Americanism

[Lorikeet]

Picture4.jpg (4.84 KiB) Viewed 623 times

[Lorikeet]

Describing the flu and its methods, does not imply the extermination of the flu virus.....
If nothing else, diseases keep a herd healthy because they infect and gradually eradicate the weak, and the vulnerable.

Empires rise and fall....and this one is no different.
The cycles are predictable.
Disease infects the old as they descend towards death.
Viruses that were not problematic become life-threatening.

[Lorikeet]

Describing a situation necessitates no taking-sides.... for this would corrupt the objective analysis with subjective motives.

History repeats.... but never in exactly the same way.
Why?
Because humans are resistant to acknowledge personal culpability so they repeat the same behaviours believing a different outcome will ensue.
They rarely question their own ideals and behaviours and "indubitable truths", so they never willingly change.

[Will Bouwman]

History repeats.... but ever in exactly the same way.

Doesn't it? Hello again.

[Lorikeet]

In his Commentary essay, ‘Americanism—and Its Enemies,’ Yale Professor David Gelernter says that ‘Americanism’ itself—at least as defined by Gelernter and his fellow Zionists—is no more than a modern-day evolution of old-line Zionist thought, going back to the Bible itself. America, he contends, is essentially the new Israel, The New Jerusalem, a virtual adjunct of the State of Israel itself.
---
That Gelernter’s proposition was put forth in Commentary—long-edited by neo-conservative ‘ex-Trotskyite’ Norman Podhoretz, who still remains the power-behind-the-scenes at the journal—means quite a lot. Generally recognized as one of the foremost media influences directing U.S. foreign policy in the Bush administration, Commentary is certainly one of the leading—and hardline—voices of Zionism, not only in America, but worldwide.
---
As we now see, today’s Trotskyites—now the leaders of Zionism—are realists and opportunists, if nothing else. As such, they have retooled their mechanism for global rule and have adapted it for their particular needs during the 21st century, to the point that they have even drafted a born again, messianic-minded gun-toting cowboy with a Texas twang as their chief public spokesman. And, in fact, he’s developed quite a cult following.
---
While his essay was published before Bush’s inaugural address was publicly delivered—although it had already been privately concocted in the hands of Gelernter’s Zionist associates—Gelernter contends that what today is the Sharansky-Bush point of view goes back, in American historical terms, to the days of the Puritan and Pilgrim founding fathers. Noting that ‘Puritans spoke of themselves as God’s new chosen people, living in God’s new promised land—in short, as God’s new Israel,’ Gelernter asserts that ‘Many thinkers have noted that Americanism is inspired by or close to or intertwined with Puritanism,’ noting that ‘one of the most impressive scholars to say so recently is Samuel Huntington, in his formidable book on American identity, Who Are We?’
In any case, Gelernter says that the Puritanism of Huntington’s chosen type is the real foundation of America. He writes:

Puritanism did not merely inspire or influence Americanism, it turned into Americanism. . . . You cannot really understand the Pilgrims, or Puritans in general, unless you know the Hebrew Bible and classical Jewish history; knowing Judaism itself also helps. . . Early exponents of Americanism tended to define even their own Christianity in ways that make it sound like Judaism.

Suggesting that those whom he calls ‘the theologians of Americanism’ understood that freedom, equality and democracy were not just philosophical ideas but ‘the word of God,’ Gelernter concludes that the consequence is ‘the fervor and passion with which Americans believe their creed.’ Gelernter says that creed is that ‘Americans, virtually alone in the world, insist that freedom, equality, and democracy are right not only for France and Spain but for Afghanistan and Iraq.’
Here Gelernter begins to spin his particular theme that Zionism is integral to and inseparable from what he says is ‘Americanism’:

To sum up Americanism’s creed as far as freedom, equality, and democracy for all is to state only half the case. The other half deals with a promised land, a chosen people, and a universal, divinely ordained mission. This part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short, American Zionism.

Purporting that ‘Americanism’ (as he defines it) is ‘American Zionism’— the idea that America is also a Zionist ‘promised land’ that is as one with the state of Israel and traditional Jewish Zionism itself, Gelernter is suggesting that both Israel and America are Jewish states. He goes even further:
‘Classical Israel’s (and classical Zionism’s) contribution to Americanism is incalculable. No modern historian or thinker I am aware of. . . has done justice to this extraordinary fact. They seem to have forgotten what the eminent 19th century Irish historian William Lecky recognized: that ‘Hebraic mortar cemented the foundations of American democracy.’ And even Lecky, I suspect, did not grasp the full extent of this truth. Unless we do grasp it, we can never fully understand Americanism—or anti-Americanism.
In short, Gelernter is avowing that ‘anti-Americanism’ is nothing more (or nothing less) than opposition to the Zionist theology that he contends played such a considerable role as the ‘mortar’ that ‘cemented the foundations of American democracy.’ Then, Gelernter moves forward, applying his bizarre theory to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. In the same spirit in which The Washington Post on January 21, 2005 declared President Bush’s global view to be ‘more Wilsonian than conservative,’ Gelernter asserts:

[Woodrow] Wilson stands right at the center of classical Americanism. No president spoke the language of Bible and divine mission more lucidly . . . During Wilson’s administration, Americanism accomplished a fundamental transition. It had always included the idea of divine mission. But what was the mission? Until the closing of the frontier in the last decade of the 19th century, the mission was to populate the continent.
With the frontier closed, the mission became ‘Americanism for the whole world.

---
Thus, in the end, the thesis put forth in The New Jerusalem—that the Zionists have laid claim to America as their New Jerusalem—is not some horrific and hate-filled ‘anti-Jewish conspiracy theory.’
In fact, according to the Zionists themselves, the concept that America is The New Jerusalem is the very foundation of Zionism in the 21st century. That conclusion is inescapable.
[The New Jerusalem – Zionist Power in America]

[Lorikeet]

No one would seriously dispute that global capitalism – as polycentric as its structure might be – favours certain places, countries and populations. The United States of America is undoubtedly one of its preferred regions, not to say its main residence. It is the country in the modern that, more than any other, has given itself the constitution of a comfort sphere. One could almost say that in the case of the USA, the crystal palace presents itself as an immigration country. In keeping with this, most of its inhabitants have developed an inclination to view themselves not merely as agents of an economic system, but as carriers of a motivation that has long borne an irresistible name: the American Dream. Its basic definition includes the postulation that the number of its definitions is virtually as high as the number of the country's inhabitants. If one reduces all the dreams dreamt on American soil about the meaning of existence in that country to their essentials, however, one will probably be left with no more than three irreducible motifs.
The first consists in the proposition that the USA is essentially the country where, in contrast to the numerous lethargocracies in the rest of the world, anyone who wants to do something new can do something new. Among the constitutional rights of US citizens, one outstanding element is the expectation of finding at all times a space favourably disposed towards advances and initiatives. One could call this the right to the West, in a more than solely geographical sense, as ‘the West’ – as we saw in the reflections above – is a symbol of impunity in the unilateral penetration of unexplored areas. Once they may have been called Wyoming and California; today they are genetic research, nanotechnology, the colonization of Mars or artificial life.
The second characteristic is tied to the term ‘choseness’ – a word that moves through a multi-coloured spectrum of meanings, starting with the notion that it is the most natural thing in the world to be at the top in all respects and extending to the rarely voiced, but widely palpable idea that the deep purpose of this country is to be the venue for the Protestant outdoing of the Jewish exception. Choseness is the Anglo-American declination of the subjectivity invented in continental Europe; it means that transatlantic being-subject denotes the possibility of being called from the midst of normal, non-moved life to be the agent of an intimately felt mission. Choseness is the American password for the disinhibition of action and appearance on the world stage. Consequently the mission statement, the project creed, constitutes America's original contribution to the list of speech acts. The linguistic side of Americanism is expressed not only in the frequently derided superlatives of which the natives make such ample use; its most binding form is in the verbal gestures with which citizens of the United States pledge their ‘commitments’. The oft-glossed religiosity of Americans, a source of bafflement to Europeans, very frequently implies the strongly pre-Christian notion – reformulated with great criminal energy by Calvin – that God is with the victors, whatever the angelic pipes of the New Testament might sing and say about the preference of the Almighty for the weak.
The third and final attribute is connected to the psychodynamic social contract of the USA, which ensures the everlasting precedence of manias over depressions. One manifestation of this is the code of optimism that visitors from Europe find so cheering, albeit often baffling, and which constitutes the true national language (although self-critical idioms, even an indigenous version of negativism, can also be found). This gives rise to the zestful habit among ordinary Americans of formulating problems as challenges. The spontaneous consequence of this is that obstacles are met with programmes for eliminating them. Nowhere else in the world would it be conceivable that an initiative to intensify cancer research and other medical projects could take the external form of an appeal to increase the defence budget, as could be read in the New York Times of 3 May 1998: as defeat in the battle against previously unvanquished diseases is fundamentally un-American, the war against devious causes of death must be waged using the ‘whole will of our nation’. (One can assume that echoes of the ‘war on poverty’ from the New Deal era influenced this language game.) The war against the invisible after 9/11 also had a much-noted, muddled second front, for it is equally un-American to be vulnerable to untraceable terrorists. The national mobilizations against illness and hidden enemies are direct products of an implicit manic amendment stating that no citizen of the United States should be expected to accept the existence of an internal or external reason for depression. US citizens profit from an additional human right that demands a subordination of discouraging affects to high spirits, and endorses the elimination of the causes for discouragement by any means.
Anyone living in the USA will always enjoy the support of their cultural environment in consistently thinking away and clearing away all impediments to exhilaration. This leads to a collective habitus of forced emotional accounting fraud, as no one wants to be in the red in the balance of high and low. When connoisseurs of the scene stated after the Enron scandal that it was merely the tip of an iceberg of monstrous proportions, this may have been true in the realm of dollar transactions; but one should not overlook how far the dollar is itself based on an emotional economy where the entire motivation system is pervaded by the concealment of reasons for depression and the sugar-coated falsification of assets.
If one brings together these three primary characteristics, one reaches the following assessment: in its psycho-political design, the United States of America is the country of actually existing escapism. The home of every kind of escapee, it primarily harbours people who, faced with the hopelessness of their previous home situation, migrated to a wide space of second chances. An asylum for countless desperate and shipwrecked individuals, it took up many of the refugees who managed to save themselves from the floods of world history. An immigration country for unbound surplus drives, it offers a field of action most of all to those who believe in the precedence of initiative over inhibitions. As the Shining City on the Hill, it shows an endless crowd of emissaries from the gloomy yonder a plain wide enough to provide all enthusiasms with the right to settle and promulgate at a safe distance from one another. If one had to articulate the radiance and the paradox of the United States in a single sentence, it would be this: it allowed the forces of ‘history’ to withdraw from ‘history.’ A further sentence then explains the current temptation: the forces that have escaped ‘history’ are now in the process of rediscovering ‘history’ for themselves.
America's globally radiating charm thus comes from the psycho-political constitution of its ‘society’. From the eighteenth century to the present day, the inhabitants of the ‘States’ have succeeded in producing a non-Leibnizian version of optimism that could be repeatedly updated. Following this model, the given world can be considered the best, provided it looks sufficiently perfect from Ellis Island to be perfected infinitely in additional ways. This positioning on thoroughly positive ground is often taken for naïveté; in truth, it is a reformulation of the meaning of being from the perspective of participating in its improvement. This does not imply scaling optimism down to meliorism, as some America-friendly Europeans believe, but rather ramping optimism up to over-optimism. This permits the historically unprecedented combination of harsh realism and boundless irreverence towards the real – prefigured, if anywhere, from a distance in the staid religiosity of the ancient Romans, who managed to reconcile sentimental reverence towards origin with mechanical cruelty in present-day matters. The imperial Romans too were able to bow their heads before a higher power before returning seamlessly to the everyday business of repression. That is why Benedict of Nursia found the most effective instruction for the New Human Being of a post-Roman Europe when he replaced the ‘worship and kill’ of Romanism with the ‘pray and work’ of Christian monastic civility.
One understands, then, why the philosophical and psycho-political dictates of the American way of life produce the most perfect manifestation of a post-historical mode of existence. While the Europeans (like the Japanese, the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians and some others along with them) only entered the world of post-historical conditions step by step over the last fifty years as new arrivals, the Americans can be considered veterans of post-history owing to their special path. For them, the news of the end of ‘history’ lost its novelty long ago. For them, the liberation from old scripts took place as soon as their country was founded. The American ‘Revolution’ took place at the same time as the Declaration of Independence, which abandoned not so much the English motherland as the entire system of Old European measurements, weights and prejudices about the burden of the world. The term ‘revolution,’ when meant politically and connected to the future, thus smacks of pointless excitement to Americans – as if one expected them to wage the war they won against the British Crown two hundred years ago all over again.
The only liberation movement that still has meaning for Americans is that in which one attempts to break free from the personal relics of historical life, one's origins in one's own family: every individual can repeat the secession from history in private by liberating the inner child from the dominance of the parental world. The immeasurable expanse of the American therapy landscapes testifies to the resolute rejection by the country's population of all that was once oppressive external reality. One should not forget that the ultimate aim of the liberation of the inner American child is the victor created before all time – the victor who enters the stage today with the features of a victim. Needless to say, the countless child-selves of the therapeutic archipelago known as the USA still embody the strongest bastion of post-history. Just as the immigrants could only become true Americans at the cost of leaving behind the identities they had brought with them, their descendants are now also liquidating the mental rubble that was brought to the New World from the inner worlds of yesterday. American therapy consists in converting historical fracture into post-historical self-reliance.
Naturally the concept of work also lost its Old European meaning in the USA: it refers not simply to the participation in transforming material into a higher-value product through invested energy – until, at the vanishing point of value creation, workers emancipate themselves from work as such. American work is a performance whose meaning is to show how the subject can proceed from the abundance of opportunities to the superabundance of success. Where else would it be conceivable for people to move to the South and slave away even more than in their previous homes? And where else could people in an officially egalitarian culture look upon the increasingly gaping chasm between rich and poor with such equanimity? The relaxed shamelessness of the American oligarchy proves how far the coronas that surround every success in that country are perceived by the great majority of Americans as emanations of their own faith. In the meritocratic climate, even the exaggeratedly remunerated achievements of others serve to prove the validity of the shared dream. Hence the absence, so enviable for Europeans, of ressentiments towards those who have made it.
In the light of all this, one can understand why the figures are always deceptive when dealing with the United States of America. According to its deep economy, the land needs no balances. It lives in a world above numbers, for it never moves from a given value to a higher one, as in trivial growth, but rather from perfection to over-perfection. It is only when viewed superficially that the United States, like every nation in the capitalist system, depends on constant economic and demographic growth. It is not the economic figures that prove its greatness; on the contrary, its greatness radiates the figures. The thorn in the side of the great escapist nation, however, is the fact that the USA has no longer had what today's patriots call ‘energy independence’ since the end of the Second World War. Since the encounter between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud aboard the USS Quincy near the Suez Canal (a few days before the Yalta Conference in February 1945), the strategic alliance between the earth's two great poles of escapism has become one of the constants of recent world politics. From that moment on, the narcissistic escapism of the USA was firmly tied to the narcotic escapism of the Arab rentier states. Because of its strong dependence on petroleum imports from the regions around the Persian Gulf, the American exception thus remains at the mercy of external circumstances in humiliating fashion – the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the USA would take all steps to maintain control over the Gulf’s resources, puts this entanglement in a nutshell. It is not surprising, then, that the ugliness of the historical world trickled into the interior of the American sphere of idealization through this realistic bond.
In the light of current events, it is apparent how, at the pinnacle of the unfolding of its power, the most thoroughly post-historically constituted country in the world is seized by the temptation to intervene in ‘history’ once again – this time not only in the role of the referee, however, who steps out of his reserve for short moments to settle the undignified quarrels between historical powers. The present American incursion into world events shows the hallmarks of a comprehensive restoration: it implies the transformation of the USA back into a historical power, which is inconceivable without the reinterpretation of the world as a scene where historical events are still, or once more, taking place. ‘History,’ however – as explained above – is the successful phase of the unilateral style of action.
[In the World Interior of Capitalism]

[Lorikeet]

What Homo Americanus (Globo-Homo) learned from the Jews, was how to yield power by pretending to be innocent victims; dominate the powerless by claiming to be victimized by their envy and ‘irrational hate’; build power by manipulating the powerless.
What Homo Americanus was taught was how to dismiss all earthly authorities so as to then claim that its dominion possessed divine sanction, its violence indorsed by god, or fated by universal order; it learned how to be messianic, mustering the feebleness of the masses and their superstitions.

[mickthinks]

Erudite bigotry is still just bigotry.

[Lorikeet]

Erudite bigotry is still just bigotry.

And trite commentary is still, just, trite.

[Lorikeet]

Industry of Lies = Hollywood
Science of Lies = Marketing
Empire of Lies = America

Meritocracy of liars.
He who dupes the most is celebrated - rewarded with collective approval = money.

Money is its secularized Messiah.
With money an individual hopes he can transcend his genetic impoverishments: buy himself the required pretences, affirming his rebirth.

In Christianity this rebirth was narrated in the story of Christ, who sacrifices his corporeal being to be reborn as pure ideal.
In Americanism the saviour role (liberty) is replaced by money.
Money represents divine approval = collective approval represented by money.
The one 'saved' can now reinvent himself/herself - the myth of the self-made man.
This is what transsexuality is.... men with no money demanding the right to reinvent themselves, as if they were wealthy - acknowledged by the collective, so as to live out their fantasy lives.

God = humanity; Humanity = God.
How does god show approval? Through money....purchasing the other's "brand".
American individualism is about fabricating a marketable 'brand.'

All natural identifiers are to be rejected, because they inhibit creativity.
Race/Ethnicity, Sex/Gender, Culture, Morality....anything that cannot be sold on Americanism's open markets is denies relevance.
All are "social constructs"....meaning they are fashions, products, to be bought and sold - recycled and resold again.

This is the Global model they wanted to impose on the entire world, until they faced resistance.
Americanism is Globalism
The American model - Messianism - cannot tolerate any alternate model.

[Lorikeet]

u.jpg (51.09 KiB) Viewed 220 times

[promethean75]

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxCyInmYMd-q ... tD_LVwYRxN

[Lorikeet]

Americanism is an experiment gone wrong.
It's geography and historical events, promoted its rise to power. Its methods of altering British colonialism with new ways of manipulating and exploiting the world natural and human resources was its greatest innovation.
As long as it did not practice what it preached it could maintain its power through the all-encomassing abstraction of 'liberty', but as power wanes the lies it was founded upon begin to accelerate the process of its collapse.

Liberty from old-Wordl hierarchies and nature itself - nature being the sum of all past nurturing.
It secularized Abrahamism's salvation mythos, seducing the world's feeble, desperate, masses, looking for a way out of their existential and social predicaments.

Being forced to change their immigration policies in the 60's, based on the presumptuous lie that human populations are interchangeable, they were forced to lvie-up to the lies they had been propagating for decades, via Hollywood and its Media dominance.
This was the beginning of its end, since it will test the lie they used to fabricate cohesion among its ethnically/racially and culturally heterogenous populations.
We are in the midst of the consequences of this lie.

A uniparty system pretending to be democratic, selling itself as the model all the world should emulate.
Its meritocracy was only applicable up to a certain point. To rise higher one had to prove loyalty to the prevailing elites - what has been referred to as 'selling your soul to the devil to attain fame & fortune and all the hedonistic rewards this privilege entailed.'

Quote - Vidal, Gore (7).jpg (26.28 KiB) Viewed 146 times

[Lorikeet]

What if Mass Migration Caused the Fall of Rome?

Is diversity a strength?
In nature diversity is a advantage due to fluctuating environmental circusmtnaces.....but what of environments which are manmade, guided by an ideal?
If a breeder of dogs wanted to breed a type of dog with specific traits.... would he indiscriminately diversify?

Is the US a society that promotes diversity or the opposite?
It denies biodiversity, when it comes to one species......it tolerates no diversity there.
All must be miscegenated in its melting pot.
What of culture?
Does it truly tolerate diverse cultures with their own ideals, or does it convert them all to fashions, or product in its marketplace?
Does the US tolerate systems using different ideals, different ethical standards, or does it insist all must adopt its model?

What of tis political system....how many parties does it have?
Is this diversity?
Other systems with 1/10 the US's population have ten times more political options?

What exactly does Americanism actually mean by "diversity''?
Diversity of cuisines and products?
Diversity of sexual practices and lifestyles, if they do not threaten its underlying uniformity?
Musical diversity?

No actual diversity.
Superficial diversity.
It destroys diversity replacing it with the pretence, the image of divergence.

[accelafine]

Who would choose such a creepy avatar?