Can America be saved? This is the question that the world is asking now because the consequences of success or failure loom large when you consider the value of that country in the world today. Yes, it is a novel thing to ask if America can be saved but the question was asked many times before in connection with other places because history never stood still. Instead, history saw and has recorded the rise of nations and empires that later fell to make way for someone else. Yet, despite the predictability that a nation or an empire will rise and fall, there is nothing inevitable about the duration of its stay or the manner of its fall. And this is why the world is anxiously contemplating the fate of America today.
We ask that and the other questions because big questions have preoccupied our species since the time in our evolution when we began to think. And we see this preoccupation repeat itself every time that a child reaches the age at which it begins to think for itself and to reason things out. In fact, as children we ask our parents where we came from and expect a simple answer that may or may not come depending on the disposition of the parents. Then as adults, we ask each other why we exist at all, not expecting a direct answer but hoping to have a discussion at the end of which will emerge an explanation as to the role we are meant to play in life. All in all, we go through life wanting to know where we came from and why we are here posing direct questions and many other related ones.
Whether or not we hit on an explanation that will help us pursue a destiny we understand and fully appreciate, we go through life in one of two states or any of the shades between them. Either we are a well defined figure known by name and a personal history having some control over what happens to us; or we remain a nameless cog that labors anonymously in the collective that is the human species having no control over what happens to us. Whatever the case, we feel at the end of it all that there was never a definitive answer to the questions we posed concerning our purpose in the Universe. A lifelong experience teaches us that we are because we are – and this is all there is to it. And we realize that we lived this long because each day, we found a reason to ask a new question and seek an answer that never came.
Whatever path we take in life, however, we still face the reality that we are genetically programmed to preserve the self and the species, something we do at the expense of everything; and when necessary the expense of everyone else. Whether or not we like it, our instinct delivers the urge that compels us to do what is required to be safe and thus remain alive. We are also programmed to forage for nourishment so as to remain strong and healthy. And we are programmed to reproduce ourselves so as to preserve the clan and the species. In fact, we share most of these instincts with the primates and the lower organisms that have evolved to become us. We even share with the higher species a few cultural attributes such as working with the clan to protect the young, and share the trait of hunting with the group by participating in a strategy that is determined and led by the alpha of the pack.
Thus, when we do not think of the big questions that concern the subject of existence, we think of the more mundane ways by which we may fulfill our needs and those of the clan; be it the family, the tribe or the nation. And this sort of thinking is the source from which have emerged the various philosophies of life since the beginning of recorded history. In the end, the ideas that go into the construction of these philosophies may or may not be as large as the question of existence but they are large enough to command nearly one hundred percent of the time and the energies that we devote to the preservation of the self, the clan and the species.
It can be argued that there are as many philosophies of life as there are human beings on the planet and have been since the beginning of time. But anyway you look at it, you will find that even the big philosophers who left a mark on the history of human thought were not so original as to claim they were isolated from the world and from each other. The truth is that any idea can be shown to have roots in the environment that surrounded its creator or the thinking of the people who nurtured him or her. It is that no idea can be plucked solely from the thin air of abstract thought divorced from any empirical base. For this reasons, you will find a remarkable overlap in the philosophies that are adhered to and propounded by different people, including the thinkers who oppose each other.
This allows us to group the philosophical trends that seem to come around, swirl for a while then disappear to be replaced by other trends. But the beauty of it all is that there is nothing new under the sun. However fresh a new trend may look, it turns out on close inspection to be nothing more than a variation on an old theme, one that was remodeled to suit the times. And nothing is more trendy these days than to talk about the systems of governance which the various clans of our species live by. The talk is usually led by political entities claiming to have found the trend that will best respond to the needs of those who will adopt it. But who are the entities that make such claims? The answer is that there are many of them, and they are as diverse as the candidates who aspire to a higher office, the political parties that seek a mandate to govern, the nation that minds its own business and leads by example or the one that is messy at home yet tries to mess with everyone else's business.
The United States of America is a nation where the debate is now raging with regard to the subject of governance. The question that the debaters try to answer concerns the definition of a political trend they call conservatism. And this is happening because there is an ongoing contest between two parties; the Democrats who lean toward liberalism and the Republicans who lean toward conservatism. Being in charge of the presidency at this point in time, the Democrats do little more than wait for the Republicans to choose one among them who will run against the sitting President. On the other hand, the Republican hopefuls are doing what they can to win the hearts and minds of the delegates who will pick the winner in the battle of ideas. To this end, each hopeful tries to define himself by defining the brand of conservatism that they should adopt as a party.
What seems to be happening is that the debate is coming down to a contest between two lines of thought. One line is articulated by those who call themselves social conservatives and have characterized their movement as being true conservatism. The other line is an idea that remains ill-defined but is called moderate which probably means that it is seen as being a diluted form of conservatism. Thus, we have on one hand true (or social) conservatism that is supposed to stand for a small government in charge of defending the borders of the nation, the personal liberties of the people and little else. Those who embrace it would be individuals that rely on themselves to do what is good for the self and the community. On the other hand, we have the so-called moderates who do not seem to have characterized their movement as yet but have left it to the other side to define them. And the way this was done is that their philosophy was painted as standing for a European-style big government that will redistribute the wealth by acting like a nanny state, taking from the have to give to the have-not. Or as they like to put it derisively; take from those who produce and give to those who don't.
Ask yourself: How superficial can the Americans get during the silly season they call the election cycle! In fact, the elephant in the room they all ignore is the Neocon factor. To be sure, the word Neocon has become a euphemism to mean the Jews who used to be Liberals but have adopted some of the Conservative causes, and have decided to champion them by joining the movement. The reality is that when it comes to social issues, these people still maintain their ultra liberal bent which means they work for a culturally permissive society that rejects the old values and embraces the new mores whenever they come and whatever they look like. Where the conservatism of these people shows up is in the idea of defending the nation -- or so they say. But here too, they veer off the mark by a wide margin, at least in this sense: To a true conservative the defense of the nation means the defense of its borders; but it is not so to the Neocons. To these people, defending the nation means to constantly be on the offensive somewhere in the world if not everywhere in it, poking the rib of this one, kicking the ass of that one and urinating on the dead bodies of a third one.
The trouble with this approach is that it will not do what the Neocons promise it will. They say that the role they envisage for the American military can be sustained indefinitely, resulting in a world that will be kept safe for ever. They even trumped up an expression to describe the world order they say will materialize out of their vision; they call it Pax Americana. To defend their point of view, they promise that America will be able to reverse the trend in which it has been locked for several decades now. They say the nation can build an economy that is large enough to sustain a military that will be equal to all the military powers in the rest of the world put together. This can be done, they say, even at a time when America comes to only 4% of the world population. And bear in mind that this is a world which is fast catching up industrially to what used to be the industrial superpower of the world but is no more. Add to it the fact that aside from its internal debt, America is indebted to that same world to the tune of two years worth of production in the tradable goods and services, and you will see the extent of ignorance and idiocy which are inherent to the Jewish predictions.
The fact is that the Jewish self declared leaders will make the prediction that suits the moment every time they approach you to convince you of something. This is how they dragged America into the many wars that have turned the once superpower into the current super fool. When you ask them to elaborate on their theory, they say that America is so exceptional, you see people from around the world try to flock to it. They go on to explain that the Administration can do two things. First, it can stop the flood of illegals who come from south of the border to pick fruits and vegetables. Second, it can open the door of legal immigration widely to take in the people who will start a business or invent a product that the world will want to buy. But the one thing that these jokers have not done yet is to invent the magic wand that will do all this by waving it. America listened to the jokers of yesterday; no wander America has become the joke of today. Repeat this silly performance one more time and there will no longer be an America to laugh at or weep over.
Now consider this. If America went around the world, poked people in the rib, kicked their asses and urinated over their dead bodies, will it not happen that someone will want to retaliate and come into the country under a false pretense to do damage? Maybe so, say the Neocons, but America can do what Israel is doing which is to profile the people who wish to come in, identify the bad guys among them and keep them out. Oh yeah! But who are the people who visit Israel? Are they not Jews from among the 18 million or so who still inhabit the world -- each of which is known to a synagogue somewhere on the Planet and whose application to travel to Israel is signaled months if not years in advance?
Also, are they not the American evangelicals who would be checked and vouched for by the pastors that send them to Israel confined to a small group and packed on chartered flights and chartered buses? The sad fact is that you cannot run a big country like America which is open to 7 billion people the way that you run little hermit Israel. Besides, America works for a living and needs to remain an open society. By contrast, Israel need not work because it feeds off America. And so, if America were to do what Israel is doing, no one will be there to feed America. No, that idea was never a good one but is a cockeyed Jewish suggestions that would not even serve as breakfast for a starving dog. Keep the idea and the breakfast for Israel if you want but leave America alone; it has done well without Israel and has done dreadfully since the establishment of that dreadful thing.
This being the case, we ask the pertinent question: what is it that the Jewish leaders really want to achieve? And we begin to formulate an answer when we look at the instincts we share with the organisms that have evolved to become us, and look at the cultural traits that we share with the other species. It all boils down to the preservation of the self and the clan; and down to the things that we do at the expense of everything and everyone else whether acting alone or in conjunction with the rest of the clan. What is clear from all this is that to make a mark on history, there has to be a clan powerful enough to battle against and defeat all perceived threats at least initially, and there has to be a leader who is knowledgeable enough to lead the clan to victory or even an eventual defeat.
In fact, every nation that left an imprint on history has lived through a similar pattern. The exception has been the Jews who for thousands of years have never formed a clan large enough or cohesive enough to battle against what they perceived as an infinite menace that is forever threatening their existence. Thus, they always climbed on someone's back and rode them to a war they hoped will result in a victory for themselves: The ultimate subjugation of the human race to their will as a fulfillment of the fantasy they have had for thousands of years and still believe was promised to them by God. Being useless, however, both in thought and in action, they only managed each time to do damage to themselves, to anything they touched and everyone they advised.
The young and intelligent Americans of today -- be they Conservatives, Liberals or Independents – are now beginning to see that the Neocons are but the con artists of olden days who ruined many a nation and have labored to ruin America for half a century. Those among the young Americans who aspire to lead their country out of its current difficulty are rejecting the Jewish narrative which seeks to maintain a status quo on which Israel and the Jewish organizations continue to feed like there is no tomorrow. Thus, the would-be leaders of the new America are rejecting the command which tells them to just go and suck an egg; but are freeing themselves from the yoke of the past while searching for a way by which to pull their country from the brink of the precipice to which the Jewish leaders have taken their country.
Good luck to them.