What if the Terms of Globalism could be determined by the National Folks than by the Greedy Elites? — Do Winged Monkeys favor Winged Monkeys of Other Tribes or Grounded Monkeys of their own Tribe? — Nationalism as Goldilocks Rule of Soundest Way of Governance and Consensus

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-mitt-romney-supports-the-status-quo-but-for-everyone-else-its-infuriating

In Tucker Carlson's monologue, he mentions Mitt Romney and his role at Bane Financial. Romney's job was to maximize the profits for the upper echelon by making the bottom fall out for the masses of lower-level workers. Globalism comes with a price. It has its sacrificial lambs. It's not win-win for everyone. Given the costs of globalism, why do the elites promote it? Don't they fear losing out? No, they don't. Why would they harbor such fears when it is THEY THEMSELVES who get to call the shots on how globalism shall transform and remake the world? They are obviously going to rig the project so that THEY get the lion's share of the globo-meat while everyone else gets bones and scraps ground into worthless sausage. So, when the globo-cow is slaughtered, the prime rib and filet mignon go to the likes of Romney and the bigger sharks whom he serves. They don't pay the costs of globalism. If anything, they reap the biggest rewards of globalism while everyone from middle class to below not only get less but bear most of the costs.

Now, would people like Romney support globalism if WE ORDINARY FOLKS got to rig the program in such a way that people like us reap most of the rewards while people like Romney have to bear most of the cost? Of course not.
Now, in a hypothetical world of noble-minded people, those with power & privilege would think in terms of the Common Good and arrange things so that the sacrifices are shared by all sectors of society(and rewards are shared likewise too). But the sort of people who rise to the top are generally not the most ethical and morally inspired. Things are even worse because the most powerful people, the Jewish elites, tend to see the goy masses as the potential enemy than fellow brethren.
But even white elites are also useless in a deracinated world that denigrates nationalism. Nationalism applies pressure on the elites to see fellow countrymen as national brethren. This is even truer if nationalism is combined with race-ism. There was an especially strong bond between white elites and white masses in past America & past Europe because both the elites and the masses were of the same race(and even ethnicity). Still, even as Americanism dropped race-ism, there was still nationalism to maintain the semblance of unity of American elites with American masses. But globalism did away with nationalism as well, and that means that the elites, as globo-homo 'citizens of the world', feel no special bond, affinity, or sense of obligation to the American People.
And history and heritage no longer matter. Who cares if your people have relatively deeper roots in America? Globalism says your kind is no more American than the latest immigrant-invaders who just got off the boat or plane. Indeed, the globo-homo elites even idealize people who haven't even left their own nations(for America) as More-American-than-American. So, if there are millions of Muslims, Africans, Asians, and Meso-Americans who dream of coming to the US, they are more deserving of the attention(and adoration) from the globo-homo elites than already-existing Americans are. Indeed, having roots in America makes you 'less American' according to the globo-homo formula. Especially if you're white, having historical roots in America means your blood is tainted with 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. So, your roots are not a point of pride but shame and guilt. So, your kind is even less deserving of status as American citizens than the newcomers who come 'guilt-free' as blank-slate Americans on whom the globo-homo script can be inscribed(and enshrined). (And yet, the call for the World to come to the US implies a supremacist mindset that the America is better than the rest of the world. Why else would globalists tell non-whites in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Middle East to drop whatever they're doing and permanently depart from their own homelands, cultures, and peoples to become 'Americans' and start all over in the New World? It's a strange contradiction. On the one hand, the history of America is said to be evil and ugly. And yet, for some reason, all that evil and ugliness created such a great and wonderful nation[that is superior to all] that peoples all over the world should reject their own nations, peoples, and cultures to come to America to become New Americans.) Of course, historical guilt is dumped only on white goyim -- never mind that Jewish immigrants also took part in slave trade, benefited from 'white privilege', and participated in the 'genocide' of the Indians. Blacks and American Indians are allowed to feel moral pride on the basis of their roots in American History. But even that does little to protect them from endless waves of immigration-invasion. Blacks with American roots are not favored over new African immigrants whose ancestors had captured and sold blacks into bondage in the era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. And the Indians have NO SAY in whether further immigration-invasion is a good thing. Even as PC pretends to care about indigenous peoples and cultures, it totally ignores the fact that mass-immigration and ensuing Diversity did much to wipe out the indigenous peoples and cultures.
At this point in history, most Jewish-Americans have considerable roots in America that goes back at least 100 yrs or more. They too have become Historical-Americans, but the cultist nostalgia about Ellis Island forever tags Jews as 'Immigrant-Americans', indeed as if they 'spiritually' get off the boat every year as dreamy-eyed newcomers. Jews act as if fresh immigrant-invaders keeping alive the Jewish Dream of Immigration. (It's similar to how every new generation of Jews get to 'larp' as the eternal race of Holocaust Survivors.) Given the fact of established Jewish History in America, one would think that Jews would identify more with Historic America than with America Reinvented. But the truth is, during all their time in America, most Jews never connected with White Christian America. Jews learned the language, ate the foods, appreciated the arts, and traded with goyim, BUT they never bonded with goyim as fellow brethren. When Christians say 'Judeo-Christian', it is in the hope that Jews will consider Christians as fellow countrymen. When Jews say 'Judeo-Christian', it is to dupe naive white Christians into believing that "Israel is America's greatest ally" when, if anything, Jews themselves do not and will never regard white Christians as fellow brethren.

In the end, we must ask WHO gets to decide the terms of the New Policy or New Order? While, theoretically speaking, those who get to decide may be noble-minded, generous, & even self-sacrificing and mindful of the common good than the matter of "What's in it for me?", the chances are that those placed in positions to decide who-gets-what will favor themselves, their friends and relatives, and their social circles than anyone else.
Take any company that must restructure. Who gets to decide? The masses of low-level workers? No, those at the top get to decide. And invariably, the decisions favor the top executives and biggest shareholders than the masses of laborers and the little guys. Before anyone at the top loses his gig(often with super-lavish golden parachutes), thousands of workers(and their benefits and pensions) are sacrificed first. Globalism is like a sinking ship where the captain and upper crew are either the first ones to get on lifeboats or the last ones to go down with the ship. It's like DOWNFALL, the film about the last days of Hitler's regime. Hitler and his inner circle were the last to go down. To the very end, they were partying and dancing while millions of Germans had already perished or been raped.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about the elites not having 'skin in the game', but even those with skin in the game get bled or burnt last. By the time they pay the price, the little guys have been wiped out already(and far more brutally).



Hypothetically, how would the elites react IF populists were to gain control of globalism and rig the terms to serve their own mass interests at the expense of the elites? Suppose the populists decide to replace the current elites with new elites from a global pool. Replace oligarchs like Adelson and Koch Brothers with more civic-minded business leaders. And replace the crooks and goons of the current Deep State with noble-minded managerial class from other nations. Furthermore, the crooks and goons are made to face the music and sent to prison or executed. The result might be a fairer and sounder nation ruled and governed by elites with some sense of decency. Such globalism might actually have mass-populist support. Of course, the current elites will do everything to oppose it. The reason why the current elites support globalism is they totally get to call the shots in how the game is played and who wins. Why would people like Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin, Koch Brothers, Warren Buffett, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Jeff Bezos, Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, Paul Ryan, and etc. oppose globalism when THEIR KIND gets to write the rule-book of who gets to hold the most cards and reap the most rewards?

Suppose there is a pantry with lots of donuts, cookies, and candies in a school with a 100 kids. Suppose 5 kids are put in charge of the pantry, and they get to decide who gets what. They naturally favor themselves and their closest friends while leaving only crumbs and stale bread for the other kids. Would the 5 kid and their closest inner circle complain about the arrangement? They might if they're ethical, but most people aren't. And the kind of people who shoot for the top are animated by something more than intelligence and talent. They have insatiable greed, egotism, and status-obsession, like that terrible bitch Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos. Maybe Hillary Clinton had some ideals as a young woman, but by the time she entered politics, the ONLY thing that mattered was power, prestige, and privilege. And maybe Mitt Romney had a bit of ethical streak as a Mormon missionary, but he just turned into an egotistical and narcissistic pig. These vile elites dream of replacing existing Americans with New Americans, but they would think twice about the globalist project if it were about replacing the Existing Elites with New Elites. Alas, the hoi polloi don't get to choose the terms and overall direction of globalism. The elites do.

Elites have wings and fly around the world to make deals to fatten themselves ever more. Most people are grounded and lack the mercurial means of the globalists. Over time, those with wings identify more with others with wings than with their own kind. Imagine there are five species of monkeys. Suppose 5% of monkeys of each species begin to sprout wings and fly around. As time passes, will these winged monkeys identify more with winged monkeys of other species or with the wingless grounded monkeys of their own species? Ideally, the winged monkeys of one species should use their special ability to gain advantage for all the monkeys of the tribe. So, the winged monkeys of Tribe A will use their power of flight to serve the grounded monkeys of Tribe A, and winged monkeys of Tribe B will use their power of flight to serve the grounded monkeys of Tribe B. And indeed, winged Jewish monkeys think and feel this way. Though Jewish globo-elites have tremendous wing power, they will not collaborate with winged goy monkeys to harm or destroy grounded Jewish monkeys in Israel or elsewhere. Rich globalist Jews care even for lower-income Orthodox Jews. Liberal Globalist Jews care for Jewish nationalists in Israel, many of whom are not rich by any means.
Jews understand that there are two meanings of Justice. The legal definition that involves redress for individual wrongs or grievances. So, if Bob committed a wrong against Bill, then Justice demands that Bob offer recompense to Bill. There is this concept of justice in the Old Testament, especially in regard to intra-tribal matters. So, if a Jewish individual wrongs another, there must be compensation or punishment. Eye for an eye. But the Torah deals with a grander concept of justice, the idea that, on some basic level, a people must struggle and strive as one. While society cannot do everything for everyone, all members of the Tribe must be assured a meaningful place in society as fellow brethren(and sistren). This is why Moses tries to save every Jew from Egypt. He doesn't think in terms of rich Jews or poor Jews, privileged Jews or ordinary Jews, smart Jews or dumb Jews. At the basic level, ALL Jews deserve to be free and make it to the Promised Land as part of the Covenant. This grander concept of Justice doesn't mean freebies for lazy bums. All members must struggle and strive as individuals. But, they are still part of a racial and/or cultural community, and all members must make sure that everyone, even the lowest member, is assured the basic necessities that make for dignified existence.
Neo-Fascism and Humanism allow for such concept of justice, whereas globo-libertarianism says it must be about Me and never We. Jewish globalists push libertarian mindset onto goy elites but reject it for their own Tribe. Goy Libertarianism means goy elites should only think of themselves(as successful or lucky individuals) and throw their own racial brethren to the ditch. In contrast, Jewish commitment to Tribal Justice means that even the richest Jew should care about the lowest Jew. If there are suffering Jews in some part of the world, the rich and powerful Jews should try to do something for them.
Now, it's understandable why goy elites are drawn to individualism and globo-libertarianism. It means more profits for themselves since they never have to think about and be dragged down by the collective good of their own folks. White Libertarian elites have no qualms about raking in more profits by sacrificing the well-being of fellow whites. They are addicted to more money. Now, since Jewish elites also love More Money, shouldn't they throw the Jewish masses under the bus as well? Won't Jewish elites make even more money by thinking only of Me than of the We? This is less a problem with Jewish elites because there are far fewer Jews in the world than goyim. Russian elites, Chinese elites, Iranian elites, and etc. have many more people whose well-being they have to consider than Jewish elites do about Jewish masses. After all, the entire population of Jews around the world is less than 15 million. Also, as many Jews are higher-achieving than goyim, they are less in need of socio-economic support. 50% of Jews in the US make $100,000 or more. Finally, Jewish Power is such that they can make goyim foot the bill for Israel and Jewish interests.
At any rate, we saw what happens to a goy nation when its elites are goaded into Libertarian Me-than-We mode in the Russia of the 1990s. Jewish globalists persuaded drunken fools like Boris Yeltsin into just turning Russia into one big casino-economy. While tens of millions of Russians fell into destitution, the oligarchs were raking in all the dough. Of course, the Jewish oligarchs still cared for fellow Jews. Even as they plundered the Russian economy, they made sure to favor and take care of their tribal brethren. In contrast, Russian oligarchs were told to just shut their hearts and minds to the suffering Russian masses. Vladimir Putin reversed some of that but nearly not enough as Russia still remains an oligarchic gangster-state.

In the current state in most Advanced Nations, the winged elite monkeys mainly identify with the winged elite monkeys of other nations than with their own grounded monkey kind. Of course, the tribalist cries of the grounded monkeys are heard by the winged monkeys, but the fact is the latter would rather fly around with winged monkeys of other tribes than be bound to the 'loser' wingless monkeys of their own kind.
What is to be done to drown out the national cries of the grounded monkeys? This is where the Sea Monkeys enter the picture. Via endless migrations of grounded-monkeys across the seas all over the world, every monkey realm loses its original tribal integrity and becomes so diverse that the national cry(to winged monkeys above) gets drowned out by an increasingly confusing and contradictory babel of monkey shrieks. To be heard by winged monkeys, the grounded monkeys must cry ever louder and louder, but as their cries turn into a cacophony of clashing sounds, the diversified grounded monkeys end up screaming at one another than making intelligible sounds that reach the elite realm. So, while the diversified grounded monkeys bicker and scream at one another, the upper-realm of flying monkeys are feeling free and having the time of their lives. Of course, there is ONE special tree that is reserved for grounded Jewish monkeys only, and their cries are heard and addressed by all the winged monkeys.

Now, white globalist-libertarian elites will claim to be about the Greater We than about the Me. They will mask their radical Me-centric libertarianism with Proggy rhetoric about the Global We that transcends national borders. The gospel according to Bryan Caplan. These progo-globo elites will argue against nationalism as 'petty' and 'small'. They are oh-so-generous-and-compassionate that they care for ALL OF HUMANITY around the world. It's like globalist shill Emmanuel Macron derided 'nationalism' while redefining 'patriotism' as a form of globo-compassionate-imperialist consciousness. But such radical concept of the Mega-We fails on both the moral and pragmatic level.
On the moral level, it is often a cynical rationale by the globalist elites to neglect their obligations to their national folks. Their excuse for ignoring the well-being of the nation is that they are TOO BUSY caring about all the world. It's like a negligent parent who excuses his rotten behavior by insisting that he's too busy caring for ALL THE CHILDREN of the world when, in fact, he spends most of his time and money on self-indulgence. It's invocation of abstraction to justify extraction.
But EVEN IF globalists were genuinely idealistic in their dream of saving all the world, it just can't be done. Goldilocks rule sets in. History has shown, time and time again, that the nation-state is the most ideal unit for governance and collective action. Sure, nations need to trade with other nations and get along, but politics of shared purpose and governance work best within nation-states. After all, what's the point of having national leaders who neglect the national folks while busying themselves with the world affairs that either have little national relevance or do harm to the great majority of the national folk? What's the point of having national elites who tell you to your face that YOUR KIND should be replaced by New People and that your children must be brainwashed to embrace such racial suicide as the greatest good?
The recent Yellow Vest protests in France prove that globalism only misled the French elites to neglect the needs of their own French Folks while providing endless favors for Jewish globalists, Afro-Islamic invaders, and insane homo-narcissists. The radically grand concept of the Mega-We intrinsic to globalism has value only as greedy cynical ploy or Utopian fantasy. For people like the Koch Brothers and Tim Cook, globalism allows them to seek out the cheapest labor to maximize their profits. It also means accelerating brain-drain from non-white to white nations so that places like San Francisco and New York will have the nerd-drones to toil away in Tech companies. And for bleeding-heart types in Sweden and Norway who, in their childish naivete, really want to SAVE THE WORLD, the concept of Globo-Mega-We fills them with neo-messianic fervor. Of course, moral vanity is a kind of emotional greed, a tendency to hog righteousness as one's special virtue. In any case, it should be obvious by now that all of Sweden's endless efforts as a Moral Superpower has come to naught. It failed to improve any corner of Africa, and taking in all those African and Muslim 'refugees' has only turned many parts of Sweden into Third World ghettos. Also, isn't it arrogant and conceited for people of one nation to believe that they are so good, so wise, so caring, and so wonderful that their Love and Compassion can magically save the rest of humanity? If people of a nation really respect the peoples of other nations, why not let them figure things out and fix their own problems?

In Times to Come, could Muhammad be a Greater Inspiration for White People than Jesus Christ?

Could Muhammad be a greater inspiration for gentiles than Jesus Christ for the challenges faced by white people as they march into an uncertain future? By this, I don’t mean Islam, nor am I suggesting that Muhammad was a greater figure than Jesus. I haven’t read the Koran, and I’m not familiar with the details of the Islamic faith. Like most people, I know the general outlines of who Muhammad was, what he achieved, and how Islam is deeply meaningful to countless people in the world. Also, I only have a basic sense of how Islam is different from Christianity or Judaism and how Islamic history, for better or worse, developed in conflict with Christian history.

So, why do I raise the question as to how Muhammad may serve a great inspiration for White National Liberationists in the struggles to come? It is mainly for one simple reason. Muhammad was a non-Jew who founded a great religion inspired by religions founded by Jews: Judaism and Christianity. THAT is Huge. Even though Christianity passed over to non-Jews, most significantly to Europeans who made it into the most powerful faith on Earth, it was totally founded by Jews. So, all Christians — unless they happen to be Jewish converts to Christ — are really worshiping a religion envisioned, enacted, and enlivened by Jewish spirit and imagination. Therefore, Christians are merely spiritual servants of Jews.

Sure, we can argue that Jesus, the Disciples, and Paul were rejected by the Jewish community. We can argue that the Disciples and especially Paul turned against the Jews and placed their hopes with pagans who might be converted to the New Faith. And we can argue that pagans, having been converted to Christianity, came to both spiritual and material greatness. They also gained power over Jews who, in turn, came to detest Christianity as a faith stolen from them by Arabs and Europeans by the way of Jewish traitor-heretics: Jesus, His Disciples, and especially Paul. Yes, that may all be true. Jews wholly rejected Jesus and the Disciples, and the Christian Faith became a deeply meaningful religion of Europeans and Arabs(before Islam won over most of them later).

However, the history of Christianity seems to suggest that Jews and Only Jews are capable of prophecy and of receiving the divine light. The great prophets of the Old Testament are Jewish. And Jesus was born a Jew, and all His Disciples were Jewish. And Paul was Jewish. Therefore, Christianity, though coming into its own as a great religion among Europeans, totally relied on the vision, imagination, and oratory of Jews. Of course, there were many great European thinkers who analyzed, interpreted, and advanced Christian theology. St. Augustine is perhaps the most important. Later, there were Martin Luther and John Calvin. And many others. But still, they were not prophets or founders. They were intellectual servants of Jesus and other Jews who were wholly responsible for founding the New Faith. With Christianity, one can’t get away from the feeling that non-Jews simply haven’t the reach and the depth to be prophets, to be touched by the divine light, and to be inspired by a sense of spiritual destiny. The fact that all those Europeans became good Christians means that, no matter how intelligently they can interpret texts, no matter how many machines they can build, and no matter how many battles they can win, they are incapable of the profoundest creative will: To prophesy the true purpose, to behold the true light, and to forge the truth faith. As long as Europeans/whites cling to Christianity, they shall be servants of the creative, prophetic, and visionary will of another people, one with prophetic will and visionary power.

So, even as European Christians became the most powerful people on Earth and even scared Jews to death at times, the undeniable fact was that Jews had made the fire. Jesus, the Disciples, and Paul may have found a new way to make the fire brighter and more inflammable from the original formula, but they too were Jews. So, when we look at the entirety of European Christendom, it is a story of a people who could not make a fire of their own and have been living off the fire of another people all these years. To be sure, Europeans tended the fire in wonderful and even genius ways, but it was never the fire. They hadn’t made it. Jesus and other Jews made it from the original fire of the Rabbinical Jews.
Consider Elvis Presley, the King of Rock n Roll. He got so rich and famous, one of the most iconic and legendary entertainers of the 20th century. But all said and done, despite his charisma and real talent, his core act — what made him famous in the first place — was an imitation of black rhythm-n-blues. So, no matter how big and famous Elvis and his imitators got, there is no getting around the fact that they ‘stole’ the fire of black music. They themselves could not come up with that music. They could only co-opt it and make it their own. To be sure, ‘black music’ in America couldn’t have come into existence without blacks having taken so much from white musical idioms and instruments. There was no Jazz, ragtime, and blues in Old Africa. Still, the jiggity energy that animated rhythm-and-blues was essentially African.
Now, one can argue that white people made something even better out of black music — in ingenuity, brilliance, and experimentation, the Rolling Stones far surpassed the bluesmen who inspired them — , just like Europeans made of Christianity new possibilities that never would have occurred to Jews. Consider the Notre Dame Cathedral, the music of Johannes Bach and Handel, and the many tomes & artworks that expanded upon or expressed the profound themes of Christianity. And yet, neither Christianity nor Rock n Roll can be claimed by white people as their own organic child. It’s like a family can adopt a child and raise him to grow smart, sturdy, and even spectacular, but when push comes to shove, one must admit that the child was not born of that family. He was taken from another family. In the Argentinian film THE OFFICIAL STORY, a military officer and his wife do their utmost to raise an adopted child with love and care, but as the wife discovers, the child was taken from her natural parents who'd been executed/murdered by the military junta. Jews have an ambivalent feeling about Christianity. On the one hand, it is the child that they threw out or sought to kill in its cradle; but it somehow lived and passed over to Arabs and Europeans who raised it to grow into a great religion. On the other hand, Jews see Christianity as their own child that was ‘stolen’ by another people. Jews didn’t want the Christian-child but then came to resent the fact that it found a place among another people who raised it to become the most powerful religion on Earth.

But all said and done, there is no getting around the fact that, as long as Europeans/whites cling to Christianity, they must live with the reminder that they, as a people, have been living under the spell of another Tribe and have been incapable of envisioning and founding a religion or grand vision of their own. In science, whites have proven their genius and brilliance. In arts and architecture, whites have surpassed all other peoples. And despite the huge influence black music has had since the 20th century, the greatest and the most sublime music was made by Europeans, especially the Germans. And the bulk of the greatest literature was also written by Europeans/whites. Also, Europeans were the masters of philosophy and developed some of the most amazing mythologies ever. It is very possible that Greek mythology is the summit of human imagination. But in the long run, mythologies cannot hold a candle to a religion. Mythologies, though communal religions in their time, eventually come to be regarded as folklore, metaphor, or imagination. A civilization outgrows them. In contrast, religions and deep faiths are forever. Even the brightest light of reason and science cannot rid the world of faith and religion. It is in the art of creating religions that Western Man has totally failed. It was the Jews who came upon the art of spiritual fire-making. White spirituality has amounted to little more than tending the fire started by Jews. Therefore, as long as white people mainly look to Jesus, the Disciples, and Paul for inspiration, they will be spiritual captives of another people. They will have failed to become prophets themselves.
The story of European Christianity is filled with scholars, saints, priests, scribes, missionaries, and teachers. But there are no prophets because white Christians totally submitted to the vision, imagination, and prophecy of the Jewish heretics who came to form the core circle of the Christian founding.

In contrast, Muhammad did something truly remarkable. The key factor was that Muhammad was not Jewish(or even a Christian). He was a pagan Arab who, instead of striving to be accepted into the Jewish community or converting to Christianity, had the strength of will, both daring and reckless, to create a new religion. Unlike all those Europeans who merely knelt at the feet of Jewish prophets, Muhammad chose to be a prophet on his own terms. He decided to learn about the great faiths of Jews and Christians, seek the divine light, commune with God/Allah, and present the True(and Final) Version of the Way of God. The West failed to produce a man of such will. Perhaps, in this regard, the Semites, Jewish or Arab, just have more sand(no pun intended). They have more gristle in their soul-gizzards to grind it all down and reconstitute something else. If the West swallowed whole the Jewish-founded faith of Christianity that passed through the spiritual digestive system without much alteration, the Semito-Arab Muhammad ground down Judaism and Christianity to the point where they could serve as fertilizers for something new and different. Thus, Islam was born. Even though it could not have existed without Judaism and Christianity, it was more than an interpretation of those established religions.

Europeans dared not challenge the Messianic prophecy of Jesus, the Disciples, and Paul. While they could pray to God and hope to earn His blessing, they didn’t dare to believe that they could be face-to-face with God and be the new prophets or messiahs. For them, the Old Testament and the New Testament were the Core Canon. All they could do was hope to understand it, interpret it, build on it, and live by it. In contrast, Muhammad had the Semito-Chutzpah to entertain the notion that he himself could be the next prophet, indeed the Final Prophet, and lay down the real definitive Message from God/Allah. To put it in vulgar terms, Muhammad had bigger balls than all the European Christians who left behind so many books and arts in service to Faith founded by Jews. (Granted, Muhammad’s claim of being the Final Prophet robbed all future Muslims of the prophetic will, something that is now owned only by Jews because they still await the messiah whether in the spiritual or secular sense.)

Anyway, it now appears that Christianity is finally nearing the end of its life-span. Mainline churches are totally worthless and more about worshiping homos & trannies than God and Jesus. Evangelicals are low-IQ morons whose main theme is "I Luv Israel". Catholic Church is a den of closet-homosexuals, pedophiles, Third World leeches, and flakes like the current pope. Third World Christianity is a hodgepodge of ugabuga superstition in Africa or prayer for higher social status in Asia.

So, what is there? Should white people turn to Islam? Of course not. Islam is simply not compatible with the European soul. What about Mormonism? It is essentially a useless stillborn cult-religion that is neither Christianity nor a new religion. In some ways, the founders of Mormonism were comparable to Muhammad in that they had the daring to claim a New Message from God above. And yet, Mormonism also claimed to be an extension of Christianity, and the Mormon Latter-Day Saints will insist that they are indeed good Christians. Though I haven’t read the Book of Mormon either, what I’ve heard of it suggests it can’t hold a candle to Koran in imagination and depth. I can’t help feeling that Mormonism is now essentially a Cult of appearing moral and respectable in habits and manners WITHOUT any substantive search for deeper truth. There is something a bit too ‘pat’ and ‘sure’ about Mormonism. Notice how Mitt Romney passes himself as a good Mormon because he adheres to all the Mormonic do’s and don’ts. I’m sure he doesn’t drink and has acted like a 1950s conservative dad at home. But look beneath the shell of respectability and Romney is a lowlife slimeball and sleazebag in business and politics. He sort of reminds me of the gentile Studio Boss in HAIL, CAESAR!(a Catholic to be sure) whose idea of repenting for sins as a good Christian is centered around trifle like quitting cigarettes while being utterly oblivious to his complete immersion in the sordid and lurid world of Hollywood.

Anyway, the future is a big question mark. Christianity is essentially a spent force. Mainline Christianity is a homo worship, Catholicism is a closet-homo, Third World, and New Age mess. Orthodox faith and practice are more stable but essentially a museum piece. It is about preservation, not rejuvenation. Evangelicals are too dumb to comment on. Mormons are a bunch of cultists. Ironically, because of their negative association with polygamy and other scandals, the latter-day-Mormons have been so obsessed about coming across as more-normal-than-normal, a strategy also adopted by homos(at least some of them) who are eager to present themselves as the New Normal because so much of homo culture has been associated with debauchery, disease, and death. But, such striving for ersatz normality by Mormons and homos make them fundamentally dishonest and unwilling to face the true nature of what they are. The fact is Mormonism began as a crackpot pseudo-religion founded by a charlatan. Still, its latter-day-success attests to the power of persistence, diligence, and earning potential. With enough members and dollars, the Mormons became impossible to ignore, just like homos later... and that may be why more Mormons are warming up to ‘gay marriage’. Neither Mormonism nor Homomania has anything real at their core. They are false faiths whose respectability owes to outward appearance of ‘normality’ and the power of cash to buy friends in high places.

We are living in dark and strange times but also the most exciting times. It turns out there is no End of History. The Left is now a joke, essentially a worship of Homos and the idea that Bruce Jenner is a ‘woman’. And infantile chanting of slogans such as ‘Diversity is our strength’ or ‘Inclusion, goo’. Jews promote Homomania as the new faith, but how long can such idiocy last? Even mainstream culture is being utterly pornified. For most people, Pop Culture is the only culture, and PC dogma is their entire world-view. Nothing is certain in our times. Even as PC tries to make us worship Diversity, Homomania, Shoah, and Magic Negro as new religions, most people find no great or deep meaning in them. Also, the sheer power of Pop Culture has a way of trivializing everything into frivolity. When Jews tell us, in equal measure, to remind ourselves that Bruce Jenner is a ‘woman’ and that ‘6 million died in the Holocaust’ — or that we owe it to ‘6 million dead Jews’ to support tranny fantasies because refusing to do so may lead to another Holocaust — , we are living in some kind of Clown World. It means there is a great spiritual, moral, and visionary vacuum in post-soul of latter-day-modernity. So many are grasping for meaning and truth but don’t know what it is, where it is. So, the future will likely be a time of new prophets and new covenants. The old formulas no longer speak to us, the current formulas are decadent or demented, and future visions have yet to be discovered.

Anyway, in striving to find the new visions and new truths, white people might look more to Muhammad than to Jesus. While Jesus was a Jewish prophet-Messiah in the long line of Jewish prophets, Muhammad was an Arab(a non-Jew) who DARED to take on the role of the prophet. No white man in history ever dared to look so deep and far, indeed to the extent of INDEPENDENTLY founding a great religion. European Christians, incapable of being prophets themselves, merely accepted and served the prophetic will and reach of the Jews.

Is the GOP the Party of Mediocrity?

Not long ago, Mitt Romney said something about 47% of Americans being predisposed to voting for Obama since the Democratic Party is the party of big government and dependency. The assumption is most of the 47% are people of low talent, low intelligent, and low energy who simply cannot do much on their own; there are many such people in the U.S. and little can be done about them.

If this were true, then the counter-assumption would be that the GOP is the party of success and excellence. Thus, if many low-IQ blacks, incompetent non-white Hispanics, and members of the 'white trash' are naturally inclined to go with the Democratic Party, then it should be safe to assume, at least according to Romneyism, that groups known for their success, excellence, and talent will go with the GOP. But consider the five most successful groups in America: Jews, elite Wasps, East Asians, Asian-Indians, and gays. Are they going with the Democrats or with the Republicans?  85% to 90% of Jews are liberals; though 20% voted for McCain and 25% vow to vote for Romney, many so-called 'neocons' are really liberal moderates who support the GOP only for Zionist and pro-Wall-Street reasons. Asian numbers are increasing fast, and Asians are vastly over-represented in elite colleges and generally out-earn most other ethnic/racial groups, but 60% voted for Obama--the percentage is surely higher among young well-educated Asians--and possibly more will vote for Obama in 2012.  And 75% of gays are Democratic.

So, Romney's point about the 47% is only half right. Yes, it's true that a lot of incompetents and dependents vote Democratic. But it's also true that the most successful and more energized groups in America are also heavily Democratic. And since Jews pretty much control the academia and media--that shape the views and values of most white Americans--, many successful whites have also come to identify with the Democratic Party. (Democratic-ization of educated whites may also be the product of the New Media. In Old Media that favored 'objectivity', news personalities on TV mostly kept their liberalism under wraps and tried to treat all sides fairly. Ted Koppel was a perfect example. Even when people he vehemently disagreed with appeared on Nightline, he treated them fairly and with respect--at least to the best of his ability. Thus, news media in the past had been less judgmental, sending a message that you could be conservative and still be respectable figure in the mainstream spotlight. But with the rise of open politicking in the news--Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. and with shows like Jon Stewart--, people with 'wrong views' are openly vilified and constantly tarred-and-feathered on the air as 'racists' or 'homophobes'. While conservatives may have Fox--the least respected news channel in the eyes of educated people--, most news channels and just about all else on TV is liberal or pro-Democratic. With all those liberals openly and brazenly shaming conservatives who, for example, oppose 'gay marriage', it's tougher to be a conservative and remain respectable. Since people are social creatures and want to be liked--the rule of behaviorism--, most educated people will cower to the powers that be that decide what is 'nice'.But since no one wants to feel like a coward, those who go along with political correctness are praised by the powers-that-be as having 'made a courageous choice'. In other words, the trick is to bully people into conforming and then hype the conforming as a show of individual courage. Liberals probably learned this trick from Christians who shunned and persecuted those who didn't accept Jesus but then profusely praised the bullied convert as having made the right choice--as if he really had a choice.)
So, the problem of the GOP isn't merely quantity--the rising numbers of blacks and browns that make up the American electorate--but quality, i.e. the most successful, intelligent, and talented people(s) in America are going with the Democrats. So, GOP is being squeezed from top and bottom. It's not 53% of winners vs 47% of losers, but 40% of dwindling number of white conservatives being squeezed by successful Democrats from the top and by unsuccessful Democrats from the bottom.

Now, libertarian Republicans might blame the GOP's failure in capturing the successful--the Jews, gays, Asians, etc.--due to GOP's fatal alliance with Southern Redneck dummies who cling to their guns and Bibles. After all, what smart person would want to belong to a Party of George W. Bush and Bob Jones University that preaches Creationism? But are libertarians correct in their political assessment? If the GOP were to go fully materialist and libertarian, would it attract a whole lot of smart people? Would the promise of lower taxes and more 'free markets' attract the successful educated classes?
Not so fast. Man doesn't live on bread alone. Kids headed to elite colleges wanna be (or see themselves as) not only materially successful but morally/intellectually advanced. It just so happens that libertarianism sounds too selfish, crass, and vain to a lot of educated people. Successful people may be vain and crass, but they prefer to see themselves as something other.
Even educated secular people need to be won over by 'spiritualist' means, and libertarianism--either in the Paulian or Randian form--doesn't appeal to most highly educated people.
One of the things they don't like about libertarianism is its brazen honesty of power and success. While most successful people do primarily care about power and success(and privilege), they want to believe that they're living for 'higher values' such as 'social progress' or 'social justice'.
Also, though libertarianism argues that free markets and individual liberties will take care of social problems(at least with greater efficiency than other -isms), most 'good people' want to believe in having an ACTIVE role in improving the world. Libertarianism says, 'If you take care of yourself, then society will take care of itself.' Such indirect solving of problems may work or may not work, but 'good people' want to believe that they are actively and consciously engaged in bettering the world.

So, what is the future of the GOP when it has lost not only most of the lower 47% but most of the elite 15%? Does that mean the GOP will be a party of mediocrity?
One thing though... the alliance of the well-educated elites and unwell-educated lower classes is possibly only because of the wide buffer provided by the white middle class and working class. If that buffer didn't exist and if America were made up only of elite liberals(of Jews, Asians, upper wasps, gays, etc) and the unwashed masses who want free everything as 'rights' and entitlements' from the government, the whole system would collapse overnight. So, ironically, it's the GOP white middle that unwittingly enables the alliance of the top and bottom of society. But it gets squeezed just the same.