“The American Experiment” is a particularly noxious piece of sophistry often touted by globalists. According to a recent column by the New York Times’ David Brooks, importing people “from around the world” is an endeavor to which, as Americans, “we devoted our lives.” In fact, this devotion “holds the nation together” even through the current dark (Trump) times. Brooks is outspoken in his desire that a contemptible “dying white America” give way to a thriving brown superpower, a destiny he attempts to confuse his audience into believing that it was always intended to fulfill.
It’s hard to dispute that our lives have been devoted to a globalist experiment. However, did “we” ever provide our consent? Never, since people are reticent to wager the survival of themselves and everything they hold dear on the outcome of an “experiment.” Wherever possible, civilizations follow precedents to ensure their survival. “Since it worked in the past, it should work now” has always been a better maxim than “This could destroy us, but let’s give it a shot.” In the past, America was no exception to common sense.
The modern historical narrative erroneously portrays the Founders as embarking on a grand experiment which continues to this day. In reality, the Founders assiduously regarded historical precedents. They used their insights into the lessons of history to craft a framework with the best chance of functionality. This wasn’t an experiment to them, so they never described it as such. It was their explicit intention to bequeath a bright future in the New World to their people. The US Constitution wasn’t written as a blueprint for national suicide via mass third world influx.
Experiments often have negative outcomes. Thus, if people are involved, ethics require “informed consent” about the risks of what’s going on. Unfortunately, since the Hart-Celler Act was passed in 1965 the fate of America (in its current form) has been bound to the outcome of a failed experiment that’s coming to an end. It’s the job of sophists like Brooks to convince naïve consumers of the MSM not to worry because everything is proceeding according to plan.
Although his surname might obscure his ethnic background, Brooks’ agenda points to his true identity. While he markets himself as a “moderate conservative,” he is a Jew. A Jewish globalist is a far different breed from sheep globalists like George W. Bush. While sheep globalists often lack critical thinking skills, they have “skin in the game.” In the long term, they stand to lose just as much as everybody else. Therefore, they must be financially incentivized or led astray intellectually through sophistry (i.e. “the American Experiment”) in order to support the displacement of their own people.
The primary defining feature of Jewish globalists is that they tout this philosophy to everyone else, while maintaining a deep loyalty to their ethnostate of Israel. In the case of David Brooks, his son served in the Israeli Defense Forces, because “it was the right thing to do.” So, Brooks maintains that Americans have dedicated their lives to a globalist experiment, but he’s proud that his son joined the IDF to risk his life in the service of his own people.
This is hardly an uncommon paradox among his ilk. Here’s another prominent example: former White House Chief of Staff and current Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emmanuel. He supports open borders and sanctuary cities. However, as a young man, he joined the IDF to serve an ethnostate that is the antithesis of everything he seeks to foist on the country he purports to serve.
This brings us to another signature characteristic of Jewish globalists: they seem totally unaware of their galling hypocrisy. Sadly, this demographic wields virtually unchallenged power over our political, financial and media institutions. In the Alt Right, it’s our job to bring attention to these hateful people and their destructive contradictions because nobody else is willing do to so. The continued advancement of their agenda will be to everyone’s fatal detriment.