An example of how the Jewish culture of self-loathing and
insecurity is permeating the American culture of self-confidence and
satisfaction, can be detected in an article written by David Satter and
published in the Wall Street Journal on September 23, 2013. It has the title: “Russia 's
Anti-American Foreign Policy” and the subtitle: “Putin needs high oil prices
and a distraction from his domestic troubles.” Already, you can hear in the
“anti-American” of the title an echo of the often repeated anti-Semitism
accusation. You can also hear in the subtitle of the article an echo of the
Jewish refrain: They hate us because they have problems and they need money.
After an introduction that is nothing more than a cheap diatribe,
Satter says something which tells you he does not have the logic of even a
child. Here is how that goes: ”Mr. Obama described Mr. Putin as 'sincere, just
and deeply interested in the welfare of the Russian people' … The praise was
never reciprocated because Russian leaders fear and distrust their own
population.” What on earth is he talking about? Is he saying that if, in
return, Putin had described Obama as sincere, just and deeply interested in the
welfare of the American people, the Russian population will rush forward,
serenade Obama and clamor to emigrate to America ? What kind of juvenile
nonsense is this? Who pays this guy to propagate ideas like these, anyway?
Because you want to assess how much damage an individual
like this can cause the culture, you hold your nose and read the rest of the
article. When done, you conclude that yes, this mentality could only be of a
caliber that doesn't rise above that of a child. You then take a moment to
catch your breath and reflect; and you ask yourself what a work like this could
do to the sense of exceptionalism that some Americans believe they are endowed
with. And this query reminds you of an article that was published a week
before, on September 16, 2013 in National Review Online.
That article has the title: “E Pluribus Bonum.” Actually, it
is a review written by John Fonte of two books, one of which was written by
James C. Bennett and Michael J. Lotus, and the other written by James S.
Robbins. The Bennett and Lotus book has the title: “America 3.0: Rebooting American
Prosperity in the 21st Century – Why America's Greatest Days Are Yet to Come.”
As to the Robbins book, it has the title: “Native Americans: Patriotism,
Exceptionalism, and the New American Identity.”
To me, the most interesting point that John Fonte makes
about the Bennett and Lotus book is when he quotes them as saying: “Our
American culture today is part of a living and evolving organism, spanning
centuries.” As to the most interesting point he makes about the Robbins book;
it is when he quotes him as saying: “dividing citizens into antagonistic ethnic
boxes [leads to] individuals being labeled as members of either a 'victim
group' or the 'oppressor class.'” Fonte goes on to say that “Robbins rejects
all of this. He argues that we need a definition of American ethnicity that is
based on American culture and values.”
And so, if what is forming is an ethnicity that is based on
culture when culture itself is viewed as being an evolving organism, a work
such as that of David Satter published in a prestigious publication such as the
Wall Street Journal, can have a profound effect on society. Indeed, this is how
the American sense of feeling exceptional is slowly made to soak in the Jewish
schizophrenic sense of being a victimized group wallowing in self-loathing
while at the same time facing the accusation of being a member of the class of
oppressors.
And so you ask yourself if a way can be found to halt that
trend and have it reverse itself. To see how this can be done if at all, we
need to do a thought experiment which, in reality, is not too far from how the
actual history of this planet has unfolded.
Imagine owning a large piece of real estate that is lightly
populated but rich in natural resources and agricultural potential. You put out
a notice to the world stating that you seek settlers who would come and help
you develop the place. You sit back and watch to see who will respond to the
invitation. You find that those who take up the offer will fit into one of two
categories of people. There will be those who left behind a war, a famine or an
oppressive regime that was gripping the land from which they came. And there
will be the adventurers who had grown too large – spiritually if not in
materially – to remain in a place that could only hold them back.
The first group will behave like huddled masses happy to
work long hours in exchange for the bare necessities of a life they could not
have in the old country but missed so badly. The second group will behave like
the risk takers who keep trying till they get something done, and done well.
What they accomplish may be a small thing or it may be a big thing but will be
the sort of thing that will occupy a place in the grand scheme of things. And
together, the two groups will have created a society that will project the
image of exceptionalism by what it has achieved.
However, if it is true that the tendency exists for people
to divide into victims and oppressors as observed by James Robbins, the
question remains as to whether or not a society such as that can accomplish
exceptional things for too long without deteriorating. And so we must ask: What
did actually happen on Planet Earth?
The thing is that the above description applies in Australia and North America (comprising Canada and the United States ) only to some extent.
It does not apply as well in Central or South America
where the indigenous populations were denser and less accommodating; a
situation that forced the settlers to mingle with the locals. This created the
opportunity for mixed marriages to occur; a development that gave rise to a new
ethnicity called Latino. Something like it did not happen in North
America where the two groups were kept apart – the natives in
reservations, and the immigrants everywhere else. Yes, there has been a number
of mixed marriages resulting in a Métis population. But that remained too small
to be considered the North American answer to the South American Latino
ethnicity.
As to the colonies of Africa and Asia
where the indigenous populations were very dense, the description has failed to
apply almost everywhere. It is that the locals rejected the invading settlers
and fought against them bitterly. The result has been that the settlers were
forced to leave in most of the instances, or an accommodation was worked out
between the two groups as it happened in South
Africa and Zimbabwe . At this time, a new
ethnicity seems to be developing in South Africa
but things remain unclear in Zimbabwe .
Things remain unclear in America America