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.
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."
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment