Sunday, November 18, 2012
The Age of Decadence. When Will the Tree Fall?
The West is now in the throes of decadence unparalleled since the decline and fall of Rome. Many are blind and/or impervious to what's happening due to MSM's propaganda in favor of decadence(disguised as 'tolerance' and 'equality') and academia's promotion of the cult of 'diversity'. Thus, many in the West embrace the disease as the cure. The situation may even be deemed farcical. The more problems we have with decadence and 'diversity', the more the elites encourage even more decadence and more 'diversity' as cure for the problems caused by, well, decadence and 'diversity'. Similarly, we are told that the cure for the ills caused by globalism is more globalism. The cure problems caused by big government is more big government. It's rather like telling a fat person that the cure for obesity is even more eating.
Many people are blind to the decline of civilization because they are still affluent and prosperous. And the advance of technology makes all of us feel more privileged and 'empowered'. After all, a world where even poor villagers in Africa have access to cell phones cannot be all bad. And maybe the Twitter revolution will spread democracy and respect for 'human rights' around the world. Yes, technological advance continues unabated, and it may very well be that the decline of civilization and the ensuing dangers will be contained by new means of production, new plenitude, and new diversions.
But can mere materialism safeguard the survival of civilization indefinitely, especially when the West is filling up with non-whites from the Third World, especially from sub-Saharan Africa, the home of the least intelligent, most aggressive, and most unstable peoples in the world? Some on the 'Right' argue against increased immigration because immigrants supposedly are incapable or unwilling to assimilate and thereby pose a threat to Western values. But then, how are these values defined today, even by the 'Right'? Feminism and 'gay marriage'. Rather stupidly, the Right is arguing for immigration restriction because the flood of foreigners threatens Western decadence! The Right seems to be unaware of the fact that the 'liberal' cult of 'diversity' is very much part of the decadence that the Right now pretends to champion as the hallmark of 'Western values'. Why would a socio-political order that is stupid enough to surrender to globalist Jews, radical feminists, and deviant Jews have sense enough to preserve itself from alien invaders? When a society turns decadent, it loses its immunity against both enemies from within and from without. Therefore, the New European Right's call for ending immigration to preserve the 'liberal' and 'modern' values of decadence is rather self-defeating.
Those on the Left argue for more immigration for any number of reasons. For 'progressive' elites, it's a cynical way to secure electoral victories with the votes of freshly minted citizens from the Third World. For some elites, the call for greater 'diversity' is an easy way to brandish their 'progressive' credentials at a time when 'racism', 'nationalism', and 'xenophobia' are among the greatest 'sins'--at least if you're white.
Then there are plenty of whites who know that more 'diversity' means more trouble, but so addled are they with the dogma of white self-loathing that they welcome the demise of their own people as a kind of righteous moral punishment of history. "We are all Nazis now, and just as German women DESERVED to be mass-raped by Soviets, we quasi-Nazi whites must all be conquered and raped by Muslims and blacks." Such is the mentality of many whites, not least in South Africa, in which whites finally went nuts and accepted black rule in that benighted country. In a way, it's the logical conclusion of Christian ethos in the form of secular penance for all the 'evils' committed by the white race, real or imagined. (Imagine Jews willingly abandoning themselves to Palestinian, Arab, and/or Muslim rage and hatred. Too funny to even imagine.) The mentality of many white people isn't much different from the mindset that takes over the heart and soul of the raped daughter in Coetzee's DISGRACE.
It's no wonder then that so many white 'liberals' are not only undisturbed by Obama's long relation with the vicious Jeremiah Wright but admire the crazy 'reverend'. To understand this psychological phenomenon, one mustn't so much focus on what Wright said as what he and his furor stand for. They stand for 'black rage' against 'white injustice'. Thus, paradoxically, the white 'liberal' may actually be turned on by the fact that Wright is deranged. What appeals to the white 'liberal' is not so much Wright's 'sermons'--even liberals know the 'sermons' are crazy at face value--but his supposed derangement due to white oppression. Thus, Wright's madness is seen not as black evil but black madness arising from intolerable white oppression. Thus, his madness, instead of being seen as evil, is seen as tragic, even noble. He's seen not so much as mad as 'driven mad', like Othello, the black KKK guy in SHOCK CORRIDOR, the dog in WHITE DOG, and etc. So, if white conservatives see a 'crazy nigger' in Jeremiah Wright, white 'liberals' see a suffering Negro driven over the edge by white oppression and white indifference(and lack of penance for white 'racism').
The rise and fall of social orders are nothing new. Innumerable states have risen and fallen in the West throughout the centuries. Dynasties rose and fell. So did principalities, kingdoms, and empires. So, did religious orders and ideological orders. And in the 20th century, we witnessed the rise and fall of fascist and communist regimes. But there was one theme they all shared. A sense of center, a sense of compass, a sense of roots, a sense of the core. In the fields of politics, philosophy, religion, and science, the ideas gravitated toward or revolved around the center; even when ideas moved away from the center, they maintained their sense of direction, thereby mindful of what and where the center was and where they were in relation to the center. Or if the traditional center was deemed to be flawed or false, there was a search for a new or better center. In astronomy, it meant going from Earth-centrism to Sun-centrism. In religion, there was the centrality of God as the source of Truth and Wisdom. And even in pagan religions, there were the greater gods and lesser gods. Philosophy sought the higher or deeper truth and didn't yield to relativism. And political orders were centered around governing principles and represented core social values; even if they failed to live up to the principles, the principles guided society toward social and political reform. Even revolutions were about important and central issues of survival, progress, and justice. The theme of the French Revolution was not frivolity and/or decadence but the creation of a more just society where all Frenchmen would have rights of basic liberties and freedoms.
Conservatism was necessary in the preservation of social order and received wisdom/history/identity, and liberalism was necessary in opening up to new and possibly better ideas and unveiled facts as the basis of new truths(that may rightfully supplant old ones). Civilization had a compass because it had a sense of where it came from and where it was going in relation to where it came from. Without a sense of place and direction, history turns into aimless wandering. Things have meaning in relation to other things, and so, when historical movement becomes divorced from its origin, center, or foundation, it becomes directionless and pointless. There is the loss of common meaning, shared core, and meaningful purpose drawn from 'sacred' memory. Decadence creeps in, and anything can be anything since there is no center, nor core. With no center, anything can serve as a center, but when everything is the center, nothing is the center. It's like if everyone is called a genius, no one is a genius, i.e. there's no way to differentiate a genuine genius from a retard as the decadent order, in the name of 'niceness', 'sensitivity', or 'inclusion', degrades the meaning of 'genius' to designate anyone. (Of course, decadence need not be egalitarian. In the past, decadence was more the phenomenon of the cultural and social decay of elites who, in their obsession with wealth and privilege, lost sight of the larger picture. The decadence that overtook the Ottoman elites had nothing to do with the rise of egalitarianism. But we can see parallels today's crisis in the decline of Rome where the decadence of the elites, combined with the expansion of 'bread-and-circuses' populism for the masses, led to the dual decadence of both the rulers and the ruled. It is no wonder that both the Roman elites and Roman masses were equally demoralized and helpless before the onslaught of the Germanic Barbarians. And something similar happened in the Soviet Union in the late 70s and 80s. Socialism sapped the will-to-work among the populace, and the elites, cocooned in their own privilege and cynical orthodoxy, lost the fierce instinct of power that had been the hallmark of men like Lenin and Stalin.)
Today, we see the effects of decadence in the concept of 'gay marriage'. There is a core concept of marriage rooted in biology and defined by morality. Biologically, man and woman are sexually attracted to one another because life is created through the sexual union of man and woman. If mankind were animals, there would no need for marriage. Instinct would rule the day. If the male instinct guides the male to cooperate with the female in raising the offspring--as is the case among many species of birds--, then so shall it be. If natural instincts instruct the male to take off after impregnating the female, so shall that be--as is the case with most mammals. The world of animals is not and cannot be governed by thoughts or morality.
In contrast, humans are thinking and moral creatures, and the institution of marriage has been developed to address the biological fact of procreation. Male and female product children, and so father and mother of the children should commit to one another for the proper rearing of their children, the life they created together. Such moral understanding is the central/core foundation of the human social order.
Before morality, there is the fact of biology. For man to rise above animals, he must understand biology and develop moral institutions and rules to tame and guide his animal nature. Thus, it should be obvious to all serious and sober people that marriage is not some game, lifestyle, social construct with no biological basis, or just some fashionable social agenda. It is an absolute necessity, and from its roots arose human society, and from human society arose civilization.
But in our decadent age, 'marriage' is a matter of 'anything goes'. Since gays are privileged and powerful, their vanity demands that all of humanity accept and embrace homosexuality as wonderful and beautiful. In their supreme decadent arrogance, gays have even conflated a form of 'sexuality' where men perform fecal penetration with the miracle of the rainbow. We are to believe that 'sexually' engaging in perverted acts with other men--how is fecal penetration among men not perverted?--is the biological and moral equivalent of real sexuality and therefore worthy of being bestowed with the rights of marriage. In the past, most Americans would have mocked such ridiculous notion and defended core values against decadence. But in our decadent age, the masses made insipid by politically correct 'sensitivity training'--which should really be called nonsensitivity training--are unable to distinguish truth from untruth, sense from nonsense. Their values having been absorbed mostly from TV shows, pop music, celebrity culture, and ideocratic propaganda pushed by the Department of Education, the masses suffer from a diminishing sense of where they came from and what the core/central values are. Lacking such compass, they can be led anywhere. Having no roots and spine, they can easily be swayed or bent this way or that way. And, they don't know what to say to counter the notion that 'gay marriage' is real marriage or that illegal aliens are real Americans. Since so many Americans have been cut off from the meaning of real biology, real morality, real morality, real nationhood, real laws, and real citizenship, their sense of truth bends to the winds of fashion controlled by globalist elites. Even today's radicals are utterly decadent--and might as well be called 'radicadents'. If radicals of past, right or wrong, fought for basic, fundamental, or core issues of justice and power, today's so-called 'radicals' fight for 'gay marriage', free birth control for affluent chubby girls, and 'illegal immigration as a human right'. And they are utterly in cahoots with the globalist rich; indeed, many of today's 'radicals' have cushy jobs in NGO's funded by the likes of Bill Gates and George Soros. They don't do much of anything but they make busy at 'saving the world' and get to rub shoulders with rich celebrities, top politicians, and the superrich. Performing the role of the decadent secular clergy, they serve to give moral cover to the globalist billionaires who game and milk the world system to rake in billions more. In the kind of world we are living in, what are moral values anymore? What is truth? Who decides what goes and what doesn't go? Those who control the brain and sensory centers of society, i.e. those who control the media, entertainment, and institutions of education.
The more we become cut off from tradition, the more the elites have control over us. The intellectual class--and especially radicals among them--has often believed itself all-knowing and superior to the rest of mankind, and thereby justified in their radical attempts at utopia. The problem was never with the ideal of intellectualism itself but the radical notion that intellectuals can know Everything and therefore are deserving of all or most power. Too often in history, the common sense and traditional values of the people have proven to be resilient and effective as a bulwark against the radical tides of arrogant intellectuals.
Of course, this wasn't because the common man is wiser or better-knowing. Rather, the advantage of tradition is that it probably lasted as long as it did because of certain inherent time-tested virtues and advantages. It may not be perfect as the formula for utopia, but it has sustained civilization for centuries or even millenniums. As long as the power of tradition existed, the radical ambitions of the elites could be held in check.
As it turned out, the biggest enemy of tradition was not radical ideas but popular entertainment that vulgarized the masses, turned young people into impatient dolts with no interest and respect for their ancestors, encouraged young men to feel and act like apes, and pressured young women to dress and behave like hookers. Ironically enough, so-called 'rightist' capitalism facilitated this far more effectively than all other systems. And the rise of techno-culture has divorced many bright young people from art, literature, and religion, and instead, turned them into computer and videogame geeks obsessed only with the future and the latest gadgets coming down the pipeline. They may be smart and creative, but they have no roots, no identity. In a way, Obama makes a perfect posterchild for the current reality. Having had a rather directionless childhood due to his abandonment by both his parents, he had to concoct his own myth of what he's supposed to be about. Some might see his search for roots as inspirational and 'conservative', but it's really just a conman's trickery of narcissistic self-mythologizing, a case of turning his father into what he was not in order to make himself the inheritor of some sacred mission of liberation of both black chains and 'white guilt'.
In the past, Americans and Europeans had a respect for older people. Today, the Jewish controlled media are gleeful that all those old white people--who'd worked so hard and given so much to the building of America--are dropping dead like flies. Their great 'evil' is that too many of them vote Republican. Never mind that the 'people of color' will be inheriting an America that has been built and developed primarily by such white people. Jews want young whites, 'progressive' whites, and people of color to gloat and cackle about the passing of old white people. Jews are essentially telling young white people to laugh with joy at their grandparents' and parents' funerals. Jews are telling blacks and browns to celebrate that so many 'old white racist evil farts' are dying in huge numbers. Such Jewish hostility should awaken all whites to the true nature of the Jewish character. I don't see white people, especially Christians, laughing and celebrating the fact that the Holocaust generation of Jews are dying off. But Jews guffaw and howl with joy over the passing of the Greatest Generation among whites. Jews can't wait to go to your grandparents' graves and spit and piss on them. Jews are especially dangerous because their radicalism is utterly disingenuous. If radicals of the past acted, at the very least, in good faith and were true believers of their ideologies, Jews push radicalism essentially to boost their own tribal power. Jews are not believers but users of ideology, and their main objective is not to create a better and fairer world for all but a better world for Jews. Just think... how is it that a people who claim to be so committed to equality and 'diversity' have such an undying support for a nationalist state like Israel, and how come Jews never speak out about Jewish power/privilege when it is the most powerful power in the world? Why don't Jews--even so-called 'liberal Jews'--come to the defense of people like Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez?
Though tradition has served a useful purpose in stopping, slowing down, or moderating the ambitions of radicals, an over-reliance on tradition is a lazy man's conservatism. While there may be much that is useful and true in tradition--after all, it must have lasted so long for a reason--, it doesn't follow that something is true or morally justifiable simply because it's traditional. Tradition, no matter how long-standing or regarded sacredly, can be false, unjust, and/or harmful. Thus, an intelligent conservatism makes a distinction among cultural tradition, intellectual tradition, spiritual tradition, and factual tradition.
There is no 'true or false' about culture. The dress, music, and food of a culture are neither true or false in any intellectual or scientific sense. It is part of the community by tradition, customs, and convention. This kind of tradition is welcome as long as it's not cruel, e.g. involving the torture of animals and etc. Conservatives are right to preserve this kind of culture, though new fashions and expressions are to be embraced if proven to be of value.
Intellectual tradition involves the meaning of Truth. Even if intellectualism cannot arrive at the absolute truth, it is a search for truth. Though all intellectual ideas are built on preexisting ideas--or intellectual tradition--, tradition isn't sufficient for intellectual life. A conservative who clings to a set of intellectual ideas simply because they happen to be traditional is being lazy or rigid and taking the easy or simple way out, and such atrophying of outlook will eventually lose against a living practice of the mind. After all, why were the ultra-conservative Egyptians eclipsed by the adventurous Greeks? Why did the West eventually overtake China, which had long been ahead of the West since the fall of Rome?
Related to intellectual tradition is factual tradition. Every scholar or scientist works with facts handed down from his predecessors. But new facts are always being discovered in science--hard and social--, and it won't do to cling to traditionally established facts. When Galileo and Copernicus made new observations about the movements of planets, it was time for new facts to replace the old ones.
Thus, a smart conservatism cannot simply rely on received or traditional ideas and facts but must be open to new ideas and new facts in the never-ending search for greater truth. Conservatives need to embrace the ideal of what might be called 'trudition', a tradition committed to the truth and in the preservation of the truth against falsities. Cultural tradition is fine, but conservatives cannot simply rely on intellectual and factual tradition.
But intellectual and factual tradition is sometimes difficult to alter due to the power of spiritual or sacred tradition. Many Christians, for example, believe in the Bible as the Sacred Word of God. Thus, even though many of them are intellectually capable of studying and understanding evolution, they reject the idea as sacrilege against God. The intellectual problem of American Conservatism--especially the GOP--has been this association with and political reliance on religious ignoramuses who continue to deny science in order to maintain their Fundamentalist commitment to what the Bible says.
Of course, there are many such ignoramuses and outright dummmies among black Christians, Hispanic Christians, and blue-collar whites who vote Democratic, BUT the difference is the Democratic elite has been careful to prevent the unwashed masses from defining the intellectualism of liberalism whereas the intellectually lazy GOP elite, despite its disdainful feelings toward the Christian Right, has too often allowed the Evangelicals to define the very face and soul of conservatism. Thus, even though the Democratic Party has no lack of dummies, the public impression is one of intelligent Jewish and gay elites leading the pack, whereas with the other side, the impression is one of GOP elite haplessly going along with Christian ignoramuses like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Gov. Huckabee, and Rick Santorum. Democratic elites use their dummies whereas the GOP cater to their dummies.
Now, given the libertarian wing of the GOP that emphasizes 'reason' and 'objectivity', one might think many well-educated people would gravitate to the Republican Party, but not so. Ironically, even though most well-educated white are secular and anti-religious(or at least non-religious), it is part of human nature to want something 'spiritual' in life. As Jesus said, "Man doesn't live on bread alone." Libertarianism is only about the bread(and pot and guns). Paradoxically, because many well-educated white liberals are secular, they have a need for 'religion'. Since they are too 'smart' to believe in the Old Religion, they seek New Spirituality, and the modern liberalism offers it in the form of 'white guilt', MLK myth, Obama myth, Oprah myth, New Age, the Cult of Art, neo-pagan-fascistics of black muscle heroics, 'Cultural Marxism', and neo-Judeo cult of Jewish wisdom around men like Albert Einstein.
Of course, the problem of sacred tradition hampers liberalism in its own way. If American conservatism, in its reliance on the Christian Right vote, cannot make too strong a case against stupidities like Creationism, American liberalism has its own sacred taboos on race and sexuality. Though races are real and racial differences play a key role in social outcomes in America, the quasi-sacred taboos of liberalism forbid most people from honestly tackling the topic as anyone who dares to do so will be shunned, shamed, or destroyed. It took so long to debunk the lies of Stephen J. Gould because the liberal establishment guarded his 'discoveries' as the absolute truth even when many liberals knew them to be false. Indeed, when sacred liberal truths no longer become tenable, the liberal establishment seeks liberal debunkers than conservative ones. Thus, if Gould is debunked by someone like the liberal Richard Dawkins, it's seen as just another triumph of liberalism--even though a sacred cow of liberalism has been slayed--whereas if Gould's ideas were seen to be debunked by a conservative, the intellectual victory might go with the 'evil racist' right. In a way, Steven Pinker is especially valuable for this very reason. He flirts with HBD and even debunks some of the sacred cows of liberalism but ever so gently and tenderly, without 'malice' or a counter-liberal agenda. Thus, even the fall of a liberal sacred cow is seen as just another victory of liberalism.
In the past, many social orders and systems that rose and fell in the West may have held steadfast to a false center or core, but they still believed in the concept of core truth, core identity, core morality, core meaning, and core homeland. This was also true of communism and Nazism. As evil as those ideologies were, they believed in the primacy of certain visions and values and in the necessity of the people to rally around those core values and core identities. And if one vision of core values or core meaning were to fall in the paradigm shift, another core vision took its place. In science, it was like going from Earth-centrism to Sun-centrism. Or in the intellectual sphere, it could be the shift from faith in God as the source of all Truth to commitment to science as the path to truth.
But in today's decadent order, the very notion of the Core has been lost to the point of no recovery. Partly, this is a reflection of governing reality of the modern West. In America, who are the two most powerful and influential groups today? Jews and gays. We know Jews own and control most of the media. We know they dominate elite institutions of education, law, and government. Gays are far less powerful, but Jews have chosen gays as their closest allies. Also, gays use their power to promote a kind of gay boys' network. Even if gays don't have the institutional power on the order of Jews, the cult of the saintly gay has become a cornerstone of the modern secular religion. Thus, even though the most powerful and influential people--Jewish or gentile--are not gay, gay power is well-protected from criticism.
Just like any criticism of Jewish power can be defeated and defamed with a single word--"anti-Semite!"--, any criticism or opposition to gay power can be effectively destroyed with one word--"homophobia." Even conservatives who counter the gay agenda grovel before the media to show that they are not this fictional bogeyman called a "homophobe". Now, it's worth asking how one-word arguments are even possible, and why do so-called rational liberals and progressives employ such tactics to 'win' debates?
So-called 'liberals' and 'progressives' are able to win 'one-word arguments' because certain words have been loaded and invested with powerful emotional responses. If the media constantly uses the term 'antisemitism' in relation to the Holocaust or other nasty forms of anti-Jewish hatred, leveling that word at one's enemy is sufficient enough to put him on the defensive, indeed even sufficient to destroy him right there on the spot.
The Jewish media have disseminated the impression that if you are critical of Jews, you are like Hitler and wanna gas Jews; you are ugly and pathological and irrational and psychotic, like Amon Goth in SCHINDLER'S LIST.
On the other hand, if you love Jews, you must be saintly and angel-like, like Schindler himself. Such emotional associations allows short-cut victories to the side that employs accusations like 'anti-Semite'. It's hardly different from how things used to be in the old Christian order when it was sufficient to accuse someone of being a 'heretic' or 'witch' to win the 'argument'(and have the accused destroyed).
Jews, having succeeded in their program of one-word-arguments with terms such as 'racist' and 'anti-Semite', devised the same strategy for homos. All a homo has to say to win the argument is accuse his or her opponent of 'homophobia'. They very word, due to media manipulation, conjures up images of clean-cut and handsome angelic gays being hounded and bullied by fat, ugly, and demented Fundamentalists who go around wearing "God Hates Fags" T-shirts.
The Gospel of John begins with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John the Jew understood the power of words, and today, the word is with Jews. But in the Christian Order, especially among the Catholics, the real power of the Word came with its idolization via paganesque imagery. Christians not only used the Word but matched the Word with the Image of Jesus and His suffering through sculpture and painting. And with the rise of Christian or Church music, the Word was sung and thus made sensual, making them more alluring and powerful.
Today, Jews possess the power of words--especially with the unholy trinity of 'racist', 'antisemitic', and 'homophobic'--, and Jews control the media and idolize the words by matching/associating them with certain powerful images. 'Communism' and 'Jewish radicals' don't stir up negative emotions because those words are not matched with Jewish communists smashing Christian Churches, running the Gulag, and killing millions of Slavic Christians. If anything, 'anti-communist' is a dirtier word in American politics for one of the biggest
media tropes since the 60s has been of the evil right-wing anti-communist McCarthy 'persecuting' all those seemingly 'noble and innocent' communist victims of the so-called 'Red Scare witch-hunt'.
Words like 'racism' have great power because Jewish Hollywood has often presented the KKK as horror movie freaks out to lynch hapless and saintly Negroes. And since Jews, white liberals, and Hispanics don't have much in the way of the Voice, Jews have used the soulfulness of black expression--MLK, Oprah, and Obama--to add a layer of sensual spirituality to liberal-sounding words and slogans. The soulful black voice makes even utterly banal cliches sound deep and meaningful.
In order for Jews to build up the 'gay' community as a useful ally, there came the word 'homophobe', its meanings emotionally associated with images of ugly, pathological, and cruel 'gay bashers' as opposed to mild, attractive, funny, darling, and angelic gays. Gay agenda is the new 1950s TV show. Instead of FATHER KNOWS BEST, we have something like WILL AND GRACE, which might as well be called GAY KNOWS(and blows) BEST. Indeed, just consider the names? Will as in 'will you marry me?' and 'will to power' and Grace as in 'heavenly grace', i.e. gays are the new angels. It's like Nietzschean-Christian gay agenda as mass propaganda.
Now, one may wonder, if so-called liberals and 'progressives' are really secular rationalists, why would they use such emotionally loaded means to manipulate and sway the masses? Because for all their bogus conceit about equality of human intellect and commitment to reason/science as instruments of truth, most liberal elites--especially Jews and gays--have a very low opinion of most people. They see the masses as stupid sheep, laboratory mice, or running dogs to tame and train.
Since Jews and gays, as small minorities in the West, cannot serve as the traditional core--the pride and power of the majority population with blood and soil roots in the land that it occupies--, they are hostile to any notion of core or central values. They don't want Germans to see Germany as the Core Homeland of the Germans. They don't want Germans to think of German culture as the culture from, by, of, and for the Germans. And Jews and gays feel the same kind of animus toward all other peoples. A French Jews feels closer to a Russian Jew and Israeli Jew than to a French gentile. A gay American feels closer to a gay British, a gay Frenchman, or even a gay Japanese than to straight Americans.
Traditionally, the core of a nation is defined by the majority.The core meaning of Russia is defined by Russians. The core meaning of Greece is defined by Greeks. The core meaning of China is defined by the Chinese. Jews, as elites in the West, cannot accept such view of core values and core meanings. They dare not declare themselves the Core of the West as that may draw too much attention to the fact that the West is now owned and controlled by Jews. Besides, even for philosemites, the sight of Jews openly declaring themselves as the core meaning of Western Civilization might seem off-putting as chutzpah gone bonkers. (On the other hand, Jews brazenly erect giant Hannukah candles next to the White House every year.)
Jews make a big deal about Jewish victim-hood and Jewish contributions--in order to make white gentiles feel that they owe just about everything to Jews out of guilt and gratitude--, but they prefer to hide their power.
And naturally, Jews seek to suppress any core meaning of the West as defined by nationalism of their majority population. Nationalism of the majority is only allowed in Israel for obvious reasons: Jews are the governing majority there. Thus, Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, but Western nations don't have a right to preserve their respective core identities and values.
And so, Jews have hastened the rise of decadence to uproot Western peoples from their core foundations. Europeans are no longer allowed to see their own nations as their motherlands. Instead, their motherlands are now whorelands to be pimped out by Jews to Third World rapist-invaders. And white Americans are no longer allowed to see the nation they built as their daughterland. No, America is now a white trash whore, a porn star nation owned by Jews, that must spread her legs to huge and endless penetration from Third World mobs. Jews make a big deal about the Statue of Liberty, but they really see Lady Liberty as something like Marilyn Monroe or some shikse porn star owned by Jewish crooks. White American men vote one way while so many single white American women--and even married white American women--vote for the likes of Obama and welcome the demographic demise of their own people. They have no core identity or pride in whiteness. Indeed, even the new white male figure is someone like Bill Clinton, a worthless playboy who cheers on the demographic demise of his own race.
How might we understand the progression of decadence in any social order? Try visualizing a big tree. We think of trees as growing upwards, but in fact, trees grow in two ways. Upwards toward the sunlight and downwards into the dark soil. Because we judge by what we see, we focus on the upward growth of the branches and leaves while ignoring the just as important downward growth of the roots. Without the penetration of the roots deep into the ground, the tree will be knocked by gusts of wind. And without the roots, it won't be able to absorb moisture and nutrients. Of course, if an obstacle is placed above the tree, the tree will lack for sunlight and its growth will be distorted. A tree needs to be allowed to grow naturally and organically. There must be open air and open light.
But without the roots that dig ever deeper into the soil, the tree won't be able to absorb enough moisture and nutrients and it won't be anchored properly into the ground to maintain its form and structure against the elements such as winds, storms, and big animals.
Something all conservatives must know is that roots don't remain static. Just as the trunk and branches grow ever upward, the roots constantly dig deeper/wider into the ground. In other words, conservatism mustn't be content with a handful of received conventional truths. It too must keep growing, digging deeper into the past to learn the lessons of history. More the living roots of conservatism digs into the ground, more truths it will discover to learn from and preserve for lessons for the future. Conservatism mustn't only be about maintaining what we already know here-and-now but recovering more knowledge, facts, lessons, and truth from the past. Given the nature of conservatism, one would think conservatives would at least control the history departments, but even memory and history are dominated by liberals and leftists. This is the real failure of conservatism. While one can understand why liberals have dominated creativity and intellectualism given liberalism's penchant and fetish for new ideas and expressions, it's not so easy to understand why conservatives have demonstrated so little commitment to history--at least in the present, as there used to many notable conservative historians in the past. Of course, many conservatives do read history books and show an interest in the field, but the laid-back approach of the reader is no match for the active commitment of the researcher. A reader of history is content to receive history lessons from those who write history books and make historical movies. A researcher of history digs deep into the soil to recover/uncover more and more about the past; most of all, he has the power to shape historical memory in the way he desires.
Unfortunately, conservative culture, especially in America, has settled on uncritical acceptance of pat truisms and conventional knowledge. American conservatism is like roots that refuse to grow, refuse to dig deeper into the soil lest it find things that might upset its simple-minded view of the past and the world. Such fear and trepidation are certainly understandable. After all, mythic conservatism isn't the same as intellectual conservatism. All peoples and cultures have their founding or shared myths that symbolically and morally simplify and justify the deeds of their ancestors. The more you look at 'what really happened', the more disturbing and ambiguous the truth is likely to be. Consider John Ford's THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. There is the comforting myth of how Liberty Valance was killed, and the real revelation of how he was killed. The local newspaper editor says, "When legend becomes fact, print the legend." Most people naturally prefer myths to truth, and this is actually no less different on the Left. Think of the iconography and cult of personality of Lenin in the Soviet Union. Think of the cult of MLK in America. The thuggish Negro has been elevated to the status of the messiah. Indeed, in some ways, MLK is bigger than even God as blaspheming God won't hurt your career in elite circles whereas even a mild criticism of MLK will likely end it.
In some ways, one might say the Left is even more fervently into 'irrational' mythmaking since they feel compelled to create unifying myths to justify radical change. Since their newly minted myths lack the power of long-standing tradition, they must be promoted and disseminated with an extra dose of hysteria. Old gods/myths have the weight of history and tradition on their side, whereas new gods/myths have the flames of hysteria on their side. And despite all their talk of 'reason' and 'science', leftists and liberals have long known that the quickest and easiest way to win over the masses is by appealing to their irrational emotions. Robespierre failed in his arch-puritanical commitment to cold reason. It was Napoleon who succeeded by playing the role of god-emperor of the Revolution as the mythic destiny of mankind. Though liberals love to argue that evil fascism reversed the trajectory of Reason birthed by the Enlightenment, the fact is long before the first Fascist ever arrived on the scene, the devious Left was working to perfect the art/science of manipulating the irrational emotions of the masses in their study and application of marketing, propaganda, psychology, and entertainment. (Not for nothing did Lenin recognize cinema as the most important propaganda tool of the Revolution, and not for nothing did Mussolini arise from the Left and not for nothing did the Nazis borrow a fair amount of ideas and images--especially the powerful color of red--from the Communists.) The main difference between fascists and leftists was the former were honest enough to admit how modern mass politics worked and how they were gonna go about manipulating it. Liberals and leftists used the same methods to appeal to the 'irrational' side of man but maintained the facade of championing Reason against irrationality. In a way, the liberal/leftist argument of fighting on the side of Reason was part of its manipulation of irrational emotions. Only the masses incapable of real reason would fall for the conceit that the Left was really committed to reason. The cult of Reason was never the same thing as real reason.
If the Left--especially the Jewish Left, which is the most powerful Left there is--was really committed to truth and real reason, it would accept the reality of racial and genetic differences. It would examine and expose the Jewish role in communist mass murder and destruction of culture in Russia. It would look into the reality of Jewish power in America and the West and discuss how Jews use their superior intelligence and tribal networking to expand their power. But we don't hear anything about this. Foxmanism, the McCarthyism of Jewish Power, has banished even Democrats like Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez to the winds because they dared to speak truth to Jewish power. Jewish bankers on Wall Street have been allowed to get away with murder thanks to the power of Jewish-controlled media and Jewish-controlled government that gave them cover and protection. Israel is forgiven all its crimes while 'enemies of Israel' are targeted for destruction by American politicians and military men who are all whores of Zionists. Jewish power is so extensive and powerful, yet Jews use all sorts of means to browbeat anyone who dares to discuss it. Jews push buttons on 'irrational' emotions of gentiles to send a message that anyone who applies real reason to Jewish power will be shunned, shamed, and destroyed by the powers-that-be.
Stephen J. Gould was a liar and a fraud, but the so-called 'rational' and 'scientific' community promoted his 'findings' and ideas as the unquestionable truth. And what can we say about Obama winning a Nobel Prize for having done nothing? But then, he won the presidency in 2008 without having accomplished anything in life. He was appealing to masses of dummies and suckers because the Jewish-controlled media pushed all sorts of irrational buttons among voters--especially the gullible young--that fooled them into believing that some mulatto punk from Hawaii was a 'man of destiny'. So, the conceit of rationalism among many liberals and leftists is just that: a conceit.
Similarly, even though rich liberal millionaires and billionaires practice a form of Ayn-Randism to rise higher than everyone else, they dare not admit that they are Randians but put forth the image of themselves as 'compassionate do-gooders'. It too is just a conceit to fool the dumb masses. Why make a big stink of one's greed, privilege, and power, and draw the resentful attention of the masses. Only a dumb shikse like Paris Hilton does that. Your ambitious high-IQ liberal is likely to be many times more ruthless and ambitious in business and any competitive endeavor than your average conservative, but liberals cleverly hide their true nature by maintaining the facade of 'caring', which, one must admit, is a pretty effective way to morally justify one's success, wealth, power, and/or privilege. This way, rich liberals can have the cake and eat it too. Rise above others and live like kings and queens but convince all the suckers that your success is really for the good of rest of mankind since you're such a wonderful caring liberal.
I wouldn't be surprised if all those Harvard-educated Wall Streets experts told themselves just that when they devised financial instruments that could facilitate both more 'fair and democratic' lending practices(especially for minorities) and increase the profits for those making the loans(and then selling those loans to other banks who then sliced them up, stamped them grade AAA, and marketed them all around the world to yet more suckers).
We now live in a social order where the roots have been severed from the tree. An ideal society is neither conservative or liberal. It is too simple to see everything in terms of either/or or this vs that. It often makes more sense to see see things in terms of AND than in terms of VERSUS. Fascism made more sense than Marxism for it understood the need for both capitalism and socialism, both traditional culture and modernity.
Ideally, we need both conservatism and liberalism, with conservatism as the roots that dig deeper into the soil and liberalism as the branches and leaves that reach for the wind and light. The trunk serves as the bridge between two realms. Though branches and leaves reach for the sky, they would have no stature and life without the roots that transmit moisture and nutrients and moor the tree firmly into the ground.
The branches and leaves, aiming for the sky, may resent the roots for keeping the tree 'stuck' or 'trapped' in its place. Instead of seeing this as a necessity, the branches and leaves may foolishly see the roots as a hindrance. But if the tree is cut off its from its roots, can it fly free and live? Or will it fall, decay, and die? Civilization is not a bird that can just fly and wander freely as it chooses. It is more like a tree. It needs to grow and strive upward, but there can be no future without roots in the past. There can be no upward movement without a firm foundation. For most of American history, the white majority and Anglo/Western values, pride, and identity were the roots and the core binding symbols and principles. Now that it's fading away--and with so many whites having been uprooted and divorced from their own identity and history--, America now remains as a shaky tree. A tree anchored by its roots to its proper place could not come up with something so silly as 'gay marriage' or the notion of 'undocumented immigrants'. Those are signs of decadence promoted by the Jewish media as 'progress'. The branches and leaves may keep growing for a while but a tree with such shaky foundation is bound to fall, and perhaps, we should hasten its fall. It may well be that the American Tree as it stands cannot be saved. Perhaps, only by its fall can new shoots arise from the ground that will grow into a healthy tree. And in the growth of that tree, whites must make sure that the gardener is not the devious Jew who, by habit, eats the fruits but kills the roots.
It's all very ironic. Jews spew endless hatred and invective against white conservative Wasp America, but without Wasp foundations, there never would have been an America in which Jews could have found so much freedom, opportunities, wealth, and power. Indeed, suppose if all those European Jews, instead of having emigrated to Wasp-created America, had moved to black Africa, yellow Asia, the Middle East, or Mexico run by its utterly corrupt Hispanic elite. What would Jews have accomplished in that kind of cultural and political climate? And what became of Jews in the Jewish-founded Soviet Union? Even radical leftist Jews found more power and freedom in Wasp-made America than in leftist-Jewish-made USSR. Yet, there is no sense of gratitude, no appreciation on the part of Jews. Jews, in their maniacal arrogance and chutzpah, call for the death of White America. But what would Jews be without the protection of white power?
The important thing for all white Americans to remember is that Jews waged a hateful war on White America, and Jews are gleefully celebrating the death of your grandparents and your parents. At the very least, white Americans should finally wake up and realize that Jews have always been their main enemies.