatures in the fish tank while weakening and even killing others. It’s like Frosty the Snowman is finished without winter cold. The fatal mistake of whites was to allow Jews to control the chemicals in the air to favor Jews over whites. Once the moral equation in the West became Jews > Whites, the Power Politics turned into one of Jews aggressively accusing whites and whites defensively apologizing before Jews. This is why Jews do everything to suppress stuff like BDS movement, the true history of Communism, and Jewish role in Cultural Corruption. If those truths come to define the Narrative, the moral chemistry of the air won’t favor Jews so much.

Anyway, Christianity after World War II handed the plate of Moral Superiority to the Jews. It declared that Jews are just as blessed as the Christians and don’t have to accept Jesus to enter Heaven. But Jews didn’t reciprocate by saying Christians are just as chosen by God(or History) as His(or its) favorite people. So, even as Jews clung to their Covenant and tribal sense of superiority, Christians forsook the ONE FACTOR that made them morally and spiritually advantaged over Jews. Christians effectively declared that Jews don’t have to play by Christian rules — convert, accept Jesus as savior, embrace all of humanity as equally blessed by God — in order to be the moral and spiritual equals of Christians, but Jews kept to their own Judaic rules that maintained that Jews are the Chosen, the superior people whose destiny is to lord over goyim. This total lack of reciprocity is seen in political discourse too. Jews demand that white goyim must support and defend the right of Israel to be a Jewish state, but Jews insist that they are not obligated to support the right of any goy nation to maintain its identity, culture, and territory. So, Hungary and Poland better support Israel, but Jews don’t have to support Hungary and Poland. So, the US better support secure borders for Israel, but hell with the borders of Iraq, Libya, and Syria; they may be breached any which way to spread Wars for Israel.

Though Christianity and Western Politics aren’t one and the same, what happened with Christianity itself has been a useful bellwether for rest of the West. It’s like the saying, "As California goes, so goes the rest of the country." Because Christianity has been the core foundation of Western morality and spirituality for so long, trends within it have often portended larger cultural phenomena. After all, if the most spiritually and morally rooted institution of the West since the fall of the Roman Empire cannot say NO to Jewish power, what can? If it can’t say NO to homo power, what can? And if Christianity cannot define the rewards and meanings of being a true Christian, it sets a similar conceptual template for secular society. So, in a world in which Christianity says Jews who reject Jesus are just as blessed as Christians and deserve to be embraced as brothers and sisters, is it any wonder that white Europeans are now saying non-whites are just as ‘European’ as real Europeans and should be welcomed by the bushel, indeed in the hundreds of millions?

Just look all around. What has been the socio-political ramifications of Christianity’s abandonment of its moral-spiritual edge over the Jews who, furthermore, came to be collectively consecrated and canonized as a race of new messiahs resurrected from the ashes of the Holy Holocaust? The result has been corruption and decay in every corner of the West. Because both Christianity and the Secular West have come to worship Jews as a Holy People, the new Medicine Men of the West, nothing the Jews ever do can be honestly and critically scrutinized, countered, or condemned. If anything, we are to believe that even Jewish foulness must be blamed on Whites. So, never mind the role of Jewish Neocons in the Iraq War. The movie VICE tells us to blame it all on Dick Cheney and Big Oil(that did not support the war, btw). Giving Holy-Schmoly Jews free rein to run amok has led to the spread of wanton pornography even to kids, jungle fever among white women, pitiful cucky-wuckery among white boys, horrendous Wars for Israel, rise of Vice Industries such as gambling, poisoning of millions of white working class with opioids peddled by the sinister Sackler family, utter mendacity of the media(that push nonsense like Russia Collusion Conspiracy), mass-invasion of the West, ‘new cold war’ with Russia that wants peace, apotheosis of Homomania or Queertianity as replacement for Christianity, harlot-ization of white girls, celebration of trannies as ‘women’, first stirring for legitimization of pedophilia, vagina-mania, and etc.

Christianity as a force is all but dead in the West. Jews killed it. (There is still the Orthodox Church, but it’s always been too heavy, lethargic, and drowsy to be a living force. In both Byzantium and Russia, the Orthodox Church always played an ultra-conservative role as an addendum of the State.) Jews who’d been accused of killing Christ finally went one better and killed the religion founded on His name. This is a great tragedy.
But in a way, the night brings forth a new day. The night of Christianity may herald the dawn of something bold and new, an original prophecy for the white race. And perhaps that is necessary because Christianity, as great as it has been as a religion and tradition, was founded on the prophecy of a Semite than an Aryan, thereby preventing the rise of Aryan Prophets putting forth visions for his race independent of the Jew. In that sense, perhaps, Jews did the white race a favor by finally killing the religion founded by ‘renegade’ members of their Tribe.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Commentary on "NYT: Homophobic Racist Trump Supporters Try to Lynch Gay Black TV Star in Downtown Chicago"(by Steve Sailer)

Just like there is the Paranormal, there is something like Para-politics where strange things happen but are accepted as 'normal' within the Virtual Political Universe. It's like the Paranormal, though unsupported by science, is 'normal' within the social domain of such 'sightings', 'studies' and 'research'.

Often, the Paranormal has less(or nothing) to do with actual events or observable phenomena in the real world than with one's own fearful and/or fascinating projections onto the world. Often, these fantastic projections are fueled by 'sightings' or speculations by like-minded individuals(who are often naturally predisposed to hyperbole or exhibitionism). And the mass media can play a key role in the panic or hysteria. The UFO craze of the 50s to 70s wouldn't have taken off without the sensationalism pushed by MSM and Hollywood.
In time, a cult-community forms, and one alleged 'sighting' of a flying saucer turns into thousands. "Yeah, I saw one too!!" One 'sighting' of Big Foot(or Chupacabra) turns into literally hundreds upon hundreds. As sensationalism sells, media spread it far and wide, getting even more idiots, lunatics, pranksters, fantasists, and charlatans on-board.
 Then, it's hardly surprising that so many Progs, warped by comparable mental distortions of Parapolitics, should regard Donald Trump as the Abominable Snowman and that there have been all these sightings of MAGA-hat-wearing Big Foots(or Big Hats) everywhere. But even before Trump, let's not forget the hysteria about how the KKK was prowling the Libby-Dib community of Oberlin College. And who can forget the Crypto-Nazi blonde fratboy rapists(led by none other than Haven Monahan) of UVA.

Now, if memory serves us right, there has been many physical attacks on patriots and conservatives in big cities like and Chicago. Donald Trump had to cancel his speech in Chicago due to Mob Violence. Not pitchfork mob violence mind you but silverspoon mob violence, the type with the full blessing of the globo-homo Jewish elites. And, who attacked Tucker Carlson's home?

So much of what we are shown and told is Inverse Reality, the exact opposite of what is really going on. But then, Inverse Reality is nothing new. By the Middle Ages, the Christian West gained power over the pagans and went about massacring and stomping out every last vestige of paganism, BUT it freaked out over 'witches witches everywhere'. In America, whites settlers encroached on the Red Man's land. White man was clearly the aggressor, but the Narrative back then spoke of Red hostiles attacking whites. But really, did Indians conquer Europe or did Europeans conquer the Red Man's land?
Inverse Reality is all around us. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been the aggressor against Russia, blatantly interfering in Russian politics and economics, BUT we are told Russia is the aggressor and violator of American Sovereignty. (By the way, if the US doesn't even have the right to protect its own borders, why should it enjoy sovereignty of any kind? If Open Borders are great, maybe American Power should be Open Politics or Open Corridors[of Power]. If US demography should be invaded and replaced by hordes from all over the world, maybe the US deep state elite institutions should also be taken over by foreigners.) More Inverse Reality: The US has military bases encircling China in Asia[a legacy of Western Imperialism], but somehow, China is painted as the aggressor. Israel has 300 nukes and violates international norms whereas Iran allows nuclear inspections and has no nukes, but Iran is the rogue nation while Israel is praised to the heavens by all US politicians who endless pontificate about International Law. Nationalism, borders, and security are said to be stupendous for Israel, but the very Jews who lionize Israel turn around and say Hungary is 'neo-nazi' and 'xenophobic' for wanting to preserve itself. Blacks are the toughest and most aggressive race, and they commit the most crimes and create most social problems in the US, but they are portrayed as hapless & innocent victims by the PC Jew-run Media. Zionists took land from Palestinians who now live under Occupation and Apartheid-like policies in West Bank, but American Policy would have us believe Jews need protection from Palestinians. Non-white Immigrants flee from their own kind and move to white nations to live with white people(whom they prefer over their own kind), but they blame whites of 'racism', rejecting them, or not being sufficiently welcoming of them. People who reject their own kind accuse whites of rejecting them: "I'm a Hindu who doesn't want to live with all those stinking Hindus, but whites better want to live with my Hindu self." All these vile Hindus do NOTHING for their own people who still shi* outdoors and lived in disease-ridden communities, but they come to the West and bitch about how whites aren't doing enough for them. What leeches and louts.

People need to re-watch FALLEN IDOL(written by Graham Greene and directed by Carol Reed). Lies may start out as a game but can turn addictive and mess things up royally. We are living in a Parapolitical world of Inverse Reality.
Now, it's good for white souls to confess what they've done wrong, but it makes no sense to confess to those who don't confess themselves. Under Stalinism, the 'heretics' were forced to confess by tyrants and goons with blood on their hands. The Stalinist mass-killers themselves never had to confess anything. PC isn't about inquiry for the truth but just another inquisition full of hysteria, lies, and lunacy... all with the backing of the Power.

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Commentary on "Notes on a Curious People: The Maya and Their Doings"(by Fred Reed)

This is probably because they were in fact murdering, torturing savages given to human sacrifice. Why this is thought especially reprehensible is a mystery. The Romans sacrificed large numbers... so that the public could enjoy watching them die, crucified large numbers, and poured molten lead down the throats of criminals. In the European witch hunts, sort of 1450-1750, some 500,000 were killed depending on whose numbers you accept... The Tudors hanged criminals, cut them down still conscious, opened their abdomens and removed their bowels while still alive... . And of course everybody and his dog put entire cities to the sword, from Joshua to Hiroshima. Despite their best efforts the Maya could not keep up with the moderns.

Why was Mayan human sacrifice 'worse' than the bloodbaths of Western Civilizations? Romans shed blood for entertainment or punishment. Now, killing people for entertainment is ugly and grisly, but it is what it is. Mass spectacle. Romans didn't pretend otherwise, as if it could be anything more than bloody fun. People like to see violence. Lots of people love violent movies and violent video-games. People love to see animal programs where predators hunt down prey. Americans are addicted to violent football and fighting sports. Romans did it for real, with bodies piling up in earnest. But Romans never claimed there was any moral or spiritual dimension to gladiator sports. As for practices like the crucifixion, they were meant as punishment. A bit extreme perhaps but still a tool of 'justice' and power, nothing more and nothing less. Draconian but meant to send a strong message to make people comply with the Order. At the very least, the innocent weren't randomly summoned to be crucified. (It's also worth mentioning that gladiatorial sports could, in some ways, be a crude form of justice, at least according to the movie GLADIATOR. Certain criminals were forced into it. Also, conquered men of other tribes who were spared death were given a second chance to prove their mettle in the arena.)

As for European witch-hunts, while they could be ugly and violent, the point was to hunt down demonic forces and root out evil. Europeans believed that certain individuals were possessed of evil spirits or practiced witchcraft in service to Satan. So, they believed 'witches' must be exposed and punished in the name of God. Witch-hunts were NOT carried out to honor Devil but to ward him off.

As for the Tudors, they certainly had an ugly way to handling criminals, but it was still a form of justice, punishment for bad elements.

In any case, one could put forth moral and/or rational arguments against the practices of the Romans, Christians, and Tudors. One could argue that gladiatorial sports, while fun and exciting, were cruel and ugly. One could argue that hunting witches, though in the name of God against Satan, was excessive and unforgiving(against the preaching of Jesus). And one could argue that the Tudors were a bit too outlandish in their treatment of criminals. Even if we agree that earlier European civilizations acted in ugly, gross, and excessive ways, we can still understand the motivations behind them on the human and even moral level. Romans favored thrill over good-will in their addiction to blood spectacles. And Romans, Christians, and Tudors were overly zealous in meting out punishment or rooting out Evil.

But what is to make of the Mayan human sacrifice? It wasn't for sports or entertainment, which would have been ugly but understandable as spectacle & entertainment. It wasn't to root out evil(as in the witch-hunts common in Medieval Europe). It wasn't to punish the criminal elements as most who were killed hadn't committed any crime.
It was a ritual of sacrificing innocents to amoral or even immoral gods. The very cosmology of the Mayans was morbid and psychotic. It believed that the universe is ruled by cruel, uncaring, and sadistic gods who demand sacrifice of the innocent. Against such cosmological psychopathy, no moral or rational argument could be put forth. The culture was demonic and demented at its very core. Christians misused the teachings of the just God. Mayans correctly served their immoral gods who demanded the slaughter of innocents.

And that may have been why no South American civilization achieved traction and longterm viability. They could make art, do math, pursue astronomy, and build temples. But they failed to conceive of a deep and resilient theory or vision of justice.
Greeks and Romans, even as pagans, believed in gods possessed of the power of reason and justice, though far from perfect themselves. Apollo and Athena upheld reason, order, and intelligence. Zeus was not without sentiment and, when not indulging his whims with the ladies, tried to be fair-and-balanced with other gods and humans.
And even though Jews and Christians stained their hands with blood time and time again, their conception of God was one of power AND justice. In contrast, the spiritual conceptions of South American civilizations were dead in soul. While alive in the arts, architecture, and rudiments of 'science' and math, they failed to bridge the gap between cosmology and rationality and morality. Their gods were all about the whims of power.
Civilization after civilization, from Mayans to Aztecs to Incas, they fell into the trap of ritual human sacrifice to appease the appetites of amoral or even immoral gods. When a people believe that even the gods lack souls, they are bound to fall no matter their achievement in monuments and math.

As for modern wars and their massacre of millions, war is hell. Always has been and always will be.

Monday, January 28, 2019

Commentary on "Tomgram: William Astore, Turning Victory Into Defeat"(by Tom Engelhardt) or the Myth of US Defeat

How, then, was it possible, month after month, year after year, to turn the promise of eternal victory so repetitiously into the reality of defeat (and spreading terror movements)?

The notion of the US losing wars or being defeated must end. For example, it's oft-been said the US lost in Vietnam, but, in fact, the US was untouched by the war and lost only 58,000 men. In contrast, Vietnam was turned into a total clusterfuc* and possibly up to 2 million(soldiers and civilians) were killed in the war. The US abandoned the war in Vietnam, but most of the tragic losses was suffered by Vietnamese, not by Americans.

Same goes for the Middle East. Despite all this talk of 'defeat', the US has remained untouched by the war. In contrast, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen have been turned into smoldering ruins by the intervention of the US and its puppet-allies, not least because Zionists control US foreign policy and shaped it to spread terror and mayhem across MENA(Middle East and North Africa) to derail the advancement of modern Arab nations and spread of Iranian influence.

When commentators(even as anti-war advocates) say that the US 'lost' or was 'defeated' in these recent wars, it's predicated on a rather perverse logic. After all, the US itself lost nothing(and its military-industrial complex has gained quite a lot). It can choose to keep its agents and troops in the Middle East or bring them home. Either way, the US remains untouched by war. In contrast, the Arab and Muslim world has been utterly wrecked and turned upside down. So, who suffered all these losses? Who suffered tragic defeats?

Now, some may argue that 'victory' and 'defeat' are relative to a nation's ambitions. One can argue that the US 'lost' the recent wars in the sense of having failed to achieve its objectives. But were its goals really about spreading democracy and human rights in the Middle East? If indeed the US cares so much about human rights, why does it continue to support Zionist Occupation of West Bank? Why is it so chummy with Saudi Arabia, a nation hardly known for its adherence to what goes by 'human rights' these days? The real objective of US intervention was to wage Wars for Israel, and to the extent that much of the Middle East has been scorched to the ground, Zionist-controlled US succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.

Consider. If a big strong guy beats up a small weak guy, breaks his bones, permanently damages his organs, bites off his ears, and knocks out all his teeth BUT fails to make the little guy call him 'uncle'(the stated goal of the big guy), who 'lost' and was 'defeated'? The big strong guy for having failed to make the little guy say 'uncle' or the little guy for having been utterly wrecked in body and health?

Let's stop speaking of US defeats. It's too perverse upon pondering the scale of destruction OVER THERE. Even though it's meant as criticism, even condemnation, of US foreign policy and warmongering, the effect is to turn the US into an object of pity and sympathy. Poor poor US, it suffered all these 'defeats'.
But, after 17 yrs of war, compare the US with the Middle East. Top US cities like NY, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco are richer than ever, full of glitter and shine. Now, consider the cities in Syria, Libya, and other parts of MENA. Americans are fat and well-fed and living in peace and prosperity. In contrast, countless people are facing starvation and/or exposed to harsh elements in the Middle East. So, who really lost? Who suffered all these defeats? The fat happy peoples of the US(and Israel) or all the people driving to destitution and desperation in the Middle East and North Africa?

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Richard Spencer finds Nothing Redeemable about the 'Puritanical' Foundations of the American Civilization — He is missing the Larger Picture of the Iron Triangle — What if Jewish Zealots, instead of Jesus and Paul, had come up with a Universal Faith?

Richard 'Fausto' Spencer says he finds much that is redeemable about the American Narrative, especially concerning the Southern Aristocracy and Western Frontiersmen but finds NOTHING redeemable about the founding Puritanical themes of the Northeast Coast. First, it's rather amusing that he would invoke the spiritual notion of 'redeemable'-ness in addressing the conquerors and frontiersmen. One doesn't conquer and grab parts of the world to redeem anything. One does it just to win and be victorious. Vikings and Mongols didn't conquer in search of redemption. They conquered to grab stuff, to dominate, and to rule. Same was true of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. The notion that one's conquests must be 'redeemed' derives from the Christian and Islamic tradition.
As Christians and Muslims believe in the one and only God as the righteous ruler of all, their actions must ultimately be redeemed and justified in the eyes of God. So, it's not enough for Christians or Muslims to just conquer. Their exploits must aligned with the way of God. Or, if conquests were made against the rules of God, there must be atonement and redemption through good works. So, the very notion of 'redemption' in conquest is a religious notion. Spencer is far more influenced by Christianity than he likes to admit, even if subconsciously. If he really were a neo-pagan Faustian guy, he wouldn't be speaking of the 'redeeming' value of anything. Might-is-right would be enough... as with Hillary Clinton after she smashed Libya. She came, she saw, and Gaddafi died, hahahahaha!
But for morally-spiritually righteous people, power isn't enough. It must be justified. For Christians, it had to be justified in the name of God. This was more problematic for Christians than for Muslims because Islam permits Jihadi warriors to wage war on infidels and convert them to Islam with the sword. In contrast, Christianity is about the courage of righteous love and peace. So, if a tyrant tells you to do something evil, you must disobey. And if you are threatened with violence and/or death, you must still disobey and meet your fate with courage. In this sense, true Christianity is not a 'slave religion'. It is not about submission to authority. It is about resistance and disobedience. But unlike the violent way of the Zealots, the Christian way is to resist not only tyranny(by disobeying unjust decrees) but the animal drive toward violence and vengeance. When faced with violence, our natural urge is to react violently. The problem is, in acting just like the tyrant, we end up becoming just like him upon triumphing with the sword. Granted, given the way of the world, Christianity was NOT going to prevail by disobedience, love, and forgiveness alone. So, it ended up making a pact with the Roman Empire.
Romans, in turn, were attracted to Christianity for several reasons. One was because they'd grown cynical about their own gods. As the pagan gods were essentially super-humans with limited powers(like comic book superheroes to put it simply), it was difficult for educated elites of high civilization to really believe in any of that stuff. So, pagan religions turned into empty rituals and parody, like Ovid's METAMORPHOSIS which was written mostly for laughs. Anthropomorphic gods with limited powers lost their luster and no longer possessed the element of mystery or infinitude. They just seemed like exaggerated version of egotistical humans. In contrast, the Jewish/Christian God was faceless and full of mystery and depth. He was the God of Infinity and beyond the infinite. So, Christian cosmology was tantalizing and profound in ways that pagan myths no longer were. Also, if the Romans were indeed about becoming masters of all the world, didn't it make better sense to ally with the one and only God of all time and all things than with little gods of paganism? After all, even the mightiest god of Greeks and Romans, Zeus/Jupiter, was nothing compared to the Jewish-Christian conception of God. Zeus/Jupiter didn't make the world but was born of earlier gods. And despite his top position in the hierarchy, he wasn't all powerful. It's said the Fates are even more powerful because they could end time itself by cutting the rope. In contrast, the Jewish-Christian God is the God of all things, the maker of all time and creator of everything. So, if Romans were really the ultimate power destined to rule the world, why not ally with the ultimate God than with pipsqueak gods of paganism? Also, there was a righteous element in Christianity that lent a 'redeeming' element to Roman conquests. Prior to rise of Christian Rome, victory only meant military might. Romans conquered simply because they were stronger and better at fighting. But it didn't necessarily mean Romans were the good guys or justified in their victories. But armed with Christianity, the God-blessed Romans could begin to morally and spiritually justify and 'redeem' their spoils. They did it for God, to spread His Gospel and with His blessing. So, Roman victories over other people weren't merely military but moral and 'holy'. This Holy Roman Template became the foundation of Western Civilization for the next 1500 yrs.
But then, perhaps, the Roman Empire would have done better to spiritually merge with something like Islam, a religion of Right + Might whereas Christianity at its core is about Right > Might. Because of the pacificism at the core of Christianity, even violent victories carried out in the name and glory of God become somewhat stained with 'sin'.
It's been said Christianity is a 'slave religion', but paradoxically, for that very reason, it was an anti-slavery religion or slave-rebellion religion. Paganism's emphasis on Might glorified the victorious warrior, but what did such a figure do? He conquered other peoples and turned them into slaves. So, even as paganism glorified the free-spirited warriors, their triumphs reduced much of humanity into slaves. Mongols and pagan Romans were great conquerors and turned millions into slaves. Neo-pagan Nazis had plans to turn Slavs into a race of slaves. A culture where Might rules will be a slavery culture. Victors will enslave the losers and inferiors. In contrast, because Christianity morally favors the slaves and downtrodden(at least those with noble hearts because being oppressed per se doesn't make one a good person in the eyes of Jesus), there is a universal drive for freedom. Slaves are to disobey the unjust ruler. They are not to resist violently like the Zealots but to drop the sword and hammer. If an unjust ruler commands his minions to go yonder and rape and pillage, they should disobey and not take part in the bloodbath. If the unjust ruler orders his minions to build him a big palace where he can live like a pig, the minions should disobey and refuse to pick up hammers. And if they are threatened with punishment or death, they should accept such fate than be participants in evil or vanity. Christianity actually requires the greatest kind of courage because it means the will to die for one's conscience and convictions. Be that as it may, it was too impractical. If most people are slapped, they will to slap back. And if they are threatened with crucifixion, they will either run or pick up a weapon to fight back than face righteous death and self-sacrifice. Because of the contradiction within Christianity — a religion of the one and only ultimate God whose message to mankind is to choose love and sacrifice over power and pride — , the Roman Empire might have done better by merging with something like Islam, but Romans weren't able to produce a man of prophetic power like Muhammad who later arose among the Arabs. (Maybe there is something in the Semitic blood, Jewish or Arab, that makes them more prophetic.)

But then, what if one of the Jewish Zealots had come upon a universalist brand of Judaism? Indeed, suppose we do a thought-experiment: What would have happened if the Jewish Zealots conceived of a universal faith? Something like Islam might have emerged from the Jewish community. History could have been very different. Under Roman Occupation, Jews had three ways of coping. (1) Collaboration and/or Assimilation. If you can't beat em, join em, especially as serving the empire could be lucrative with lots of 'carrots'. And many Jews chose collaboration and/or assimilation. (2) Resistance. Arm and fight to the end, whatever the cost. Be tough warriors and use bloody guerrilla tactics. Zealots did this. (3) Counter-conquer the Romans with the power of prophecy. Mind over matter. Romans had military might, but maybe Jews could conquer Roman souls with higher spiritual power. Such Jews became the early Christians.
Collaboration or assimilation was easy and profitable, but it meant the loss of pride and/or identity at the feet of the Romans. It could also lead to attacks by Zealots who didn't tolerate traitors.
Resistance conserved identity, culture, and pride. But there was no way a small band of Jewish Zealots were going to prevail over the Romans, the mightiest military force the world had ever seen. No matter how committed and courageous, the Zealots had no chance against the pagan Romans who were utterly ruthless in dealing with any obstacle to their power.
Now, Assimilation/collaboration and Resistance are old as history itself. But the third option, the use of awesome prophetic imagination to conquer the souls of your conquerors, was a near-impossible task. Also, even if successful, it could be construed just as much a tragedy as a triumph of the Jewish imagination. While Roman pagans would have been made to submit to the God of Jewish origin, the universalization of the Jewish God would have implied that the Jewish Covenant has been rendered null and void. So, rise of Christianity was both the greatest triumph and worst tragedy for Jews. In one way, non-Jews were made to worship the product of Jewish imagination, but in another way, Christians gained moral advantage over Jews who were deemed as Christ-Killers, or the very people who killed God's very Son. Jews believed that God chose them over all other peoples, but Christians believed that Jews were mainly responsible for the death of the Messiah. (Also offensive to Jews is the notion, in both Christianity and Islam, that human choice determines one's relation to God. So, if a white pagan or Arab infidel chooses to believe in God[as Jehovah or Allah], his individual choice seals his fate with God. God can't say NO to such a person because Christianity and Islam says God's House is open to all who CHOOSE to enter it. In contrast, Judaism says the power of choice is with God, and He chose the Jews. Jews didn't choose God. God chose them, and Jews can never say no. It was an offer they couldn't refuse, for good or ill. And since the Jewish Covenant is based on God's choice of Jews, it is the real stuff. After all, it was God's choice. In contrast, Christian and Islamic 'covenants' are bogus because they are based on man-made choices on the conceit that God must accept anyone who wants to enter His House. From the Jewish Perspective, Christianity and Islam are like illegal immigration of gentiles into the House of God that was meant for God and His Chosen People, the Jews. On a subconscious level, Jewish push of Open Borders in the West and Muslim nations via invade/invite strategy could be revenge for the gentiles' having stormed the Jewish House of God.) Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries were faced with similar questions. Do they just assimilate(and even convert to Christianity)? Do they resist in the name of Jewish identity and pride? Or do they envision new prophecies with which to conquer the souls of those who have power over Jews? Granted, things got muddled along the way. Many Jews who assimilated nevertheless stuck to tribal guns in subconscious or underhanded ways. And Zionism, a neo-zealous form of Jewish national resistance, actually gained the backing of the great empires of UK, US, and USSR. And unlike early Christians, the Jewish Marxists were careful not to vilify Jews(even though, to be sure, Karl Marx had some harsh things to say about Jews and Capitalism). One wonders if modern Jewish prophecies(Marxism, Freudianism, Globalism, Vaginalism, Homomania, etc) have been in earnest or tools(consciously or subconsciously) to better protect and serve Jewish identity and interests.
The early Christians(who were mostly Jews) seemed sincere in their transformation from tribalism toward universalism. Maybe Marx and early Jewish communists were too, but one wonders about the many Jewish leftists in the West in the 20th century. Did they abandon Jewishness to take up universalism, or were they using universalism as smoke screen to further Jewish interests? For example, many Jews talk of Americanism as a Proposition in an almost prophetic way. It's as if all the world should become ersatz-America and America should become ersatz-all-the-world. All nations should be blessed with Americanism, and America, as a proposition, should welcome all the world. A kind of neo-messianism. (And there is Homomania.) But are these Jews sincere in their conviction? Or is it all just a chimera to fool goyim in order to consolidate Jewish globalist aims? After all, if Jewish globalists really prophesy such a future, why do they cling to Zionism and Israel? It seems Jews today are trying to have all three options. Assimilate into goy nations, resist sufficiently to maintain Jewish identity and loyalty to Israel, and call on all nations to adopt globo-homo-Americanism as the new messianic vision.
Jewish neurosis is baked into the Jewish condition because Jewish identity is premised on both separatism & uniqueness AND globo-integration & universalism. One side of Jewishness permeates into goyim, another part of Jewishness recoils from goyim. Jews bewail 'antisemitism' of goy resistance to Jews, but Jews also fear kindly acceptance by goyim because they might lose their ways and dissolve into goyness. Then, everything that Jews achieved and came to own may just pass over to goyim. Jews want goyim to love Jews but also want fellow Jews to hate goyim. If Jews loved goyim like goyim love Jews, Jewish minority will be swallowed into larger goy majority. So, even as Jews tell goyim that it's their moral obligation to love Jews, they tell fellow Jews it's their duty to be hateful toward the dominant goy majority of whichever nation(while forging alliances-of-convenience with minority goyim). So, Jews demand Wasps to love Jews but also demand fellow Jews to hate Wasps. The Jewish way with goyim is "Don't punch us but let us punch you." We see this with so many Jews like Jennifer Rubin and William Kristol. They demand that whites love, love, and love Jews, but they do little else but berate and insult whites for all sorts of reasons.
There's the stereotype of the un-athletic Jew. If we apply this factoid to the Ancient World, it means brainy Jews had good chance of success with assimilation under the Roman Empire. Or, even though far more difficult, they had a chance with prophecy — Conquer Roman souls with spiritual imagination — because it involved mental skills. But if Jews were physical wusses and gimps, Zealots who took up arms couldn't have had a chance.
But, is it really true that Jews have always been physically weaker, and therefore, hopeless in physical combat? Vietnamese are a small people, but they became fearsome warriors in the 20th century. And the IDF seems to be pretty effective. Also, I'm thinking that Ancient Jews, at least a lot of them, worked at stuff like carpentering or fishing, like Jesus and Peter. They weren't all accountants or college professors or bookies. The real problem with the Zealots was they were too small in number to defeat the Romans. But, what if a Jesus-like or Paul-like figure was militant than pacifist? What if he came up with a warlike universal prophecy? Instead of promoting love and forgiveness as the highest virtue of humanity, suppose he preached fighting spirit and warrior creed in the name of the one and only God? Such a Zealot-universalism might have won over tons of converts among non-Jews also living under Roman Rule. Zealots on their own had no chance, but what if Zealotry could have been a universal faith and spread like wildfire? What if all converts were told that, following their deaths in the struggle against Romans, they will ascend to Heaven and be blessed with eternal life? Or, what if the Romans themselves adopted this militant form of spiritual universalism and used it as moral justification to conquer yet more of the world?
Now, the actual Zealots, being ultra-conservative, weren't going to universalize their faith to recruit warriors among heathens. By its very nature, militancy tends to be conservative, closed, and tribal. In contrast, pacifism tends to be liberal, open, and universal, perhaps the reason why pro-peace Christianity reached out beyond the Jewish community. (Granted, pacifism can be conservative and insular, like the Amish Community, and militancy can be liberal and aggressive, like the expansionist goals of the Enlightenment to spread its truths to all corners of the world.) In time, it was Muhammad who demonstrated that militancy could become the stuff of universal faith, and its detonation led to shock effects still being felt today. The impact was a form of universalized zealotry. (The frightening Taiping Rebellion also resulted from fusion of militancy and messianism, though ironically inspired by Christianity.) Maybe if Zealots could have produced a messianic figure who went about converting and recruiting non-Jews in the war against Rome, the empire would have collapsed soon enough. Or, upon the Zealot-messiah's death, suppose the Romans eventually took up his banner of militant prophetic universalism as their own. While the pagan Romans were mighty and awesome, there is nothing more frightening than religious fanatics willing to sacrifice their lives in the name of God. It was one reason why communism conquered parts of Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa but failed to make inroads into the Muslim World. (Consider what Indonesian Muslims did to communists following the failed 1965 coup.) And the USSR suffered terribly in Afghanistan. But then, in a way, communism was a secular formula of mixing universal messianism with militant zealotry. This formula(of missed opportunity?) was dramatized in the movie SPARTACUS(made from novel by Jewish Howard Fast and produced by Jewish Kirk Douglas). Though SPARTACUS is about a goy slave rebellion against Romans, the gladiator-rebels are like fantasy-Zealots. The difference is that whereas the real Zealots were staunchly tribalists who fought only for a narrow Jewish cause, Spartacus of legend arrives at a higher vision, the dream of uniting all slaves against the Empire. It is like a hypothetical fantasy of "WHAT IF the Zealots hadn't been so 'parochial' and had reached out to all peoples enslaved by the Romans?" Then, the Ancient Jewish Warriors need not have fought and died alone but could have led huge armies of slaves against the Roman slavers. Or, maybe the Romans themselves would have been so inspired by the vision that THEY chose to adopt the formula for themselves.
In a way, this was the dream of communism. Modern Jewish prophet-revolutionaries would lead ALL OF MANKIND toward liberation from greed and exploitation. In the Stanley Kubrick movie, Spartacus becomes the kind of messiah that the Zealots might have produced had they translated their passion into universal prophecy. Now, Jesus and Jewish Christians did eventually conquer the Romans spiritually but, in having done so, passed the spiritual secret of the Jews to the Gentiles who used it to grow more powerful and beat up on Jews(as Christ-killers). But if Zealots had produced a warrior messiah with a universal vision of justice, the Jewish-led rebellion might have physically, as well as spiritually, smashed the Roman Empire. And then, history would have been so very different.
The pagan Spartacus failed, but then, his cause was simply that of war and justice. He lacked spiritual vision. In contrast, Muhammad who fused spiritual vision with militancy achieved some of the most awesome feats in history. Jesus had spiritual vision but chose the path of pacifism, and so, He got clobbered and killed real bad, and it took a few centuries for the new Faith to begin to take hold and spread. In the current situation, Jews don't need to lead any rebellion because, with their control of Deep State and much else, they have control of the Goy Imperial Military to romp around the world to crush or encircle whatever enemies Jews don't like.

Anyway, Spencer fails to appreciate the spiritual(or Puritanical) foundation of America because he overlooks the Iron Triangle of Civilization. From the earliest to the latest forms of civilization, the complementary unity of the military caste, priestly class, and economic class was essential. To be sure, sometimes, these castes/classes overlapped. In aristocracies, the military caste owned most of the property and thus constituted a huge economic caste that worked with the economic class of merchants or middlemen. In some orders, the religious caste also took up arms. In a theocracy, it's not always easy to distinguish the boundary between the martial and the religious. In some ways, Islamic Civilization was a unity of fist and faith. Also, even though religion is now treated separately from the sciences(based on facts and reason), for most of humanity for most of history, the priestly caste/class was the intellectual and 'scientific'(or cosmological) component of society as well. Also, it must be noted that so many social scientists(and even hard scientists) in our time play quasi-priestly roles as upholders of Official Dogma and Iconography. Clerisy is the new clergy. And given the decadent and degenerate character of our times, even the Industry of Idolatry secured a role in upholding the New Sacred(albeit molded from the Profane, such as Homomania).

The truth is that no Order that wishes to last can rest on military might or economic might alone. It needs the third line of the triangle that lends spiritual meaning and moral justification. So, while it's true that America grew to greatness as the result of its business class and military class, it also owed to the American sense of righteousness and justification supplied by both its religious underpinning and philosophical foundation. Today, we think of religion, philosophy, and science as separate — religious colleges go almost totally ignored in most universities, and besides, most of them use religion merely as a tool for the latest globo-homo gospel — , but it wasn't so from the time of America's founding to mid-20th century America. Even though many of the Founding Fathers were Deists than devout religionists, most of the elites in all fields were Christian and did sincerely believe in God. Also, many of the top colleges were founded as religious schools, and even when they became more secular institutions, religious studies played an important role. It was the French than the American Revolution that put forth a new dichotomy that set political philosophy violently at odds with religion and spirituality. Even though the Founding Fathers were men of the Enlightenment that had grown critical of religion, the notion that one must choose either the State or the Church was more a European than an American crisis. The French Revolution went about demolishing the Church and clergy as tyrannical and superstitious bulwarks of tradition and reaction, not least because the power of Church and Monarchy had long been joined at the hip. In contrast, America was doubly removed from the dominant European Church(Catholicism). It grew out of Britain, a Protestant nation that had already cut ties with the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the first religious communities in the Northeast Coast regarded themselves as being in defiance of the official church of England. So, the religious mindset that developed in Early America was more independent of the official Church of England(that naturally sided with the English King during the Revolutionary War). In a way, the religionists in America had a head-start over the secular forces in striving for independence from Britain. While the religionists hadn't the political and economic means to make themselves independent of the British Empire, they felt spiritually freed from the Official Church, and that mindset laid the moral foundation for the rebellion that arose among the Colonial intellectual and business class.
At any rate, by today's standards, most religious folks in Europe and America in the 17th and 18th centuries would come across as 'fanatics' and 'lunatics'. It makes no sense to judge people back then with standards today. Also, in our time, the kind of people who become religious fanatics are low IQ and fringe elements. Back then, many men of intelligence, vision, and talent became true believers. It's like, in our time, the worst dregs of society join organizations like Antifa, but there were many men of brilliance, insight, and integrity who joined radical far-left movements in the 19th century and early 20th century. Whatever one may say of men like Lenin or Trotsky, they were no dummies. Likewise, the religious pioneers who sailed across the Atlantic to found new communities were people of real courage, vision, and some integrity even though their views may seem 'extreme' to us. Just consider. The people of Waco Compound were mostly slouches and parasites. Even as they sought separateness, they totally leeched off the state. In contrast, the first religious communities in America were formed by men and women who were willing to risk everything to found a new order. They were men and women of conviction, not just members of some cult.

Until the French Revolution that drew a clear line between secular ideology and religious culture, most of Western Civilization operated in a middle ground between reason and religion. And given that most men in the sciences and philosophy at the time were also religious — they used science to understand the ways of God, not to disprove Him — , religious thought was part and parcel of intellectual culture. It was considerably later, especially with the rise of Darwinism(along with geology and modern physics), that a decisive break took hold between religious thought and philosophy. (And then, with the progress of specialization in the sciences, a break happened between philosophy and science. For most of history, science and math were regarded as fields of philosophy. But as knowledge of the material world became more extensive and complicated, the traditional philosophical approach, which relied heavily on contemplation and rumination along the line of "I think, therefore I am", came to be increasingly marginalized and disregarded by hard scientists who decided that the truth couldn't be ascertained by contemplation or speculation but only by experimentation and hard evidence. In other words, to really understand the workings of the mind, it was better to actually study the matter-and-energy of brain functions than apply logic to one's contemplation of the mind. The 'Platonic' aspect of philosophy lost out. Empiricism, once a field of philosophy, became just about the only real thing. Ontology > Phenomenology. Because science broke free from philosophy and grew in prominence(in inverse proportion to philosophy, whose last truly relevant representatives were maybe Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus), even figures who relied more on contemplation and speculation, such as Sigmund Frued and Carl Jung, claimed to be 'scientists' committed the 'experimental method'. But over time, they were discredited as scientists and, if they still commanded respect from certain corners, it was as 'thinkers' and culture-theorists than as men of medicine. But then, the triumph of science over philosophy didn't mean that the New Era would be governed by Reason over Religion. In a superficial way, the story of the Modern World has been one of science and technology gaining predominance and the inexorable decline of religion(despite Islamic resurgence in certain parts of the world). And yet, despite the weakening of traditional religions such as Christianity and Buddhism, most people(from elites down to the masses) didn't become more rational, empirical, and logical. They merely erected new gods to replace the old ones. Marxism, as we all should know by now, became a secular religion with its own gods, sacraments, symbols, and canon. And so-called Liberal Democracies worshiped new gods like MLK and Mandela(and other Magic Negro figures). Indeed, given the mania for the Noble Negro, it wouldn't do to suggest that blacks have lower IQ because it would undercut the cult of Negro genius and wisdom. The elites began to preach mindless sermons about Diversity and Inclusion without making a logical or factual case for either. What began as a movement for 'gay rights' turned into a neo-religion of Gay Rites whereby homos(and even trannies) were to be regarded as saints and angels, the kind of people who should be running Boy Scouts and reading fairy-tales to children. And of course, Homomania says churches should be festooned with 'gay-rainbow' colors. And then, there is the neo-pagan idolatry of celebrity whereby entertainers aren't merely fun figures or figures-of-fun but demigods around whose vaunted status our lives are supposed to revolve. PC is religious dogma without the traditional religion, and Pop Culture is pagan idolatry without the old superstition. Their effect on the world has proven that a society can be made by science and technology but operated on the social, cultural, and political level by Men and Women spellbound by new charms and taboos.

Anyway, on the matter of America, there was the need for the Iron Triangle, and its 'puritanism' or 'spiritual reformism' was one side of the triangle, the other sides being the martial spirit and business know-how. One could also speak of the political or governmental class, but it was largely an extension of the business class and intellectual class(which, even up to the 20th century, was closely aligned with religious values; the role of Christianity in US universities cannot be underestimated up to early 20th century). Even though the military class is glorified and moneyed class is glamorized, whereas the religious class is often regarded as humorless party-poopers — Moses return from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments was a real downer for the Golden Calf revelers — , the truth is no Order could last long without strong moral-spiritual element. Assyrians and Mongols were great warriors. They conquered much of the known world, struck fear into hearts of their rivals, and were held in awe by their subjects. But rule-by-might, in lacking a moral or deep spiritual element, soon becomes resented and hated. If a bank-robber holds a gun to you and tells you what to do, you obey out of fear, not out of respect. Thus, a power predicated only on military might cannot last too long. It lasts only as long as the Fear Factor holds out. It's like, the moment we realize we can overcome the robber with the gun, he is finished. We'll just pile on him and beat him up. So, when the military might of Assyrians and Mongols began to weaken, their empires collapse rapidly, almost overnight. The greatest pagan conquerors of the Ancient World gained more territory than Muhammad did in his lifetime, but they failed to leave behind lasting civilizations. In contrast, Islamic Civilization is still with us. Why? It had a powerful moral-spiritual side to its Iron Triangle. And when the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, what was the ONE civilizational idea that survived and, if anything, came to culturally and spiritually conquer the Germanic warriors, the very people who'd laid waste to Rome? It was Christianity.
Now, it's true enough that pagans also had spiritual beliefs and customs. Every society did. Then, why didn't their spiritual concepts have the kind of lasting power that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam did? It was because pagan religions tended to be amoral(or even immoral). And even their moralism was wobbly. So, even as Zeus and Apollo were seen as upholders of order and justice, they often acted like men of power who all-too-often abused their advantage over humans(and lesser gods). And we know the Aztec gods demanded human sacrifice on a massive scale, as did some of the gods of Mesopotamia. In contrast, the spiritual idea that flowed from Judaism maintained that there is the one true God, and He isn't just about might but unity of might and right. He is a just God who favors the good(and weak) over the evil(and powerful). Granted, the Jewish God had nothing against a people being Good and Powerful. Indeed, He promised the Jews that if they acted good, He would bless them with power and mastery over the world. But it seemed good Jews fared no better than bad Jews. One thing for sure, both kinds of Jews came under Roman domination. As God didn't seem to be blessing the good Jews much, there arose the figure of Jesus who said being Good and being Powerful(and/or Rich) cannot co-exist. You could be Good & weak or Bad & powerful. But, the Good & weak shall triumph because they, and only they, shall be allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven to be with God. Some people think that Jesus' blessings upon the Good & weak means that the poor, wretched, diseased, enslaved, and oppressed are the Salt of the Earth. Not true. Jesus believed that a man can be poor & oppressed but still an evil son of a bitch. To be Good, one had to have a good heart. If one was poor and oppressed BUT craved riches and power, he was wicked of heart, indeed no better than a tyrant with riches and power. Jesus saw poverty as a path to goodness but ONLY when it was voluntary and without complaint. If a man is poor but wants to be rich, he is wicked of heart. A truly good man accepts his poverty as personal choice. He understands poverty is good because he has willfully relinquished materialism and fleshly desires. He has made himself free of the bondage of Earthly wants. As Jesus saw it, the desire for riches and power is a form of slavery. It is soul's bondage to the fleeting temptations of the world. For the soul to be free, it must choose eternity in heaven over ephemera on earth. Therefore, willful poverty is the first stage toward choosing the spiritual life. (There is something similar among military figures as well, even though they are very much men of the world. To be a true warrior, one must forsake affluence and comfort. One must be willing to fight and die for honor. Thus, self-denial and spartan commitment to hardship are the path to true glory for the fighting man. The true man of war sees affluence and leisure as bondage to comfort that is the bane of warrior spirit. Once a man becomes attached to the pleasures of the world, he loses the will to put his life on the line for honor and glory.) This is why so much of current Christianity is corrupted. Instead of seeing poverty as a positive good, the pathway toward salvation, it sees poverty as a curse that must be overcome by mass migration-invasion of the First World. If true Christianity preaches to people to voluntarily choose poverty, the current Christianity tells people that their poverty is awful, and therefore, they must escape it by moving to America, Europe, or Japan(though never Israel). Also, it presumes that poor people are naturally good because Jesus went among the poor. But, Jesus didn't go among the poor to preach against poverty but to convince them to embrace poverty as a good thing, the path to true virtue and salvation. His idea was that poor people should not ask much from the world. They should be content with having little, devote their lives to prayer, transcend temptations of the flesh, and finally attain spiritual salvation. In contrast, there is nothing Christian-minded among all those Third World peoples seeking entry into the West. They just want better material lives. Now, that's perfectly understandable as most people want more stuff and more comfort. But, there is nothing Christian about people taking leave of their own nations, cultures, and folks to find more material stuff and comfort in another. They could even be coming to the West for Mammon as well as material comfort, especially as America's 'soft power' of Pop Cultural hegemony has filled countless minds with the impression that everyone's having a great time with sex, dance, and revelry in the West. Notice that many who come to the West are not hungry or diseased. Many of them just want more fun. Western Churches that welcome these 'salt of the earth' are sure to be disappointed because, once the children of these materialist-minded immigrants/migrants can get 'what is mine', the last thing on their minds is morality or spiritual salvation. And if their parents are religious, it's because they want to pray for more money and bigger house.

Anyway, no order can last long on money or might alone. While most people want to be rich and admire/envy the rich, there is no real respect for wealth alone(unless one happens to be a libertarian). It's good to be rich than poor, but most people know that money doesn't equal integrity, goodness, nobility of soul, and soundness of spirit. After all, some of the most famous rich people are louts like movie stars and rock stars. Or charlatans like Oprah or mega-church hustlers. And even people of genuine intelligence and talent who got super-rich often turn out to be shallow a**holes or scumbags, like Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, not to mention George Soros and the Koch Brothers. Money can buy loyalty but only in the way a man can buy a whore. When the money dries up, there is no loyalty left. Or the whores of the world just go to those who can pay MORE. This is why Jews understand that their power cannot rest on money alone. Jews with their great wealth can buy a lot of loyalty, but there is no guarantee that their minions really love or care about them. Whores aren't loyal to anyone or anything. They will go with the money. Because Jews got so much money, they can buy up a lot of whores. But there are other groups with money too. Another problem is that those with money draw the most attention and come under the most scrutiny. Granted, Jews with their money can buy up media outlets and rely on tribesmen in the academia to go easy on Jews and distract attention from Jewish Power by spreading hysteria about Russia-Russia-Russia, Iran and Muslim Threat, or Yellow Peril. Or Jews can put homos out in front as the face of power and privilege, thus deflecting criticism that should really be directed at Jewish Power. Still, if Jews only had money power, they would be very vulnerable. After all, Anglo-American elites had lots of money power, but they kept losing in power and prestige year after year, especially since the 60s, as their moral standing eroded under pressures from various social movements and cultural trends. If anything, the power and wealth of Anglo-Americans became the focus of attack by Jews, blacks, and the Left. Money power without Moral power means less justification for a people's wealth and influence.
Now, a group can use Fear as well as Money, the old carrots-and-sticks trick. Gangsters operate along such lines. They "make you an offer you can't refuse". And Jews have been big in organized crime, a fact covered up by the Jew-run media and entertainment emphasizing Italian-American gangs over Jewish ones. But what works in the criminal world works less in the legitimate world. Use of fear and terror may be able to take out other gangsters and little people, but it'd be too risky with big-time politicians, oligarchs, and respected individuals in media and academia. Indeed, consider all the furor over the Saudi killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a globalist-journalist with connections to Washington Post.
This is where Control of Morality becomes crucial. Once a moral paradigm takes hold in society, anyone can be intimidated by the fear of heresy. In the current West, Shoah has become sacrosanct, thereby shrouding Jews with tragic holiness. Jews, merely by being Jewish, are seen as a special people to whom the rest of humanity must apologize, show respect, and shower with praise. Thus, Jewish use of fear need not be with a gun or garrote. It can merely be with words. Because Jews are holy-schmoly, they can threaten anyone with the charge of 'antisemitism'. Even a fat, gross, and odious Jew like the guy in JURASSIC PARK can get a lot of mileage by pointing his finger at goyim and screaming 'nazi'. He's just like Abe Foxman.

The way Jews exploit the Holocaust and wield it like a weapon shows the dark side of morality. Morality, at its best, is about being conscientious and self-critical of one's failings, an honest attempt to be a better person. Or, it's about working with other members of the community to uphold the Golden Rule by censuring those who violate it. But too many people use morality as a holier-than-thou stick to beat others with. Jews are the champions of this. If Jews were just as hard on themselves as on others, their moral berating of rest of humanity would be more tolerable. But Jews, who wallow in all sorts of filth and corruption for their self-aggrandizement, are always preaching to OTHERS about their failings. Sometimes, Jews accuse OTHERS of the very problems that they themselves are most responsible for. It's no wonder there is a saying, "A Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you." In the US, what is the charge of 'white supremacism' but a deflection and projection on the part of Jews. By screaming about 'white supremacism', Jews deflect our attention from Jewish Supremacism that really rules America. Also, it's a projection of Jewish supremacism onto others. Just consider. A man like Jared Taylor(who only wants a world of his own and doesn't want to rule over other races) cannot even use Paypal and Twitter, but the Jew-run media would have us believe that the US is under threat by 'white supremacists' like him, Kevin MacDonald, and David Duke. Such men don't have much money and zero allies in the Establishment. In contrast, Jewish billionaire oligarchs buy up whore politicians and appoint Deep State goons to destroy entire parts of the world to serve the interests of Israel that continues to occupy West Bank. And half the states(blue and red) have anti-BDS laws that violate the US Constitution in favor of Zionist supremacism over justice for Palestinians. And yet, Jewish Supremacist bleat on and on about 'white supremacism', as if David Duke or Richard Spencer are on the verge of taking over the nation. Jews are among the worst practitioners of morality because their cultural psychology is based on a contradiction. Jews believe there is only one God, therefore only one Power and Justice for all of humanity. So far so good. But the Jewish Covenant says this one and only God favors Jews above all other peoples. Jews are special, goyim are not. Today, most Jews are secular, but his mental habit persists in their worldview. On the one hand, Jews act as though there is only One Truth(as concocted by Jews of course) for all of mankind, and Jews push this globo-homo agenda on every people... except on themselves. Consider how Jews handle Free Speech. Free Speech is good all around the world in the sense that Jews should have the freedom to criticize and condemn any race, ethnic group, or nationality... but NO people better do the same to Jews. If anyone dares to speak truth to Jewish Power, it is 'hate speech', thus not free speech. But Jews can spew the worst kind of filth against Russia, Iran, China, Syria, Palestinians, Christians, Turks, Greeks, Italians, Poles, white Americans, and etc. Is such vileness the product of Jewish cultural attitude? Or is there something genetic in the Jewish Personality that makes them so obsessively nasty, vicious, and hypocritical?
Granted, Jews are not the only people to have wielded morality in ugly and dark ways. Christians have done this forever, acting holier-than-thou and condemning others of immorality and/or heresy while indulging in corruption, avarice, and egotism. Still, because Christianity says God loves all peoples equally, it wouldn't be good form for one bunch of Christians to feel and act like they and only they have a special connection to God. And even if they did, they would still believe that others could be converted to their creed. In contrast, Jews are so used to thinking that the one and only God favors them over all others. Therefore, even though both groups have been spectacularly hypocritical through the ages, Christians are bound to be more troubled by awareness of hypocrisy, whereas Jews regard that very hypocrisy as the central tenet of the Covenant: There is only one God who has one truth for all of humanity, BUT He chose Jews over all others, so Jews get pass-over privilege that don't apply to goyim.
Besides, most goy nations just mind their own business and do not dictate world policy. Iran is mostly about Iran. Syria is mostly about Syria. Hungary is mostly about Hungary. Even big nations like Russia and China pursue national sovereignty. They will do business with the world but don't tell other nations how to run their own affairs. In contrast, Jews are always acting like they are the torch-bearers of universal human rights when, if anything, they manipulate World Events(from their cabin in Battleship America) to serve Jewish Supremacist interests.

Nicky Santoro and crew in Martin Scorsese's CASINO demonstrate the limits of money and might. The fellas remain loyal to Nicky out of greed and fear. Stick with Santoro, and they can make some serious bucks. Also, they fear displeasing Santoro because he is psychotic. But there was never any real love or respect there. And when they finally decide they have more to gain by having Santoro and his brother killed, they do so without a smidgen of remorse. In contrast, there was real respect among the Disciples for Jesus, and this is why Peter who denied Jesus three times later breaks down in guilt and devotes his life to atoning for his betrayal. Having saved his own life by denying Jesus, he eventually gives his life in service to Jesus. Morality is the best kind of fear and best kind of reward. It makes a person feel righteous in what he does. It's like a soldier who is committed to a moral cause fears betrayal as a stain on his soul than a mere breach of contract. Also, facing death, a soldier who believes in the rightness of his cause feels a sense of reward even at the cost of his own life. He feels that his sacrifice was worth it for a just cause. Why did North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers fight harder than the South Vietnamese troops even though the latter had better arms, supplies, food, and pay? Because the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong passionately felt the justness of their cause whereas South Vietnamese troops felt as mere mercenaries and lackey of a foreign empire. It's the same reason why Castro's patriotic guerrillas prevailed over the mercenaries of the Batista regime that had lots of money and muscle but NO respect among the populace.
Richard Spencer bitches about how everyone left him high and dry after Charlottesville, but what has been the theme of Spencer-ism? Vanity, ego, narcissism. All so vapid and hollow. So, sure, when he was riding high as the glamorous enfant terrible poster-boy of the Alt Right, a bunch of guys gravitated toward him. But once he was struck down by the Power and made to look small-and-weak, guys who'd once looked up to him saw him as pitiful and pathetic. Even in persecution and defeat, the Disciples loved Jesus because they regarded Him as a great and profound moral-spiritual figure. Spencer hardly put forth a moral-humanist vision for the cause. Instead, it was all about political celebritydom, his own ego-tour. Because he'd relied so much on shallow factors to be catapulted into the limelight, he could easily be made to fall on his ass once those factors were removed. Spencer was made and unmade by the media. As Spencer likes to say, 'It is what it is'. There is nothing to Spencerism or Spenceristics but the Image. If his followers truly respected him, they would have felt some remorse for their running away and would have returned to the fold. But by all personal accounts, Spencer has lost the trust and/or respect of those around him by words and actions that struck others as rash, childish, selfish, or even deranged. Also, some of his associates, like Kyle Bristow, turned out to be mentally deranged. Spencer is like a selfish player in team sports who, in trying to hog all the attention, makes foolish moves instead of working generously with others. Furthermore, Spencer has no right to bitch about those who ditched him because they dropped him on the basis of his own standards. Spencer is all about power, power, power and sneers at 'slave morality'. Well, if those are the rules — power, power, power uber alles — , why should anyone stick around Spencer who has no power and has been bitch-slapped by Jewish Power that drags him around like a dog? If power is the measure of everything, Spencer deserves no respect and no loyalty since he can't even use Paypal and has to walk on eggshells to barely remain on Twitter. Spencer has to be Jack Dorsey's bitch to keep his last connection to social network. If Spencer insists that power, power, power is the only true golden rule, then he really cuts a weak, wimpy, pitiful, and pathetic figure. For all his Faustian-Nietzschean yammering, it appears his 15 min of fame rested entirely on media attention. Once the media spotlight was shut off, he was instantly turned into a nobody again. So much for power. If Spencer's sermon to the world is POWER is all that matters, then he should logically worship the Jews who have the most power. At least, cucks like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney know who has the real power. And logically, NO ONE should follow Spencer since he has no power. He can't even control his wife. And how can he expect anyone to respect him after standing for a photo in front of a giant homo symbol?

Morality is the best weapon for those without power. And even as they gain power(and possibly even dominance), they must maintain the Moral Narrative to justify the power. This is why Islam has lasted for so long. Muhammad began without power, but he had a spiritual vision and embarked on a powerful moral mission. And Jews lasted for so long because their identity wasn't only about money and might but about spiritual connection to God and moral destiny in the world. And the explosive power of communism also owed to its moral component, without which the whole enterprise would have fallen apart like so many radical anarchist movements that soon gave into nihilism.
Granted, morality is a double-edged sword. The morality with which you or your kind judge others to justify your rise to power can be used against you and your kind by others. Morality can be a wind on your back or wind against your face. What this suggests is that all power must understand their limits. The greedier you are for power, the more likely you are to trample on others, thereby losing grasp of the justification for power. In an amoral world, the people will support the man of power who conquers most. But in a moral world, the people will support your aggression only if it's morally-spiritually justified. The pagan Roman masses or Mongol masses loved whomever was winning. But the Christian West became ever more moral, and that meant its expansion around the world had to be morally-spiritually justified to maintain support at home, and that was why themes of Christian conversion(of the heathens) and spreading the Light of Civilization became so crucial to the Western Enterprise. Such moral passion had an empowering effect because it made the West feel not only powerful but justified in its hegemonic expansion. The Spanish didn't want to believe that they were in South America only for gold. It was for God as for gold. Now, one can argue that it was all very cynical and hypocritical for the Hispanic Europeans to uphold spirituality as a moral front to hide the insatiable greed that really motivated the imperialism.
But, we can still appreciate how the Moral Factor can go so far in making Power feel justified and good. Likewise, the prestige of the Soviet Union in its heyday was not only that it had become an industrial power and defeated mighty Germany. It was the moral component of Marxism. In contrast, Fascism and National Socialism failed to gain as many admirers around the world because they seemed to be more about power-for-power's sake than power-for-moral-cause. While non-fascists and even anti-fascists were, for a time, impressed by Italian Fascist showmanship and awed by National Socialist German might, they couldn't feel much of an emotional or ethical connection to a movement where Power was so much into Muscle-Flexing. This is why Neo-Fascism has to be humanist and nationalist. It mustn't regard humans as cannon-fodder for the whims of Great Man(like how Harry Lime feels about most people in THIRD MAN), and it must acknowledge that every people have a need for their own space, heritage, and pride. Then, in a world of mutual respect, the nations can get along and work with one another. Ironically, Jews and Spencerists have in common a nihilistic-supremacism. Jews now claim to be pro-war in the name of spreading 'democracy' or 'universal values', but it's really to submit the entire world to Jewish Hegemony. Spencer claimed to be anti-war in his opposition to Trump's lobbing missiles at Syria, but his real beef wasn't with imperialism per se but that it was serving the Jewish imperialists. So, if the US were controlled by his ilk, Spencer would be okay with lobbing missiles everywhere to create a Darth-Vaderian world where he, as 007-Batman, gets to rule everything. ROTFL.

Given Spencer's vapid vanity and celebrity-nihilism, it's understandable why he admires the American themes of Money and Might but has nothing but rebuke for its Moralism. It's like a child loves to receive allowance and read superhero comics(about men of might) but hates to be dragged to church. (Even though superhero comics are about good guys vs bad guys, their main appeal is about power. After all, if Superman lost his power but became even 'gooder', who'd want to 'read' about him?) All little boys prefer money and might to morality. But boys eventually grow into men, and men must understand Good and Evil; they must appreciate the moral meaning of life. But Spencer is stuck on Batman/Star-Wars fanboy mentality. Though he studied Western philosophy, his basic (pseudo)intellectual and cultural mindset is stuck on Pop Culture. Now, if he were honest about this, it'd be no big deal(as plenty of men his age are still stuck on childish pop culture), but he continues to window-dress his comicbook fantasies by alluding to the Western Canon. When it comes to the mythology of the superhero, M. Night Shyamalan is far more interesting in discerning the disturbed relation between human frailties and mythic fantasies(in such films as UNBREAKABLE and SPLIT) as crutch. Myth is both inspiration and 'incapacitation'. The power of myth can motivate people into action in the real world, or it can offer escapism from the real world. Notice all those white guys who've given up on the future and withdraw into the superhero world of video games where they zap a million 'virtual' enemies. Myth can be tonic or opioid, something well-understood by Shyamalan.
But people like Spencer are too full of themselves to be self-aware. Too many on the Alt Right, due to their lack of moral or spiritual grounding, are incapable of Confession. By Confession, I don't mean something necessarily for public consumption, like the autobiographical works of St. Augustine or Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Indeed, Confession can be wholly private, between oneself and God, between oneself and the Truth, or between oneself and oneself. It is a way of realizing one's own failings, shortcomings, limitations, betrayals, and regrets. Given so many of Spencer's failings and setbacks, plus the fact of his near-total lack of culpability in his problems personal and political, it seems he is incapable of Confessing anything, even to himself. There was a reason why Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad all retreated into contemplation and self-purging before embarking on their missions. Before they could preach unto others, they had to be true with themselves and realize their own faults. People have mocked Jordan Peterson for advising them to 'make their own beds' first. Though no great fan of Peterson myself, his advice was, of course, meant as metaphor. It means you must order your own life before embarking on bigger things. Spencer, who can't even be trusted to run a family or small organization, can hardly be trusted to lead a movement of thousands, let alone millions. He is incapable of Confession. Not that those who are religious are necessarily any more capable of Confession. Nicholas J. Fuentes is Catholic, but religiosity is used as a crutch, a short-cut to self-righteous sanctimony. In his case, religiosity means he never has to confess because God is on his side, and that's that. He doesn't even have to grapple with real science, like evolution. It's a smug kind of spirituality.

For a go-getter like Spencer, moralism is a drag, a scold that says you can't do this or that. Naturally, those motivated by might or money feel fewer restraints in trying to get what they want. In contrast, moralists worry and grapple as to whether they're doing right or wrong. On the other hand, some of greatest adventurers have been moralists because moral consciousness can be utopian and/or revolutionary as well as self-abnegating and self-denying. It's like Muslims have a double-meaning for Jihad. In one way, it means righteous and aggressive war against the Infidels to crush them or convert them. This aspect of Jihad is proud and expansionary. But Jihad can also mean a confessional self-purging of the soul, a war waged on one's own moral and spiritual turpitude in order to restore one's true self. This is why moralists can be the biggest drag on or the biggest push for ambition. When moralists have doubts about a certain project, enterprise, or war, they come forth to condemn the plan as immoral. But if they see righteousness in a certain cause, they will be the loudest voices calling for war, be it social, cultural, or militaristic. During the Vietnam War, moralists ended up on the side of 'peace'. But earlier, during the period leading up to World War II, some of the loudest moralists(on the Liberal and Leftist side of course) were for war(against evil Nazis).

Spencer hates the Northeast Coast Puritan and/or Reformist heritage because he conflates it with all the SJW or NPC nonsense we see all around us. He seems to believe such mindset was always anti-white or on the 'left', but it wasn't always so. For much of American History, the Protestant Reformists(with roots in Puritanism) were on the side of white identity, white power, and white expansion. Their view of America as a City on a Hill with a unique destiny lent moral and spiritual blessing on the White American Project.
Furthermore, the Southern Aristocracy, though proud of their military honor, were also moralistic in defense of their local power and customs. After all, Southern Whites regarded slavery not merely as an economic system but a moral good in transforming black savages into semi-civilized folks. In their own way, the Southerners were just as moralistic as the Northeast Protestants. And for a time, their moral visions complemented one another as the slave trade and economy couldn't have been possible without the cooperation between North and South. Eventually, their moral visions diverged, but this is where the North was on firmer grounds because, surely, an argument against slavery is more moral than argument for slavery. No matter how much the South tried to morally defend slavery, it wasn't very convincing because of the nature of slavery and the principles of American Founding that stressed the dignity of man. Now, if the South wanted to make a moral case against Emancipation of Black Slaves, the ONLY justification would have been on biological grounds: Whites and Blacks are naturally different, with blacks being naturally stronger, more aggressive, more impulsive, and less intelligent. Also, as free black guys could easily whup white guys, white men would lose manhood if the races were integrated. Also, as black men got more muscle and bigger dongs than white men, white guys would suffer not only beatings but the humiliation of seeing their women get infected with jungle fever and run off with Negroes to give birth to Negrolets. In a way, Abraham Lincoln understood this. Though he knew that the Abolitionists were too naive in their idealism, he also knew that Southern moralism about slavery was hogwash. While it was true that African savages surely gained something under white rule, the fact was slavery was really about profits and greed. Lincoln sought a middle-ground between the naive & zealous Abolitionists and the disingenuous Southern apologists of slavery. He instinctively grasped the problems that would result from racial differences. Having had humble beginnings, he may have developed a more clear-eyed view of Negro men and their strength. He was caught between two moralistic camps, one that wallowed in righteous supremacism on account of wanting to free the slaves AND one that indulged in racial supremacism on account of civilizing the savage Negroes via the 'necessary evil' of slavery. In both camps, there was the unity of 'martiality' and morality. Abolitionists were so morally righteous in their fury that they called for use of military might on the South; and Southern whites were so proud of their culture of military honor that they summoned moral justification to maintain the system of black bondage. It was moralism-to-might vs might-to-moralism. At any rate, even the South understood that it couldn't justify slavery on might and money alone because such moral logic would have implied the South only cared about might and money. People want to feel morally justified. There is honor even among thieves. The lesson of the American Civil War points to the danger not only of naive moralism(of the Abolitionists) but disingenuous moralism(of the Southern Aristocracy). Lincoln had good sense because he was about Moral Realism. He understood that slavery wasn't tenable in the American Republic(and increasingly around the world awakening to moral progress and dignity of man) but also understood that reality isn't merely about 'good intentions', i.e. no matter how well-intentioned the Abolitionist may have been, the fact remained that racial differences were real and blacks posed a real threat to the white race. This is why Lincoln suggested, "We must free the Negroes and give them a separate nation because them black boys will kick our ass and take our womenfolk."
Regardless of the founding principles of any order, there are more than one way to employ those principles. Just like every side invoked God as being on its side in war(even when the worshiped the same God), there was no guarantee that the founding moral principles of America would naturally favor one side over another. Rather, it is the side that works hardest, toughest, and smartest that gets to use the moralism to its benefit. Take the Jews. There is no guarantee that the essence of the Shoah Narrative will support Zionism. Zionism can be spun as a moral response to the horrors of the Holocaust or an immoral betrayal of its lessons. One can argue that Jews need a homeland to preserve themselves from a potentially hostile world OR one can argue that Jews have acted like Nazis against the Palestinians. As all of history is diseased with germs of human compromise, even the 'good guys' and 'saints' are tarnished with much 'sin'. America was a great creation, but the native Indians had to be 'genocided'. In World War II, aka the 'Good War', the good guys beat the bad guys, but even the good guys did an awful lot of bad shit... and even the bad guys had some redeeming qualities. Imperialism destroyed so many peoples and cultures around the world but also paved the way for something new and promising. And anti-imperialist struggles overcame foreign invaders, but sometimes the results were more horrific than conditions under foreign rule: Cambodia under Khmer Rouge and Uganda under Idi Amin. So, the good and bad will always be mixed in history, and that means there is no guarantee that a set of moral principles will favor one side over another. It largely depends on who gets to spin the narrative. It's usually those with the most resolve, commitment, talent, intelligence, drive, and money. Blaming America's moralism for White Decline is disingenuous because that very moralism had been so useful for white power throughout US history. It was useful against the American Indians: White folks brought vision and hope to a land inhabited by crazy savages. It was useful against blacks: White folks need to rule over blacks who were savages in Africa and in need of a strong guiding hand. It was useful for Anglo-Americans in relation to white ethnic immigrants: Anglo-Americans achieved the most and attained the highest levels of civilization and progress, therefore newcomers must assimilate to Anglo-Americanism. (For a time, even many Jews agreed with the template.) It was useful for America's entry into the Game of Empire: The US should exert hegemony over places like Philippines because it's the moral duty of White America to uplift backward peoples. All these actions were sanctioned by American brand of moralism, and the result was expansion of White American power around the world.
Why did things begin to change? There was, to be sure, a brand of Moral Reformism that became perhaps overly critical of the failings of one's own civilization. But then, a civilization is better off with some critical element than wholly without. Without sharp criticism, a social order will grow accustomed to all its failings and grow stagnant. Most civilizations throughout history were uncritical of themselves and fell into decline, like Byzantium, Persians, Ottomans, and Manchu-ruled China. Granted, excessive self-criticism can also be debilitating, but for most of American History, there was a balance between the constructive side and critical side. Then, what upended this balance? One reason was the Jews with a stronger and more ingenious Culture of Critique. Also, whereas Anglo-Americans had the vision thing and reformist mentality, they were no match for Jews with their prophetic ability of threading so many strands of history, philosophy, science, and spirituality into a single unified idea. Even if history has disproved many ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, they captivated and fascinated many prominent people because of their ability to bring together so many disparate ideas and trends into a Total Vision. And the reason why Ayn Rand has such a cult following was the combination of her force of personality and totalizing concept of the Individual-as-Hero grounded in history, philosophy, and myth. Right or wrong, Big Ideas tend to prevail over small ideas, just like the concept of the one and only God beat out all the little pagan gods. It may be that the more modest Anglo/American empiricism offered a keener grasp of the truth via the accumulation of facts under the careful gaze of logic, but the mytho-spiritual side of man favors something of grand faith than minute facts. Even though Marx, Freud, and Rand claimed to be scientific and logical, the totality of their ideas came across as so awesome or profound that their admirers felt as if in the presence of higher power, a god(or at least a prophet). But even among less famous Jews with smaller ideas, there was the force of personality and persistence of will that intimidated and overwhelmed many white goyim who, being less intense in will and personality, caved under the spell of Jews. The rise of Jewish Power was crucial because it tipped the balance in favor of White Criticism over White Constructionism, in favor of White Guilt over White Pride. Prior to the rise of Jews, white guilt and white pride had been more-or-less in balance, somewhat tipped in favor of white pride that made white might possible. But once Jews gained greater influence in the White System, they provided added weight to white guilt on the seesaw of White Morality, and that is why white pride lost out. Still, it must be remembered that so much of white progress owed to a balance of white pride and white guilt. It was guilt that made for conscience and social progress toward more dignity for the common man. People like Spencer scoff at the notion of the 'common man' because, having read Nietzsche and watched BATMAN & 007 100x, they are obviously of the superior breed, which is why Spencer, in all his brilliance and wisdom, rushed into a marriage that soon proved loveless and then made an ass of himself with a bunch of hoors.

There was nothing inevitable about the foundational principles(be it spiritual, moral, or philosophical) of America eventually leading the nation to the state it is now. While SJW feminists with green hair, pins through their noses, and tattoos on their asses may appear to have the kind of quasi-religious zeal common among the Old Puritans, there was no certainty that religious puritanism would lead to the current degeneracy. Iran was established as an Islamic Republic with the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, but will Islamic puritanism or Fundamentalism lead to rise of green-hair feminist wenches in that country? Also, the foundational principles of modern Russia and China weren't laid down by religious zealots, but they sure went through some extreme periods of radical madness. While the 'puritanical' streak in America, in and of itself, could have been dangerous, it was mostly constructive in co-existence with American emphases on might and money. Just like the US government had checks and balance among the executive brand, legislative branch, and judicial branch, the American Civilization had a balance among the entrepreneurial class, military class(which, in some ways, included all armed Americans), and spiritual/reformist class(which, until the early 20th century, consisted of unity of pragmatic philosophy and reformist religion). The three influences checked and balanced each other, tempering the excesses of any particular one. American capitalism was restrained from materialistic excesses by moralism and religion. American ambition for more power was tempered by moral conscience and pragmatism of the business class. And American religiosity was checked by secular and material concerns. Perhaps, the problem is that the Separation of Church and State overlooked the danger that social philosophy or ideology could also become something like a quasi-religion. So, even though theocratic power was prevented from taking control of Americanism(due to individualism inherent in democracy and property rights), a quasi-religion like Jew-worship, MLK-worship, and Homoamania were allowed to become official state dogma and policy. Because such are not religions in the technical sense, they could worm into the power of the state. So, while courts could strike down School Prayer and display of Ten Commandments on government buildings, the fact remained that cults like Negro-worship, Jew-worship, and Homo-worship could slip by Rules and Principles governing separation of Church and State. Then, what we need is something more than Separation of Church and State. We need separation of Worship and State. Anything, even if not technically religious, that is worshiped and protected by taboos & sacraments must be forbidden to become the official dogma of the State. We should know from communist history that a state can turn even mortals and a materialist philosophy into something akin to a religion. US found a way to prevent the rise of theocracy but failed to forestall an ideocracy and idolatry because secular quasi-religions could slip into the inner sanctum of power as rational or political concerns. Take mantras like 'Diversity Is Our Strength' or DIOS. They aren't rational ideas or arguments but mindless matters of faith that one is expected to repeat and accept on faith... because if you raise questions about the validity, you will be hounded as a heretic.
The sheer illogic of the Official Dogma is evident in how the Progs lionize both Indigenous Folks and Immigrants. But in fact, indigenous folks of America were destroyed by mass immigration-invasion from the Old World. More immigration meant more westward expansion into indigenous Indian territory, and that meant less land for the natives. So, it makes no sense to honor both indigenous folks and immigrants in the same breath. Now, Jews who control the media and academia are trying to pull a dirty trick. According to twisted Jewish logic, both indigenous folks and immigrants(esp non-white ones) have been at odds with White Americans. After all, white Americans came and took land from the indigenous Indians. And white Americans, for a long time, allowed mostly white immigration while excluding non-whites. But this overlooks the fact that whites in America also arrived as conquerors, settlers, and immigrants. And non-whites, such as blacks and Chinese, did their part in building Modern America that finished off the Indians. Also, if white folks who 'stole' land from the Indians owe something to the natives, I can't think of anything worse than allowing MORE IMMIGRATION so that the once-Indian-land will fill up even more with foreigners from the Old World or with browns from South of the Border who have no roots in North America. Notice how the devious Jews have defined both 'indigenous' folks and 'immigrant' folks as belonging to the same 'progressive' camp of Diversity when, if anything, it was the coming of Immigration and Diversity that laid waste to the indigenous native folks and cultures of the Americas. (And it seems most Indians are too stupid to even realize this.)

Anyway, there are many ways to use moralism to justify just about anything. In the end, those with the power decide. Granted, there are limits to any system on the basis of its foundational principles. Marxist-Leninist principles made it difficult to introduce market reforms into communist systems because ideology does matter. And the US Constitution does put brakes on Jewish Globalist attempt to take away our speech-and-gun rights. Also, when a system does something that goes against its moral foundations, there is bound to be contradictions that may lead to crisis. America's founding as a Nation for Free Peoples and its practice of slavery definitely led to moral crisis that exploded with the Civil War.
But back then, when white folks had decisive power, even the Civil War was spun as a moral credit to the white race. After all, Walt Whitman beamed with pride that America was the FIRST nation to fight a war to end slavery. Thus, the Civil War was seen as redemptive than condemnatory of the White American experiment. Furthermore, Anglo elites of the North eventually came to see eye-to-eye with Anglo elites of the South, especially as both groups of shared lineage came under increasing pressure from ethnic European immigrants. It was really only with the rise of Jewish Power that the White South came under special attack and opprobrium, which is rather ironic since Jews demand that we all support Apartheid-like policies in the West Bank(and even inside Israel). Also, given that Gorbachev and Deng embarked on drastic transformations despite the communist foundations of their nations(indeed, even by rationalizing that their market and/or liberal reforms were in line with Marxist-Leninist ideology) goes to show that any ideology can be stretched, twisted, and turned in so many ways by those in Power. Therefore, it is rather ridiculous to blame current American woes on its founding principles, be they religious, economic, or military. Also, one could just as easily blame America's foundations of money and might for the current troubles. After all, the current SJW nuttery has as much to do with capitalist excess, consumerist piggery, and materialist nihilism as with anything else. Indeed, just how did justice come to be associated with boundless vanity and preening narcissism of idiots who write for Salon and Huffington Post? And who funds Homomania? Wall Street and Hollywood. Also, how did US come to be an imperialist power instead of one that minds its own business and respects the sovereignty of others? It was the cult of might, that American Power must be used to show the world who is boss. So, American woes can be seen as the product of the corruption of all three: Money, Might, and Moralism. It wasn't American 'puritanism' that led to craziness like 'gay marriage'. Rather, it was American Money that funded homo vanity as the 'new leftism'. And it was American might that decided to take up the banner of Holy Homo as the new justification for World Conquest. Apparently, there won't be justice around the world until the homo colors are planted as victory flag in every nation. When one considers the sheer mendacity of America's business class and the sheer idiocy of its military class, it's not just the moralist traditions of America that have rotted to the core. The demeanor and attitude of American generals from Gulf War to present conflicts suggest a class of clowns. And America's Deep State is filled with will-to-power lunatics whose worldview is hardly different from Spencer's. Of course, they are careful to mouth the same old platitudes about 'equality' and 'diversity', but if we judge them by what they do as opposed to what they say, they are really just vile dogs who will do anything to concentrate even more power among themselves. This is why, if indeed Spencer loves power so much, he should have just shut up about 'white nationalism' and joined the Deep State where he could rub shoulders with vain, egotistical, and sociopathic scum who dominate policy in the CIA, FBI, NSA, Pentagon, and etc. Just consider how these types reacted to the victory of Donald Trump. Sure, they bitch about how they must oppose Trump-the-fascist, but the real reason they hate Trump is he campaigned as a populist candidate who won by calling out on the Deep State(the Swamp) and called for end of Mideast Wars(and better relations with Russia). Granted, Trump is being swallowed up by the Swamp, but it only goes to show that the Deep State is crypto-Spencerist. The real difference is the Deep State is smart enough to hide its supremacism to perpetuate itself, whereas Spencer, by blurting out that he wants to be Darth Vader over all mankind, has marked himself as a scapegoat.

Anyway, for most of American History, the three sides of the triangle — spiritual/moral conviction, material/moneyed enterprise, and martial/masculine courage — served it well. Each on its own could have easily lost itself to excess but was tempered by the other two. While there were extremists among the spiritual-moral types, they also existed among the martial and material types. During the Cold War, some US generals wanted all-out nuclear war. They were like mini-Hitlers or General Jack D. Ripper. And the history of American business is as full of greed, foulness, and corruption as well as ingenuity, vision, and enterprise. Take one look at what gambling and pornification of mainstream culture have done to America, and it's obvious that unchecked materialism has it own madness. Military extremism and Materialist extremism are just as ugly as Moral extremism.
The big question is how did American moralism, which had done so much good in pushing forth reforms, go so wrong? Granted, it had gone terribly wrong with movements like the Prohibition, but still, the themes of Prohibition were at least serious because so many lives had been destroyed by alcohol. Also, the Civil Rights Movement was a great moral movement that called for justice for blacks. Its ultimate failure had less to do with the themes of the Movement itself than the fact, all too overlooked by many, of real racial differences. If those who supported the Civil Rights Movement ignored the reality of racial differences, those opposed to the movement only stressed the matter of black inferiority, thereby coming across as arrogant, supremacist, and bigoted. They should have stressed areas in which blacks had an advantage over whites. Thus, they could have opposed the Movement on grounds of not only white superiority(in intelligence) but white inferiority(in muscle power) that would doom white race to biological-slave status under the tougher black race that would intimidate and beat up weaker whites and conquer white wombs infected with jungle fever. In the end, it was the failure to speak the True Truth that undermined so much of white power, security, and well-being.