Entering into the Tel Aviv/Washington orbit would be the opposite of being free.
The basic problem is that democratically-elected legislatures are allowed to make whatever laws they want to make. That power needs to be taken away from them.
In certain past societies, fame and glory were part of the compensation package for those of great ability, consistency, insight, pluck, and daring. Men so rewarded would have their pick of the best women, of course, as well as attracting wealth from patrons. When a society has commercially oriented and alien-controlled mass media, however, (something the ancients didn't suffer from), fame and glory are given to corrupters, subverters, the purely mercenary, and their accomplices, so the model breaks down.
You are right about monetary incentives. I think William Gayley Simpson was correct in saying we need a conscious, trained-from-birth aristocracy, dedicated like a holy order to the preservation and advancement of our kind. But if people who sell plastic toilet seats make more money (read: command more resources), incentives become perverse and, again, the model breaks down.
It's a lovely statue, a neoclassical Goddess of Liberty as a noble-featured White woman. It was a gift from one Aryan people -- the French -- to another -- the Americans. It had nothing at all to do with immigration or wretched refuse. That doggerel was added later by (of course) a Jew.
I don't have any definitive answers. But I think it might be helpful, as a first step, to decide what life is, and whether or not life is necessary for consciousness. The assumption for many is that we _are_ matter with consciousness somehow added in. But, though matter is clearly necessary, I suspect the "we are matter" view is the wrong perspective. After all, most of the matter in our bodies is replaced several times in our lifetimes. How, then, can that matter "be" us? I think it's more accurate to see ourselves as _events_, as something that is _happening_ to matter. Similar to fire. One then can view all life and evolution as a _single chain of closely connected events_ beginning with self-replication and culminating (so far) with consciousness. The question of whether we "can create consciousness in silicon" might hinge on whether or not our _inventions_ are an integral part of that self-sustaining chain of events, or not.
Inflation will inevitably get higher and higher as more and more of the competent decide they will never again design a weapon, build an aircraft, construct a bridge, or do anything whatever to support the regime in Washington or its masters in Tel Aviv.
Henry Ford predicted almost 100 years ago that an energy currency would be developed. That wasn't the only thing he was right about.
Worthy of consideration (part 3 coming in two weeks):
https://nationalvanguard.org/2026/01/faith-of-the-future-part-2/
As America slides blindly toward civil war, the shallow values of the "successful" upper classes verge more and more toward the absurd.
Sir Arthur Keith proved that the ethny, not the individual, is the biological evolutionary unit that really matters. So we are hard-wired to treasure, preserve, defend, and advance our people -- and that is as it should be.
We could simplify this aspect of the human condition by positing three basic kinds of thinkers:
1. Group thinkers, who in most ways adapt themselves to the dominant philosophies of their group. These are, probably necessarily, the majority. They rise or fall depending on the worth of their leaders' ideas.
2. Independent thinkers who are individualists. If they too strongly oppose the group that nurtured them, they tend to fail, though sometimes in a meteoric fashion that influences others.
3. Independent thinkers who are loyal to their people and who try to use their new ideas to advance that people. These can be heroes, leaders -- and occasionally martyrs if their people aren't ready for them. I think they have the greatest chance of truly advancing human consciousness and evolution.
Haha very funny š
Please read the first part on what a meritocracy is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
I hope you spot as well, that "white-only" does not fit into meritocracy. Since a meritocracy evaluates by what person knows and is able to do. So it is a system that bases on inclusion.
I'm not going to debate word definitions with midwits tonight.
I wasn't even referring to my own positions. I did, however, fairly summarize the Founders' general point of view. If you don't like the Founders' views, take it up with George Washington.
After all, a person who is able to take an insane conception like racial equality seriously is also likely to believe he can argue with the spirits of the dead.
It seems you're the one throwing insults, not I, Bill. I, too, greatly distrust the federal police agencies and have personally been a victim of their lies and violence on more than one occasion. My point is that we could have avoided escalating to this near-civil-war scenario if we had never begun state-forced multiracialism and multiculturalism.
I think the spirit of the Founders can be fairly summarized as follows: They wanted a Whites-only meritocracy.
As for religion, with a few exceptions, they didn't want the new government interfering with it.
There are nuances in the shooting of the lesbian leftist in Minneapolis that seldom get mentioned by the respective "sides." 1) The ICE agent shooter probably couldn't see that the front wheels of the SUV were turned; he was too close; and 2) the agents were shouting contradictory instructions -- "get out of the vehicle" and "leave now" at the same time.
What you personally are missing, Bill, is that people have, or ought to have, a right not to have widely divergent ethnies forced upon them as "neighbors" by the state, which is what has been happening in this country since 1965.
I spent a lot of time in pre-"diversity" Minnesota, and it was peaceful, safe, clean, community-oriented, and beautiful -- quite unlike the filthy, distrustful, dog-eat-dog multiracial war zone of today.
Every race needs exclusive territory of its own if it is to survive. It's not hateful or wrong even in the slightest degree to secure such territory.
Never heard that. I suspect it was some temporary situation, but it sounds like an interesting one, if we could get the whole story.
Your understanding is fundamentally flawed if you think "diversity" in the modern sense was a founding principle of America. One of the very first laws passed by the First Congress, whose members included many of the Founders, and signed by none other than George Washington, was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated that only people of European descent could become citizens of the United States.
nostr:npub1cd27rxtr945m0x0k6t70vuk29hj48wgj7m46z9gnjpawztfh9mzshka8vl do you know why jews were forbidden from joining the ottoman janissary corps even though apparently they wanted to do so very much?
I don't know much about that. I understand that Janissaries often consisted of men who had been seized as boys from European families (though some families willingly gave up their male children for such service), and that Jews were officially exempt from such seizures. Just like in the US today, Jews generally held higher positions in society, making them unlikely to want to serve as cannon fodder.
"Safe," in their lingo, always means "safe for Jewish oligarchs."