Americanism

[Pistolero]

What is the American model that wanted to become global?

What are its principles and ideals?

Secularized Judeo-Puritan.....

• To understand Puritanism, one must understand Friedrich Nietzsche’s conception of a slave morality. Puritanism was a slave morality. Puritan values are not the values of Norman conquerors; they are the values of the conquered. Puritan values are not the values of the master; they are the values of the slave. This is how Biblical slave morality became modern virtue. And this is how the issue of the right and wrong of slavery compelled American Civil War.

[Pistolero]

• In its most basic political-moral principles, America is a Jewish country, not a Christian country. This is true in both Constitutional theory and American practice. Judaism, like Americanism, is notably absent of Christianity’s extreme negative attitude towards money. Jews and Americans share a this-worldly outlook, a basically economic conception of man, and a curious, capitalist combination of love of money and love of morality. This moral materialism is standard Anglo-Judaism.

• Where else could typical Jewish aspirations be fulfilled, after all, than within the parvenu idealism of America? The entire substance of the “If I were a rich man… ”American dream, the whole rags to riches yarn, betrays the admission that it was the Jews — and not the Christians — who were right about the value of moneymaking all along. American valuation of “the rule of law” is comparable to the Pharisaic laws that Jesus revolted against. The capitalism of Americanism is a defense of Pharisaic mammon worship against Jesus.
The American Empire is neither a new pagan Rome nor a Christian Kingdom of God. The American Empire is more like the rise of the Pharisees. The hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the ancestors of mainstream diaspora Judaism, is the typical bourgeois hypocrisy that is the American norm. America, moreover, resisted the great continental European attacks on bourgeois man, especially by Rousseau, Marx, and Nietzsche.

• The so-called “universalism” of liberal democracy ultimately amounts to a focus on distinctive human capacities for non-biological evolution. “Universalism” tends to be strongest where cultural intermixture has broken down a primal relationship between genes and culture.

[Walker]

What is the American model that wanted to become global?

Global wanted to become American, and whatever that represents in the global noggin, which accounts for the invasion.

[Pistolero]

• Freedom as understood by liberal democracies is freedom from a strict biological interpretation of human behavior, and especially the biologically-based kinship connections between individuals. The freedom of liberal democracies amounts to the assertion of freedom from the restraints of biology; of life; of survival. Individual freedom is freedom from duty or special responsibility for kin, freedom from the necessity of sociobiological foresight, and freedom from a biological-kinship interpretation of human things generally.

• The American utopia is anti-utopian. Pragmatism is especially useful for Americans because, unlike most other peoples, Americans have ideas at the center of their national self-identity. Most people are not depending on explicit ideas such as equality and thus do not require “pragmatism” as a means of cheating a strict interpretation of those ideas. Idealized American political principles provide the unreachables and pragmatism provides the way to get around them.

• The pragmatic transition from biological evolution to technological evolution is characterized by the liberation of individual selfishness at the expense of the individual’s selfish genes. Instead of the subordination of individuals to the propagation of their selfish genes, genes are subordinated to selfish individuals. Instead of the individual adapting so that the genes can survive, the genes adapt so that the individual can survive. Adaptation to survive is displaced by those who survive to adapt.

• The controversy over sociobiology in liberal democracies is not a novelty that will fade away, or be absorbed with “progress.” There will never be a time when the full implications of prescriptive genetic adaptation will be considered digestible and reconcilable with the basic assumptions and principles of liberal democracy. The prejudice against the evidence for sociobiology is built into the basic architecture of the liberal democratic system. Any political system has its holes or blind spots, and so long as this particular political system maintains itself, sociobiology will remain controversial within it.

[Pistolero]

• [T]he American presents a strange picture: a European with Negro behaviour and an Indian soul. He shares the fate of all usurpers of foreign soil. Certain Australian primitives assert that one cannot conquer foreign soil, because in it there dwell strange ancestor-spirits who reincarnate themselves in the newborn. There is a great psychological truth in this. The foreign land assimilates its conqueror. But unlike the Latin conquerors of Central and South America, the North Americans preserved their European standards with the most rigid puritanism, though they could not prevent the souls of their Indian foes from becoming theirs. Everywhere the virgin earth causes the unconscious of the conqueror to sink to the level of its indigenous inhabitants.

• One may prove that Americans and Negroes are races which have sunk below the level of other members of the species in terms of intellectual abilities – or alternatively, on the evidence of no less plausible accounts, that they should be regarded as equal in natural ability to all the other inhabitants of the world. Thus, the philosopher is at liberty to choose whether he wishes to assume natural differences or to judge everything by the principle tout comme chez nous, with the result that all the systems he constructs on such unstable foundation must take on the appearance of ramshackle hypotheses.

• In the name of egalitarianism, they preserve the most insidious form of elitism, which in one guise or another holds the masses incapable of intellectual exertion. The whole problem of American education comes down to this: in American society, almost everyone identifies intellectual excellence with elitism. This attitude not only guarantees the monopolization of educational advantages by the few; it lowers the quality of elite education itself and threatens to bring about a reign of universal ignorance.

[Pistolero]

• On the assumptions that pathology represents a heightened version of normality, we can now see why the absence of the American father has become such a crucial feature of the American family: not so much because it deprives the child of a role model as because it allows early fantasies of the father to dominate subsequent development of the superego. The father's absence, moreover, deforms the relations between mother and child. According to a misguided popular theory, the mother takes the father’s place and confuses the child by assuming a masculine role (Momism). In the child’s fantasies, however, it is not the mother who replaces the father but the child himself. When a narcissistic mother, already disposed to see her offspring as extensions of herself, attempts to compensate the child for the father’s desertion (and also to conform to the socially defined standards of ideal motherhood), her constant but perfunctory attentions, her attempts to make the child feel wanted and special, and her wish to make it ‘stand out’ communicate themselves to the child in a charged and highly disturbing form. The child imagines that the mother has swallowed or castrated the father and harbors the grandiose fantasy of replacing him, by achieving fame or attaching himself to someone who represents a phallic kind of success, thereby bringing about an ecstatic reunion with the mother.

• This Anglo-Saxon of the great herd is, in many important respects, the least civilized of white men and the least capable of true civilization. His political ideas are crude and shallow. He is almost wholly devoid of aesthetic feeling. The most elementary facts about the visible universe alarm him, and incite him to put them down. Educate him, make a professor of him, teach him how to express his soul, and still, he remains palpably third-rate. He fears ideas almost more cravenly than he fears men. His blood, I believe, is running thin; perhaps it was not much to boast of at the start; in order that he may exercise any functions above those of a trader, a pedagogue or a mob orator, it needs the stimulus of other less exhausted strains. The fact that they increase is the best hope of civilization in America. They shake the old race out of its spiritual lethargy, and introduce it to disquiet and experiment. They make for a free play of ideas. In opposing the process, whether in politics in letters or in the age-long struggle towards the truth, the prophets of Anglo-Saxon purity and traditions only make themselves ridiculous.

• In the United States the number of genuine music-lovers is probably very low. There are whole States, e.g., Alabama, Arkansas and Idaho, in which it would be difficult to muster a hundred. In New York, I venture, not more than one person in every thousand of the population deserves to be counted. The rest are, to all intents and purposes, tone deaf. They can not only sit through the infernal din made by current jazz-bands; but they actually like it.

• The jazz-band fetches only vulgarians, barbarians, idiots, pigs.

[Pistolero]

• Modern (post-modern) Art: Visual Art – without beauty > Literature – without narrative plot > Poetry – without rhyme > Architecture and Planning – without ornament, human scale, green space, natural light > Music – without melody or rhythm > Criticism – without clarity, attention to æsthetics, and insight into human condition.

• America is, in fact, the leading case in point of what may be thought of as the third great crisis in western education. The first occurred in the fifth century B.C. when Athens underwent a change from an oral culture to an alphabet-writing culture. To understand what this meant, we must read Plato. The second occurred in the sixteenth century, when Europe underwent a radical transformation as a result of the printing press. To understand what this meant, we must read John Locke. The third is happening now, in America, as a result of the electronic revolution, particularly the invention of television. To understand what this means, we must read Marshall McLuhan.

• In its race towards richness and power, America has abandoned the axis of freedom in order to follow that of productivity…
All the energies, including those related to the ideals and to religion, lead towards the same productive purpose: we are in the presence of a productive society, almost a theocracy of productivity, which is increasingly aiming at producing things rather than people, or people only as more efficient workers…
In the U.S. some kind of mysticism surrounds the supreme rights of the community. The human being, having become a means rather than an end itself, accepts the role of “cog-in-the-machine” without thinking for a second for a second that in the process he may be somewhat belittled…
Hence, a collectivism which is willed by the elites and a-critically accepted by the masses, surreptitiously undermines man’s autonomy and strictly channels his actions, thus confirming his very abdication without him realizing it…
No protests and no reactions of the great American masses ever ensues against the collective tyranny. They accept it freely, as a natural thing, and almost as if it were expedient.

[Pistolero]

• In the face of this fact, is there not some justification for the opinion that the United States owe their very existence to the Jews? And if this be so, how much more can it be asserted that Jewish influence made the United States just what they are — that is, American? For what we call Americanism is nothing else, if we may say so, than the Jewish spirit distilled.

• … nothing is forbidden… in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable... what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges.

• The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc.

• The crisis of modernity on which we have been reflecting leads to the suggestion that we should return. But return to what? Obviously, to Western civilization in its pre-modern integrity, to the principles of Western civilization. Yet, there is a difficulty here, because Western civilization consists of two elements, has two roots, which are in radical disagreement with each other. We may call these elements, as I have done elsewhere, Jerusalem and Athens, or, to speak in non-metaphorical language, the Bible and Greek philosophy. This radical disagreement today is frequently played down, and this playing down has a certain superficial justification, for the whole history of the West presents itself at first glance as an attempt to harmonize or to synthesize the bible and Greek philosophy. But a closer study shows that what happened and has been happening in the West for many centuries is not a harmonization but an attempt at harmonization. These attempts at harmonization were doomed to failure for the following reason: each of these two roots of the Western world sets forth one thing as the one thing needful, and the one thing needful proclaimed in the Bible is incompatible, as it is understood in the Bible, with the one thing needful proclaimed by Greek philosophy, as it is understood by Greek philosophy. To put it very simply and therefore somewhat crudely, the one thing needful according to Greek philosophy is the life of autonomous understanding. The one thing needful as spoken by the bible is the life of obedient love.

[Pistolero]

• Envy is the central fact of American life.

• The hatred Americans have for their own government is pathological, if understandable. At one level it is simply thwarted greed: since our religion is making a buck, giving a part of that buck to any government is an act against nature.

• The more money an American accumulates the less interesting he himself becomes.

• What is going on here is a deliberate revision by Current not only of Lincoln but of himself in order to serve the saint in the 1980s as opposed to the saint at earlier times when black was still colored, having only just stopped being Negroes. In colored and Negro days the saint might have wanted them out of the country, as he did. But in the age of Martin Luther King even the most covertly racist of school boards must agree that a saint like Abraham Lincoln could never have wanted a single black person to leave freedom’s land much less bravery’s home. So, all the hagiographers are redoing their plaster images and anyone who draws attention to the discrepancy between their own past crudities and their current falsities is a very bad person indeed, and not a scholar, and probably a communist as well.

• Liberalism is an escape from hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity, from History to herd-grazing, from reality into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness. Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the mass-escape from Reality. Feminism itself — what is it but a means of feminizing man? If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his relation to “society,” i.e., a woman. “Society” is the element of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are free from the possibility of heroism and violence. Conversation, not action; formality, not deeds. How different is the idea of rank used in connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield! In the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous. A war is fought for control, social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy to show that one is “better” than someone else.

• Culture-parasitism arises in the same way that parasitism arises in politics. A parasite is simply a life-form which lives in or on the body of another life-form at its expense. It involves thus the direction of part of the energy of the host into a direction alien to its interest. This is quite inevitable: if the energy of an organism is being spent for something other than its own development, it is being wasted. Parasitism is inevitably harmful to the host. The harm increases in proportion to the growth and spreading of the parasite. Any group which takes no part in the Culture-feeling, but which lives within the Culture-body, necessarily involves a loss to the Culture. Such groups form areas of anesthetic tissue, as it were, in the Culture body. Such a group, by standing outside the historical necessity, the Destiny of the Culture, inevitably militates against that Destiny. This phenomenon is in no way dependent on human will. The parasite is spiritually without, but physically within. The effects on the host-organism are deleterious both physically and spiritually. The first physical effect of non-participating groups within the body of a Culture is that the numbers of the Culture-population are thereby reduced. The members of the alien group take the place of individuals belonging to the Culture, who thus never come to be born. It reduces artificially the numbers of the Culture-populations by the numbers of the parasitic group. In animal and human parasitism, one of the numerous effects on the host is the loss of nourishment, and Cultural parasitism is analogous. By reducing the numbers of Culture individuals, a Culture-parasite is depriving the Cultural Idea of the only form of physical nourishment it needs — a constant supply of human material adequate to its life-task.

• Important also to the American ideology is the written constitution adopted in 1789, as a result of the labors of Hamilton and Franklin. Their interest in it was practical, their idea being to unite the thirteen colonies into a unit. Since the union could never have been brought about at that time on any sort of central basis, the most they were able to bring about was a weak federation, with a central government that could hardly be described as government at all, but only as a formulated anarchy. The ideas of the constitution were mostly derived from the writings of Montesquieu. The idea of “separation of powers” in particular comes from this French theorist. According to this theory, the powers of government are three, legislative, executive, and judicial. Like all crystal-dear Rationalistic thinking, this is muddy and confused when applied to Life. These powers can only be separated on paper, in Life they cannot. They were never actually separated in America, although the theory was retained that they were. With the onset of an internal crisis in the 30’s of the 20th century, the entire power of the central government was openly concentrated into the executive, and theories were found to support this fact, still calling it “separation.” The various colonies retained most of the power that mattered to them — the power to make their own laws, keep a militia, and conduct themselves in economic independence of the other colonies. The word “state” was chosen to describe the components of the union, and this led to further confused ideological thinking, since European State-forms, where the State was an Idea, were thought to be equivalent to American “states,” which were primarily territorial-legal-economic units, without sovereignty, aim, destiny, or purpose.

• Also important to the American ideology was the feeling — expressed above in Lincoln’s address — of universality. Although the War of Secession had nothing whatever to do with ideology of any kind — and in any case, the Southern legalistic rationale of the War was more consequent than the Yankee idea — Lincoln felt impelled to inject the issue of ideology into the War. The opponent could never be simply a political rival, bent upon the same power as the Yankee — he had to be a total enemy, intent upon wiping out the American ideology. This feeling informed all American Wars from that time onward — any political enemy was regarded ipso facto as an ideological opponent, even though the enemy had no interest whatever in American ideology. In the Age of World Wars, this ideologizing of politics was extended to a world-scale. The power that America chose for enemy was perforce against “freedom,” “democracy,” “liberty,” and all the other magic, but meaningless, words of that category. This led to strange results — any power fighting against the power America had gratuitously chosen for enemy became ipso facto a “liberty,” or “freedom” power. Thus, both Romanov Russia and Bolshevik Russia were “freedom” powers. American ideology led America to claim countries as allies which did not return the compliment, but American ardor was not thereby dampened. This type of politics can only strike Europe as adolescent, and in truth, any pretense that 20th century forms and problems can be described in a 19th century Rationalistic ideology is immature, or to be more blunt, silly. In the 20th century, when the Rationalist type of ideology had been discarded by the advancing Western Civilization, the American universalizing of ideology turned into messianism — the idea that America must save the world. The vehicle of the salvation is to be a materialistic religion with “democracy” taking the place of God, “Constitution” the place of the Church, “principles of government” the place of religious dogmas, and the idea of economic freedom the place of God’s Grace. The technic of salvation is to embrace the dollar, or failing that, to submit to American high-explosives and bayonets.

• Politics in America in the European sense there was none. The American union was formed before the 19th century style of inner-politics was developed. Political parties in their later form were unknown to the authors of the Constitution. The word Party described a dangerous thing — factionalism, near-treason. George Washington in his farewell to public life, counseled his people against “the spirit of Party.” But ambitious men will always seek to have power, even the limited and irresponsible power available within the bounds of a loose federation. When tenure of power is limited to a few years (four years in the American union) the main inner-political problem becomes remaining in power. When the power is obtained by majorities in elections, the science of “electioneering” develops. Voters must be organized in order that the leaders may perpetuate themselves in office, and the technique of organization is the party. Organization takes funds, and it takes ideals. The ideals are for the masses of voters, the funds make it possible to spread them. The funds are more important because they are difficult to procure, whereas ideals are plentiful. This dependence of party-organization upon a supply of funds brought about the situation in which rich men were able to make the party-leaders and party-organizations run things to please them. Even a party-leader in office was not independent, for the rich man alone could keep him there. The name given in the books to this type of government is plutocracy, the rule of money. This was the American form during the whole 19th century, and it continued to the year 1933.


• Thus, in America, the country where mass-thinking, mass-ideals, and mass-living dominate the collective life, propaganda is the prime form of dissemination of information. There are no publications in America addressed solely to the intellect; a Culture-distorting regime rests on its invisibility, and independent thinking by strong individuals is ipso facto hostile to such a regime. Nor are there any publications which purvey only facts. Any facts, and any viewpoints, are co-ordinated, with their presentation, into the ruling propaganda-picture. The techniques of American propaganda are inclusive of every form of communication. The leading instrument is the cinema. Every week, some 80,000,000 people attend the cinema in America, there to absorb the propaganda message. During the period of war-preparation, 1933–1939, the cinemas produced an endless succession of hate pictures directed against the European Revolution of 1933, and its 20th century outlook and actualizations. Second in effectiveness is the radio. Every American has in his home one or more wireless receivers, and through them, the mass-picture of events is brought to him again. He has already read the same compulsory viewpoint in the press, seen it in the cinema, and now he hears it. The press, both newspaper and periodical, is third in effectiveness. It should be said that in America, effectiveness of propaganda is measured solely by the numbers which it reaches, since the mass-thinking ideal has triumphed over individuality, quality, and intellectual stratification of the population. Fourth is the book press. Only such books may be printed as represent or fit into the larger propaganda framework. Thus, an edition of the Arabian Nights for children was recently withdrawn in America because some of the contents were said to have the possible effect of prejudicing readers against Jews, and one objectionable illustration showed an unscrupulous merchant with the features of a Jew, in the story about Aladdin and his lamp. During the years 1933–1939, the larger policy of the distorter was entirely unquestioned in any paper, book, or magazine of wide circulation. Next are the universities and colleges. The mass-idea, as applied to education means that “higher education” is generalized to an extent that the high academic standards of Europe make impossible. America, with only half the population of the Western homeland, has more than 10 times as many institutions granting academic degrees. Actually, what is disseminated in these institutions is primarily a slightly more esoteric version of the prevailing ideological and propaganda world-view of the Culture-distorting regime. Last is the stage. Outside of New York City, the spiritual capital of the ruling regime, this hardly exists, but in New York, the journalistic play is an important propaganda-technique. Particularly during the period 1933–1939 did the stage play an important role. A constant stream of hate-plays was produced directed against the world-outlook of the 20th century and its European representatives. Many of these plays were in the Yiddish language, since the leaders in America require uniformity also in their own people.

[Pistolero]

• America is the original version of modernity. We are the dubbed or subtitled version. America ducks the question of origins; it cultivates no origin or mythical authenticity; it has no past and no founding truth. Having known no primitive accumulation of time, it lives in a perpetual present.

• Disneyland is there to conceal the fact that it is the “real” country, all of “real” America, which is Disneyland (just as prisons are there to conceal the fact that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal omnipresence, which is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, when in fact all of Los Angeles and the America surrounding it are no longer real, but of the order of the hyperreal and the simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology), but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle. The Disneyland imaginary is neither true nor false; it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate in reverse the fiction of the real. Whence the debility, the infantile degeneration of this imaginary. It is meant to be an infantile world, in order to make us believe that the adults are elsewhere, in the “real” world, and to conceal the fact that real childishness is everywhere, particularly amongst those adults who go there to act the child in order to foster illusions as to their real childishness.

• Whereas representation tries to absorb simulation by interpreting it as false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum. This would be the successive phases of the image: – it is the reflection of a basic reality – it masks and perverts a basic reality – it masks the absence of a basic reality – it bears no relation to any reality whatever; it is its own pure simulacrum. In the first case, the image is a good appearance – the representation is of the order of sacrament. In the second, it is an evil appearance–of the order of malefice. In the third, it plays at being an appearance – it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer in the order of appearance at all, but of simulation.

• The expression “liberal democracy” associates two terms posed as complementary, whereas they are contradictory.

[Pistolero]

Americanism = Judeo-Puritanism
Messianic - Globalizing
Anti-Diversity, pretending to be pro-diversity. Reducing diversity to product to be sold on its open markets.
Empire of Lies
Hollywood = Art of Deceit
Marketing = Science of Deceit
US Media= Propagation of Deceit
US politics = Power Through Deceit

Meritocracy of deceivers. Performers.

Basic tenants of Americanism, shaping its ideal citizen Homo Americanus:

1] Open-Markets: free-flow of goods & services, i.e., globalism. All is reduced to a product to be sold and purchased on the markets, including identity, gender, love, culture, etc.; no divisive boundaries will be tolerated, because they are bad for business.

2] Open Borders: free-flow of human resources – an end of ethnicity and nationalism. Humans are another product and service to be sold and purchased on the open markets – modern wage slavery. Nothing to prevent mixing and synthesizing, i.e., diluting, disarming.

3] Individualism: ego-centered. Promoting and prescribing a future man entirely void of a past exceeding the moment of his birth, i.e., lacking a genetically inherited identity – nature. Man is presented as a tabula rasa; entirely a product of nurturing – socioeconomically determined; a resource, a product of ongoing socioeconomic supply/demand dynamics, entirely malleable (fabricated); subjective and subjected to the effects of intersubjective socioeconomic environments, i.e., a modern civilization with no dominant culture.
Individuals judged exclusively by their performances within this supply/demand market dynamic, viz., consuming/producing; measured monetarily, via their marketability, popularity, etc.; a man’s utility, marketability, determining his market-value (appreciation).

4] Messianism: ‘freedom,’ replacing salvation myths, via a messianic icon/idol which has been abstracted into credit codes, e.g., money, implying a liberation from the past – inheritance; liberation from physical identifiers, viz., liberated from natural identifiers (genetic markers), the tangible, the physical, the body as past made present; compensating for the loss of a past with the promise of an imminent techno-utopian future – replacing paradise, and its allusions to a beyond space/time eternal bliss, with futurism; a multifariously singular one-god replaced by the conception of a diversified one-humanity; god-creator of oneness replaced by universal order, manifesting an individuated creation of its singularity – an extension of divine will; “will to power” redefined as universal fatalism determining inevitable outcomes that must be positively affirmed, i.e., faith in divine benevolence – individuals acting as divine agencies nullifying injustices, prejudices, bigotry, cruelty, hatred etc.; healing, correcting the world {tikkun olam}, progressively moving towards divine completion (perfection) within which all injustices are justified and all suffering is meaningful.
No alternative systems will be tolerated. Americanism will become emulated globally. All alternatives will be abandoned, or converted to products, fashions, and trends, to be recycled and sold on the open markets – reduced to semiotics.
America presents itself as an agency of salvation, via monetary relief from nature’s “inhumane injustices” – a pragmatic application of either/or binaries as its sacred codes, e.g., either all mankind will be saved from its past, from itself, or all mankind will be doomed to an eternity in an earthly hell, i.e., Armageddon.

5] Futurism/Techno-Utopianism: (akin of the Italian art movement) – focus of presence in a perpetual present; absorbed by an eternally imminent future, with no inhibiting past to limit all forms of idealized projections forward, and forever onward – eternal hope is maintained as a constant ‘yet to become’ which can never disappoint because it could never be; individuality reduced to a noetic singularity – entirely theoretical and abstract, created socioeconomically. [Postmodernism]
A seductive idea if you keep in mind accumulating unfit mutations burdening the common man with failures he cannot fully understand – finding relief in accusations against an evil external agency, preventing the full realization of a promised ideal.

6] Pragmatism: even at the cost of reason and integrity – what works is true, what fails to produce a desired outcome is useless, ergo untrue. Hedonism is presented as a validating criterion for judging and choosing varied subjective perspectives.
Americanism uses materialism – access to goods & services – as a measure of man’s highest objectives, ergo freedoms, viz., salvation, liberty, is validated by access to multiple varieties of goods & services; ‘pursuit of happiness’ becomes a guiding principle determining an individual’s assessment of truth, e.g., if it does not add to the potential for attaining happiness – defined as comfort, safety, pleasure etc. – it is false and useless, if it does it is true and useful.
‘Happiness’ is defined as the gratification of needs/desires that can only be evaluated through access to goods & services; ergo, more access to goods and services is a pragmatic measure of contentment; available pleasure options measuring a man’s happiness.
Truth is reduced to human psychology where unreason often usurps reason. As such, if the irrational produces desirable effects, then it is “true.”

7] More is best: antithesis to the minimalist Stoic mantra “less is more”; gluttony & greed are a virtue not a vice – perpetual economic growth used as a measure of progress; quantities over qualities.
In the either/or binary model, asceticism is defined in accordance with Abrahamic worldviews, viz., it is an end in itself. Contraposed to this definition of asceticism, is Americanism’s superfluity, as an end in itself.
‘Less is more,’ rationalizes its antithesis, ‘more is better,’ i.e., gluttony, greed, promiscuity, any form of excess becomes a basic measure of freedom and happiness; ‘progress’ becomes a perpetual movement towards greater quantities, even at the expense of lowering qualities. Markets must be continuously growing, wealth increasing, goods and services moving, because this is the only way to practically measure truth and happiness.

8] No Biological/Natural Identifiers: nothing that causes human divisions and prevents the free-flow of resources, including human resources, will be tolerated.
All identifiers will be products to be recycled on the open markets.
Identity is reduced to another product of socioeconomic dynamics – socially constructed. Physical presence is concealed, or dismissed as superficial – another shell to be replaced by manmade shells (garments) or surgically modified to reflect fashion trends. The body is but another product to be bought and sold, determining market prices (values).

9] Diversity: code for the absence of biodiversity – negation of racial, ethnic, cultural diversity; pseudo-diversity, where everything is reduced to a manmade construct; consumer diversity. Only two political options, representing a singular ideal, but dozens of gender options – and soft-drink, and restaurant, and fashion, and musical options. Culture condensed to a disposable garment one can put on and then take off, replacing it with another.
↔

[Alexis Jacobi]

See also Pierre Krebs, Fighting for the Essence.

It is important to understand the root ideas in the developing anti-Liberalism and, necessarily, anti- or counter-Americanism movement.

Dr. Krebs offers a devastating critique of multiculturalism, showing that although it claims to be the watchman of racial and cultural diversity, it is actually destructive to both, as it denies the significance of racial differences altogether. He traces its origins to the legacy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and shows how this has developed into many of the most powerful tools of liberalism of our times. These are serving the interests of the global marketplace by turning all of humanity into compliant consumers. Those who endorse multiculturalism are, in fact, the enemies of all traditional culture. Dr. Krebs also takes issue with the use of the term ‘West’ to describe our culture, which he sees as an effort to deprive the various European cultures which comprise it of their unique characters and histories. This will lead to their replacement by a grey conformity divorced from any authentic roots, as well as a value system that is frequently used as a weapon against those nations which refuse to share them. This assault is not limited to Europe, but is something that is going on in every corner of the globe.
Dr. Krebs says that it is time for all those who believe in the worthiness of their heritage and unique ethnic identity to return to the wellsprings of their peoples, and defend what is rightfully theirs. With a deeper trench between the camps of multiculturalism and traditional culture being dug all the time, this is the conflict that will define the 21st century. Drawing examples from many of the most notable contributors to science, philosophy and religion, Dr. Krebs illustrates a truth that is difficult to deny. Anyone who heeds his warning will find it impossible not to accept his challenge to take sides in the ongoing struggle against universal conformity.
Dr. Pierre Krebs (b. 1948) is a major figure in Neue Kultur, the German branch of the European New Right, and is also the leader of the Thule-Seminar. He holds degrees in law, journalism, sociology, and political science. This is his first work to be translated into English.

[Pistolero]

Oh, I know the root ideas of dominance and being dominated...and I also know how power corrupts.

There is no benevolent god, and no benevolent empire.
Anyone claiming to be so, is lying.

Is "diversity a strength?" or is it necessary, out of a position of weakness, such as when diversifying your portfolio, to deal with market uncertainties, or when females are naturally compelled to diversify the men they have children with, to compensate for environmental shifts.

Is a "melting pot" diversity?
There's more diversity in Canada where the ethnicities and races are not urged to mix....not until America became a hyper-power.

[Pistolero]

American pseudo-diversity = dozens of colas....only 2 political options.

Diversity for the States means, brand diversity.
It does not tolerate bio-diversity in humans, e.g., sex/gender, race/ethnicity.
It does not tolerate cultural and ideological diversity. All must adopt the American model - culture of no culture.

Even its secularism is based on its intolerance of spiritual diversity.
God is the last divisive idea secular nihilism must overcome, to create its uniform Utopia.

[Alexiev]

American pseudo-diversity = dozens of colas....only 2 political options.

Diversity for the States means, brand diversity.
It does not tolerate bio-diversity in humans, e.g., sex/gender, race/ethnicity.
It does not tolerate cultural and ideological diversity. All must adopt the American model - culture of no culture.

Even its secularism is based on its intolerance of spiritual diversity.
God is the last divisive idea secular nihilism must overcome, to create its uniform Utopia.

This is nonsense, of course. While European nations promote anti-hate speech laws and libel laws that restrict freedom of speech, the U.S. continues to abide by the first amendment (for how much longer is unclear).

Although the diversity in America has led to wacky religious groups, we continue to have freedom of thought and religion. The evangelicals who decry diversity represent only 20% or less of our population.

It is correct, of course, that traditionally Americans support individuality, free enterprise, and frontier adventurism. Read Walt Whitman or Emerson to understand this ethos. The frontier led to dreams of quick scores and sudden wealth. With social status tied to money (instead of birth) one's status has always been precarious. Gold Rushes attracted huge percentages of Americans, the vast majority of whom lost money in these adventures. The frontier has vanished, but the ethos remains strong.