Americanism

Leo Strauss is considered the father of neo-conservatism and of Americanism.

Felton, Greg wrote:

T H E  G R E AT  N E O - C O N  A R T I S T

Leo Strauss, a philosopher at the University of Chicago, was a reactionary moralist at a time when U.S. culture was growing increasingly progressive and égalitarian. As a Jewish German who escaped Hitler‘s Reich, Strauss judged égalitarianism to be a threat to America’s liberal democracy because of what he saw happen to the feeble Weimar Republic.
In the name of imposing equality on the country, Strauss thought, the U.S. was losing its creative essence and moral fiber. Without radical change, America would be vulnerable to attack from totalitarian regimes.
To save the U.S., Strauss said égalitarianism and secular government had to be replaced by a regime dedicated to imposing traditional political and religious views. The fact that these views would be based on the prejudices of the leaders did not bother Strauss, who considered égalitarianism itself to be a prejudice, and an inferior one at that.
The key to bringing about this new value-based order, he said, lay in the rediscovery of pre-modern philosophy. He considered Athens and Jerusalem to be the twin pillars of reason and revelation upon which all the values of Western society were built, but he saw modern philosophers undermining these pillars by working hand-in-glove with government to serve the appetites of the lowest common denominator — the masses.
As a result, philosophers were undermining the aristocratic virtues that made philosophy the noblest pursuit of the human mind—tradition, heroism, creativity and excellence. In its place, égalitarianism and historic relativism were breeding a climate in which past virtues and morality were denigrated as old and inferior, and present norms were ennobled as modern and superior.
Without objective order and traditional morality, Strauss said, the U.S. was sinking into nihilism. Philosophy and philosophers had to be separated from government, and the proof he said, lay in the trial of Socrates.
Strauss’s connection of nihilism with Socrates is not original. Friedrich Nietzsche argued that Socrates’ dialectical method of reasoning undermined peoples’ belief in religion and the Homeric myths, thus leading ultimately to the relativistic, scientific world of the Enlightenment. Nietzsche (1844-1900) belongs to the late Romantic period, which arose toward the end of the 18th century. The Romantics — in art, literature, music and philosophy — brought creativity, emotion, genius, spiritual truth and transcendent imagination to the forefront of European society. The formalistic, logical world of the Enlightenment left no room for the genius, the hero, or the exceptional individual.
Nietzsche was deeply spiritual, and he condemned the Enlightenment for rationalizing God to death because without God, he said, morality and absolute value had no meaning. To redefine value and morality, Nietzsche posited der Übermensch (‘The Superman’) — a gentle, cultured leader like the poet Johann Goethe who would live a life ‘beyond good and evil’ — not bound by the ‘slave’ Christian morality that teaches people to fear death, repress their natural desires, destroy their taste and respect for heroism, and make them afraid to trust their own will.
Although there seems to be a fair amount of agreement between the two, Strauss reads into Socrates something entirely different. Whereas Nietzsche saw Socrates as the despoiler of Western philosophy, Strauss saw in him the possibility of its renewal, and the trial provides the example.
The democratic government of Athens charged Socrates with impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens, and Strauss believed the charges to be valid, but only because Socrates made the error of taking his philosophy into the marketplace. For Strauss, the lesson of the trial was that philosophers must keep higher truths to themselves, not only to save their lives, but to keep the public from losing faith in religion and traditional values. Therefore, Strauss argued that only those equipped to rule should be privy to higher moral truths, and that the government should use religion instrumentally to keep the public in line.
Strauss, it seems, fancied himself a latter-day Plato who thought that the U.S. could become an ideal Republic run by Philosopher Kings and protected by Guardians. Plato, to his credit, understood that his ideal society could never exist; it could only be contemplated. This lesson is utterly lost on Strauss because, unlike Plato, he wasn’t interested in justice; he was trying to manufacture a case against moral relativism.

***

Maligning Machiavelli
Strauss’s attack on modernity and the Enlightenment can be sourced to his misrepresentation of Machiavelli, the Renaissance Florentine who gave us our foundations of political science and realpolitik.

***

Machiavelli was at heart a republican who wanted justice and order, and in his writing we find the foundations for liberal, republican government.
For Strauss, this was Machiavelli’s unpardonable crime because republicanism puts government in the hands of the people:

Strauss, Leo wrote:

Machiavelli’s admiration for the political practice of classical antiquity and especially of republican Rome is only the reverse side of his rejection of classical political philosophy. He rejected classical political philosophy, and therewith the whole tradition of political philosophy in the full sense of the term as useless.

One cannot take seriously Strauss’s charge that Machiavelli rejected classical philosophy, since one is hard-pressed to find any reference to it in either The Prince or The Discourses. This is to be expected, since Machiavelli was concerned with the practice of leadership, not the theory.
Further evidence that Strauss neither respected nor understood Machiavelli comes from this disparaging comment:

Strauss, Leo wrote:

When trying to understand the thought of Machiavelli, one does well to remember the saying that [Christopher] Marlowe was inspired to ascribe to him: ‘I… hold that there is no sin but ignorance.’ This is almost a definition of the philosopher.

The fact that he would consider a Tudor English playwright to be a legitimate critic of Machiavelli speaks volumes about Strauss’s credentials as a philosopher.

***

A Hobbes of a Different Color
Strauss believed he found the remedy for Machiavelli’s republicanism in the social contractarianism of Thomas Hobbes, who, like Machiavelli, was a philosopher of peace and an analyst of power.
Hobbes (1588-1679) believed that man in ‘the state of nature’ (outside of society) lives a nasty, short, brutish life because each person is driven by natural appetites and is in mutual competition for power and prestige. Since all men are endowed with reason, Hobbes said, they would naturally want to leave this violent, competitive world, to live in peace. To achieve this end they must surrender their right of self-defence and erect a sovereign power to rule over them. Such a sovereign would be the embodiment of peace and order to whom the people would owe absolute obedience. In his seminal 1651 work Leviathan, Hobbes set out the need for a sovereign in language — albeit slightly archaic — that is virtually indistinguishable from that of Strauss:

Hobbes, Thomas wrote:

The final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others)… is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants…. For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.
The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will.
This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin,
CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defense.

There is much to admire in Hobbes’s clarity and logic, but his view of society is so mechanistic that for the sake of peace citizens must not only surrender their arms, but also their liberty and right to dissent. As we know today, such absolutism is the defining characteristic of a totalitarian regime.
Hobbes’s sovereign-ruled state might very well be peaceful, but it is the kind of peace that democracies abhor, but then Hobbes never pretended to be a democrat.
According to Strauss, Hobbes set philosophy back on course by merging natural law with realism to create the entirely new political doctrine of ‘natural right’:

Strauss, Leo wrote:

What Hobbes attempted to do on the basis of Machiavelli’s fundamental objection to the utopian teaching of the tradition, although in opposition to Machiavelli’s own solution, was to maintain the idea of natural law but to divorce it from the classical idea of man’s perfection.

Strauss’s justification for this position consists of the following deductive reasoning.
• If natural law is derived from the need for self-preservation, as Machiavelli said, then self-preservation is the root of all justice and morality.
• Morality equals self-preservation, which is fundamental and inalienable.
• Morality, therefore, is a right, not a duty.
• All duties are derived from morality.
• Duties are binding only to the extent they do not threaten the morality.
• There are only perfect rights, and no perfect duties.
• Since morality is a right, the function and limits of civil society must be defined according to man’s natural rights, not natural duties.
• The state’s function is to safeguard the natural right (morality) of each citizen.
• The power of the state finds its highest expression here and nowhere else.
Strauss’s argument is plainly unsound. For one thing, Machiavelli said nothing about natural law being derived from self-preservation; in fact, he denied the value of any overarching ethos, as we saw above: ‘The gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done leans the way to self-destruction rather than self-preservation.’
Second, the conclusion ‘morality is a right’ is a solipsism. Third, the concept of ‘perfect rights’ begs the existence of perfection. Fourth, the link between morality and the function of the state is not proven, and as such the deductive relation been moral right and natural right is baseless.
Strauss gives us a perverse caricature of Machiavelli so that he can manufacture plausibility for an authoritarian doctrine of natural law. On the other hand, he gives us an unrealistically sympathetic view of Hobbes so that he can import authoritarianism into U.S. democratic tradition: ‘

Strauss, Leo wrote:

If we may call liberalism that political doctrine which regards as the fundamental political fact the rights, as distinguished from the duties, of man and which identifies the function of the state with the protection or safeguarding of those rights, we must say that the founder of liberalism was Hobbes.

***

Taking Liberties with Locke
Adler’s concept of limited freedom is the essence of American liberal republicanism. The man who articulated this vision was the Puritan English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). Thomas Jefferson was said to have plagiarized Locke’s Second Treatise of Government while drafting the Declaration of Independence.

***

Locke belongs to the same social contractarian tradition as does Hobbes, but he has an entirely different understanding of freedom and the nature of the social contract. Hobbes speaks of a lawless negative freedom; Locke speaks of positive freedom in which citizens legislate to govern themselves. Hobbes speaks of obedience to an absolute ruler; Locke despises absolutism, and holds that a sovereign power must rule with the consent of the governed.
Since Strauss was sympathetic to Hobbes, one might have expected him to attack Locke with the same vigor as he did Machiavelli, but of course he couldn’t. To attack Locke outright would have meant attacking the moral and spiritual foundation of the U.S. Instead, Strauss had to undermine the main lines of Locke’s political theory to recast the man as a lapsed Hobbesian. Thus, Locke suffered the fate of all whom Strauss co-opted to justify his ‘natural law’ doctrine: if the political theory didn’t fit, it would be made to fit. In the next section, one must keep in mind Hobbes’s definition of Commonwealth: ‘that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defense.’
For Leo Strauss, Locke seemed to be two separate people: on the one hand, a fervent Christian who wrote detailed exegeses of the New Testament and argued for its belief; on the other, a social contract theoretician who abhorred authoritarianism. Strauss resolved this dichotomy by creating a false causality between Locke’s religious and political philosophy. In Natural Right and History, Strauss spends an inordinate amount of time on Locke’s chief religious writings—A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), The First Treatise of Government (1689-90), and The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures (1695, published anonymously)—to make the case that Locke’s political beliefs were derived from the Bible. Strauss focused on statements such as these:
The law of nature is a declaration of the will of God. It is ‘the voice of God’ in man. It can therefore be called the ‘law of God’ or ‘divine law’ or even the ‘eternal law’; it is ‘the highest law.’ It is the law of God not only in fact. It must be known to be the law of God in order to be law. Without such knowledge, man cannot act morally. For ‘the true ground of morality…can only be the will and law of a God.’ The law of nature can be demonstrated because the existence and the attributes of God can be demonstrated. This divine law is promulgated, not only in or by reason, but by revelation as well….
By demonstrating that the New Testament is a document of revelation, one demonstrates that the law promulgated by Jesus is a law in the proper sense of the term. This divine law proves to be in full conformity with reason; it proves to be the absolutely comprehensive and perfect formulation of the law of nature… A comparison of the New Testament teaching with all other moral teaching shows that the entire law of nature is available in the New Testament, and only in the New Testament. The entire law of nature is available only in the New Testament, and is there available in perfect clarity and plainness.
Leaving aside the fanciful assertions about the facticity of God’s will and the idea that God’s existence can be demonstrated; this passage openly misrepresents Locke. Strauss’s truth claims about the New Testament violate Locke’s basic tenets against arbitrariness and religious arrogance.
That was the whole point. If Strauss could convince readers that Locke was making a unique claim for the veracity of the New Testament, the property based political theory of the Second Treatise could be seen as having divine sanction. In other words, it would allow Strauss to turn Lockean liberalism into Hobbesian liberalism, or a least a watered-down facsimile thereof.
[The Host and The Parasite – How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America]

Felton, Greg wrote:

Problem is, a 224-year-old republic based on a system of checks and balances simply does not self-destruct within one presidential term. For a police state to take hold, the U.S.’s political culture had to have been weakened to the point where it could not defend itself, much as a person with a weakened immune system becomes susceptible to diseases it used to be able to resist. The real cause of the police state must therefore be found at the point where the U.S. lost the will to fight off anti-democratic pressures—not in recent events like the World Trade Center attack, or the invasion of Iraq, which are mere symptoms of the disease.
This disease consists of three mutually reinforcing political ‘cancers’ that became malignant during the Vietnam War, and then coalesced, and metastasized after the election of Ronald Reagan: neo-conservative economists, evangelical Christians and Zionist Jews. Together, they set the U.S. on a downward spiral into fascism—literally. By the time of the 2000 ‘election,’ Zionists had emerged as the dominant force in the fascist troika, and it is they who bear the greatest responsibility for the corruption of America, the destruction of Iraq, and the ‘war on terrorism.’

***

Individually, none of these ‘cancers’ could have brought about the ruination of the U.S. republic. The Christians needed the Straussians’ political platform to get into government and spread their brand of neo-Puritanism. The Straussians needed the Christians to mobilize the electorate to defeat the remnants of the old rational political order. Many of the founding Straussians were Zionist Jews, so as the fortunes of Straussians improved so did the voice of Israel in Washington. For this, an early alliance with like-minded evangelical Christians was absolutely necessary, not only because many Jews rejected Zionism as a blasphemy against the Hebrew Bible and were overwhelmingly liberal, but also because it put an American veneer on subservience to Israel. Moreover, since most Jews vote Democratic, Zionists proceeded to build support within the newly theocratized Republican Party.
[The Host and The Parasite – How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America]

American Apologists and “the Duran”
A new breed of apologists are emerging now that even the most obtuse mind cannot doubt that the U.S. and its hegemony is in decline. Individuals thoroughly immersed in Americanism trying to distance themselves from its inevitable destruction. People like Tom Luongo and Robert Barnes – internet critics – who can be found lurking on-line offering their historical revisionism that accuses Europeans or some mysterious global elite and not America and Americanism, for its Globalist agenda.
The Duran – where I came in contact with these apologists – is itself something to behold. Consisting of two expatriated Greeks – Cristoforo Alex (Cristoforo literally translated means ‘Christ bearer’) & Alexandre Mercouris (how pretentious to choose Alexandre instead – a relative of the ex-Greek minister of culture and now deceased actress Melina Mercouris) with some annoying rhetorical styles.
One, Mercouris, with his incessant affirmations “absolutely”….”absolutely”… delivered in his stuttering style... ”a… a… a… absolutely”.
The other, Christoforou, with his first-person delivery and a repeating “you know what” …”you know what”…and that constant giggling, sometimes at the most inappropriate points of his dissertation. Granted this postmodern world is a clown world, but his non-stop snickering soliloquies can grate on my nerves after a while.
Can’t be too vitriolic towards my fellow Greek internet celebrities, lest I be accused of envying their success, and because I am in agreement with them, in general.
Their agenda is to maintain the nation-state – ethno-state – even if it means adopting the model of an Americanized culture-of-no-culture soup, converting all cultures into exotic tourist cuisines custom made for American tourists to sample, and take home in the form of an imitation souvenir representing their cosmopolitan worldliness.
Where I part ways with them is in regards to how the idea of a nation-state is to be preserved in a world that has made it obsolete – just as the city-state became obsolete. Will it be within a culture-of-no-culture multicultural, globalizing, open-markets, open-borders, no biological identifiers accepted, Americanized world order, or will it be in a Sino-Russian jigsaw-puzzle multiculturalism of emerging SuperStates?
We can see in “the Duran’s” support of Russia their preference, but they fail to exit their Americanised indoctrinations producing what they admit confuses them concerning why America’s elites – most of which belong to a specific ethnicity – despise Russia so openly and passionately. Their admitted confusion is the by-product of their inability to exit Americanism’s shadow.
One sits in silence as American apologists – like Luongo and Barnes – spin-doctor America’s central role in post-war geopolitics, presenting the U.S. as another victim of mysterious wandering billionaire globalists – based out of Europe, presumably – and the other gives his continuous annoying vocalizations, finalizing his confused approval with a final “a…a….a…absolutely!”
Is it any wonder why they cannot explain why America’s elites despise Russia, or how Trump is so feared and associated with Putin?
To understand this Russo-phobia and demonization, one has to go back to the Trotsky/Stalin dispute, if not back to the Jewish/Roman conflicts. Putin is its most recent flare-up. But they will not go there.
Either because they are too brainwashed, or because they fear the repercussions – perhaps costing them their newfound internet celebrity status.

According to postmodern hypocrites there are no "right & wrong" ideas....all ideas are, for them, wrong, or equally right.
This psychosis is now sweeping across America and tis dominion - the ex-British Anglo-sphere and Europe - now accused of being the source of Globalism, and not the US.
Which is a partial truth, since the immigrants that brought it to the US, and redefined America, were from Europe, but were not Europeans, strictly speaking. Part of their mythological theosophy, casting themselves as the ones "burned" of carrying out a divine mission.
Zealotry defined, and superstitiously validated.

Since its inception the U.S. was a nation of lies.
It's founding lies and the underlying lie that an individual can escape his/her past, and remake himself anew, as if he/she had no past.
Like all lies and lairs, hyperbole conceals them....and so America has been a nation of exaggerations and extremes.

Lies and liars can habituate a populace to deception, to the point where they, no longer, can tolerate any degree of truth.
And so it is with the US and its Americanism - a 20th century invention that redefined the US as a messianic nation of superstitions thinkers and believers.
Its primary lie - all men are created equal - has to do with the social deconstruction of a biological sub-category: race, or breeds of man.
This foundational American lie, like all lies, is currently reaching the apex of its revelatory self-contradictions.
It is a lie - as I've said before - that wasn't really practiced, but only repeated like a prayer, a mantra of belonging to the same mindset, sharing the same values.
Because it was never practiced it is now manifesting in disillusionment and rebellion, by those who believed in the lie and had the most to gain from its practice.

Well, as empire declines its lies are exposed- like an old man haunted by his past indiscretions.
Now, the US will be forced to practice the lies it preached and spread across the globe as its salvation myth - a mythology that gathered the world's desperate to its "teaming shores".
And this will accelerate its destruction, its implosion, because a lie remains a lie no matter who and how many believe it to be true, nd if one practices what he preaches and what he practices is wrong, then what he can practice is his own demise in a world indifferent to human contrivances and delusions.
And this is why the parasite-meme, I often mention but never clearly identify - always practices its self-deceptinos via a proxy, never directly within the real, but always within a host which suffers the consequences of its lies.
yet, even this method proves to be lethal - just look at the history of the parasite-meme's interactions with every host it ever came in contact with. The host was destroyed, but so was it - see how parasites suffer the demise of the host they infect, and this suffering is part of its life-cycle, therefore the same can be said for our unnamed parasite-meme, which is also suffers, is burdened, by the myth of being chosen to suffer on behalf of a divine purpose.

Note:
Why did Protestant Anglo-Saxon experience such an existential melt-down, essentially committing cultural and ethnic suicide?
A once proud people, that has conquered half the globe and made their language a world-wide mode of communication, is now nowhere to be found, and tis nations are implementing laws that will exterminate them, along with every other ethnicity.
Why such self-destructive self-hatred?

It says a lot that groomers, transsexuals, drug addicts, childless women who can't cook --------------- support American/NATO geopolitical aims in the Ukraine. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Americanism's ideal...
A self-made "man", creating itself from "nothing" other than social symbols.
"Man" with no past.
We can't even call it "man", not only because of the gender identifying sin but also because human is a biological identifier.
These "things" are "spirits", lost in their own madness....erotic frenzy.
Dionysian ecstasy.

Ha!!!

Americanism on display.

Smith is trying to do the right thing... atoning for taking the law into his own hands.
But America lacks any law (sharia) that would've prevented Rock's initial transgression of Smith's honor.
Without this expect more of the same as America spirals into self-destruction.

A confession by the thoroughly Americanized?

Insight, sweetie, is the foundation of empowerment - power multiplier.
Try not to project so passionately, so pathologically, you are make it far to easy for me.

So, sharia is your wet-dream?
Keepin' it Abrahamic, huh?
Can't find a woman, can you?....just for show....as a burka for your innate homosexuality - keepin' it on the down low.

He atones for applying his law, and this is deserving of atonement?

You are so simple.
He was emasculated and had to display a hypermasculine compensation....to deal with his emasculated reputation, but then regrets it because he is entirely dependent on the system - and his wife/husband - and his living will be the cost for his hypermasculine display, which contradicts his nature.
A price that may cost him his domineering, controlling relationship with his husband/wife.
This was for her and for the industry and its incessant whisperings.

Chris Rock was a trigger. An easy target.
He would not have done it if it were The Rock.
He needed someone he could physically dominate.

Now his domineering wife/husband is expressing disapproval - because she's never satisfied - ....as is the entire industry he has sold himself to.

Smith was emasculated... yes, his honor besmirched.
Didn't I say that?
Where is the evidence that he acted out of need in apologising when his career is already down the pan?
He acted out of humility, recognizing he had done wrong.
Celebrity culture is rotten... but only another form of idolatry.
But one which you must tacitly support as you are also addicted to the material.

What does your word salad offer here?
Ah... nothing.
Grandiose analyzing. More individualism... social atomisation.
Man against man... and you above it all.
A perspective from which you can judge others... so great is your insecurity.
So much need.
Must Lady Satry always have the last word?
The Gay-reeks love their Oracles.

Religion offers brotherhood, shared values, a common destiny.
The family as a bedrock...
A natural ethnostate as the economic imperative for migration vanishes.
The foundation for a rebirth.

From a simpleton who believes in the incomprehensible, speaking of "word salads" is precious.

Just admit it's over your head....like how there is no beginning and on end.
When you come to terms with your condition, your need to be penetrated and inseminated, will become obvious to you.
When you accept your desire for divine cock, you'll liberate your inner feminine spirit, longing to dance free.

Ethnicity offers brotherhood, moron.
Abstractions based on words with no external reference - incomprehensible - only offer an excuse to unify weaklings and cowards.
Tribes did not need a god to unify them, simpleton...their genetic unity, their shared blood, produced their gods...they first worshipped their dead; their shared ancestors.

Abrahamism is an ideology....a dogma....based on an abstraction that has no external referents - moron....in fact your abstractions contradict experienced existence.
Like beginnings and ends.
Like indivisible immutable singularities.

Abrahamic desire for cock?
Is that why you hide away on this forum... inhabiting a dark corner of the web?
Everyone out there is a latent homosexual... or a woman.
A weakling or a coward.
Man is being feminized.
Whilst here is the last bastion of the masculine... a prime example of truth and Spartan manhood.
Although why you'd need a wind-bag philsophy to justify that is a mystery.
Physical health and courage are self-evident.
Who's desperate for cock again?

Abstractions based on words with no referent?
The referent is the origin... get it?
More waffle about absolutes, beginnings, endings, singularities, immutability, etc...
Just one piece of evidence... one testable prediction.
That's all we asked for.
Will it ever be forthcoming?

Continue being a modern day Gay-reek.
Stay exactly how you are.

HA!!!
Sweetie...your feminine spirit screams to be penetrated.
I'm sorry I could not be the kind of Greek you desire.

M prediction:
America will decline and be fragmented - victim of its own lies concerning diversity, and the social creations of gender and race.
Abrahamism fucked it....when it was forced to live by its own stated values.
America survived as long as it did not have to live-up to its own Judeo-Christian principles....

Moron....you have nothing but your pathos...your desire.

Moron...I never claimed to be a male...nor an oracle....I only claim to see patterns others can't.
I may be a black, paraplegic single mother of ten.
That you came here to "put me in my place" tells me all I need to know about you...in regards to moi.

What is a 'mystery' to you is my philosophy.
Over your head....incomprehensible.
But you won't worship me...as you do your incomprehensible god.
Ain't I good enough?
Not perfect enough?
Do I need to walk on water and give you useful guidance?
Must I save you to gain your love?

Satry wrote:

That you came here to "put me in my place"

Put you in your place?
Oh my dear you overestimate yourself.
You're one of those internet curiosities that people come back to time and again to prod to get a reaction.
Like a caged animal the children poke sticks at through the bars then run away squealing.
Ultimately a sad and pathetic figure trapped in a maze of his own making.
Aslan high on his own crack philosophy.
Obsessed with cocks and the feminine.

Satyr wrote:

America will decline and be fragmented - victim of its own lies concerning diversity, and the social creations of gender and race.
Abrahamism fucked it....when it was forced to live by its own stated values.
America survived as long as it did not have to live-up to its own Judeo-Christian principles....

The fragmentaion will be arrested by Islam.
Once the Jews have been dealt with stability will return.
Christianity is irrelevant... too irrational.

Satyr wrote:

Do I need to walk on water and give you useful guidance?
Must I save you to gain your love?

A man cannot be God.
This is a Christian idea.
Nothing that can be envisioned is God.
I've already explained this.
You are desperate for veneration... and your acolytes here provide it. Whilst wasting their own lives.
Religion would take away your feelings of superiority, uniqueness... a drug you have become addicted to.
At the expense of others in society.

Timon wrote:

Satry wrote:

That you came here to "put me in my place"

Put you in your place?

Timon wrote:

Oh my dear you overestimate yourself.
You're one of those internet curiosities that people come back to time and again to prod to get a reaction.

I know that's what you tell yourself.
Like a caged animal the children poke sticks at through the bars then run away squealing.
Ultimately a sad and pathetic figure trapped in a maze of his own making.
Aslan high on his own crack philosophy.
Obsessed with cocks and the feminine.

Ha!!!
What delusions you've built to excuse yourself.
I'm caged?
Do you think I am alone here?
Do you think this is my only venue?

Ha!!
Why, because I am in the minority and you are proud of belonging to the conventional majority?

Timon wrote:

The fragmentaion will be arrested by Islam.
Once the Jews have been dealt with stability will return.
Christianity is irrelevant... too irrational.

Ha!!
One Abrahamic cult attempting to become the one and only representative of the one-god.

Timon wrote:

A man cannot be God.
This is a Christian idea.
Nothing that can be envisioned is God.
I've already explained this.

All that are words....without meaning.
Declarations.
You only express your delusions.

You believe you deserve the attentions of a omnipotent deity and I'm arrogant?
You believe you deserve eternal life, and I'm obsessed?

Timon wrote:

You are desperate for veneration... and your acolytes here provide it. Whilst wasting their own lives.
Religion would take away your feelings of superiority, uniqueness... a drug you have become addicted to.
At the expense of others in society.

How do you know?
You've admitted that you cannot comprehend what I am saying.
Your conclusions are founded on incomprehension?

Religion is useful....it keeps manimals, like you, in their mental cages.

I am for Abrahamism for the masses.
That's why I do not want to change anything about you.

Tick Tock.
Particle clocks are winding down...

This thread is about Americanism...if you do not stay disciplined to board rules concerning sidetracking threads, you will be banished.
Then you can go to ILP for your Jihad.

They now speak about America being infested by a parasite...
I wrote about it back in 2019 - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...
They can't identify it.
They describe it as a "cabal", a "globalist elite" that came out of Europe and has taken over the US.
But they can't name it.
They can't because of the risks - the blow back - or are they unable to identify it because they've been infected by its linguistic rules and regulations - its political-corectness - and anxiety at being called a "Nazi" or "anti-Semite" or "racist".

Yeah...it's over.

Luv thy neighbour pushed to its logical ends...luv everyone...equally.
Universal love = a whore's love.....it makes love meaningless.

Americana....they produced hundreds of these not so subtle indoctrination movies.
Movies being the quintessential American soft-power art form - Hollywoodism - shaping hearts and minds.
After decades of this constant subliminal messaging, audiences were formed, through tear-jerker romance, about unrequited love, and hysterical romantic comedies, mocking reality.
Romance everywhere....
Love unreciprocated...strumming our longing and fantasies with "what if?", 'as if' it could have ever been so ideal, so perfect, so complete.
Then came generations of divorces and "quiet desperation" believing you've missed out on something...that something was wrong with you, or that The world failed you - a victim of happenstance.
Denying free-will is how you recuperate. It could not have been any other way, so why despair, why suffer regret?
You placed yourself on a pedestal, then the world, and one came tumbling down...

Need I point out the movie symbolism?
The melting pot had a great fall, and all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put it back together again...

-edit-
The Way we Were....memory cleansing the real leaving the ideal.
Was it ever, like that?
Only in memory. Man always recalls the past in the most subjectively pleasing way.
Have we not revised history and then criminalized any 'corrections' to the official spin?

It makes me think of an antique pictorial magazine from the 1930s i found in a library once.
It was a morbidly fascinating experience to browse through it and see the insidious cultural seeds of modern consumerism and materialism that were planted back when America was still predominantly traditional European.
To see the early nihilistic symptoms of what brought us to the current state of decline and degeneracy.
The advertisements were out of control, undermining European women's self-respect, with degrading self-obsessed sexual narcissism, and undermining men's spiritual constitution with empty mindless workaholism to the emerging corporate system.
All the while, inserting every message they could think of to stroke everyone's egoism, and self-interest in the smallest and most detailed way. Ads about how to improve domestic life were also out of control; turning European man into a happy caged hamster, being cared for by the system.

These messages of 'love' today, have evolved into cliches and satirical clap-trap, but these same generations of idiots still buy into them, only in even worse ways, where now they believe they have attained a more 'mature' understanding of them, to know that being a self-absorbed loose promiscuous degenerate is a more "realistic" option, putting up defensive barriers to attempt to correct their gullibility. From one extreme to another, the psychology of the modern masses.

The homosexualization of children and liberal capitalism go hand in hand. The American white male ruling class loves rainbow grooming. Every bank, media corporation, retail outlet, you name it -------- promotes diversity and blackness. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is Americanism.

I still cannot believe this article was published. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This....says it all.

You must learn the codes...

Satyr wrote:

Because semiotics are detached from external referents every nihilistic dogma - spiritual - and ideology - secular - variant has its own lingo, its own jargon which acts as an identifier of who is one of the converted - faithful, good - and who is not - infidel, evil.

All nihilistic variants have their own distinct jargon, some slightly varying as one begets the other, and the failed one is adjusted and adapted and then reapplied.

In this thread I will be giving a brief analysis on Americanism's jargon.

Individualism = men with no past; no inheritance, no nature – nature = sum of all nurturing; a blank slate (tabula rasa) beginning the process of self-creation; constructing an identity from nothing and nowhere; man creator of reality, including himself.

Liberty = salvation; detachment from the body, as past made present, as presence; erasing past so as to begin the process of self-creation; rebirth as pure mind/spirit gathering material to construct its identity; process of creation and recreation offering infinite possibilities; freedom from old world hierarchies and natural order.

Progress = continuous expansion of probabilities; increase in options to choose from, i.e., freedom; infinite supply for infinite demand, i.e., divine marketplace; movement towards godliness and infinite probabilities, i.e., techno-utopian – art imitating art.

Democracy = intersubjective collectivism; hive mind; divergent expressions of the collective spirit, i.e., divinity.
Not to be confused with original Democracy. Within Americanism the concept acquires metaphysical dimensions.
The “democratization of a people” is its integration within Americanism’s sacred collective mind – within its infinite mental frontiers – within which every “individual” can recreate itself from within its collectivized semiotics.
“Spreading Democracy” is code for “spreading salvation”, i.e., liberating peoples from traditions and ethnic, racial, biological limitations and, though money, offering them the possibility to remake themselves into anything, as long as it does not restrict or inhibit the creative possibilities of another within the same collective.

All they talk about is money. All they think about is hustling to make money.
Nothing else mattes to them.
money is Messiah....the only way towards salvation, i.e. freedom.

Pattern Recognition = awareness, intelligence...
Dumbing Down is the new norm....the American ideal.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— I,Hypocrite (@lporiginalg) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— I,Hypocrite (@lporiginalg) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Patterns....all these are "women".

Wikipedia wrote:

Dunham was born in New York City. Her father, Carroll Dunham, is a painter, and her mother, Laurie Simmons, is an artist and photographer, and a member of The Pictures Generation, known for her use of dolls and dollhouse furniture in her photographs of setup interior scenes. Her father is Protestant of mostly English ancestry; whereas her mother is Jewish. Dunham has described herself as feeling "very culturally Jewish, although that's the biggest cliché for a Jewish woman to say." The works of acclaimed Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai helped her to connect with her Judaism. The Dunham family are cousins of the Tiffany family, prominent in the jewelry trade.

Do ya see a pattern?
No.....it's now bigotry to see patterns.

She is the perfect American.

Americanism is doubling down...and the closer the end comes it is taken over by a panic....
A dangerous panic....fanatics panicking is dangerous.
TA parasite that is conscious sees the host dying, and its own death approaching, because it cannot survive without a host - a proxy.
The US was its proxy host....and after decades of dominating it through media and Hollywood, the host is dying, imploding by what it was made into - a Messianic, superstitious, hedonistic, brain-dead zombie.
The end is near.
For a parasite it is an end of the world.