A Righteous Jew:

Jews have a term for good non-Jews. They're labeled 'righteous gentiles.' What does it take to get on the good side of Jews? Simple, a righteous gentile is someone who cares more about Jewish welfare than any other group, including their own.

Just be a slave to the Jews and you will join the ranks of righteousness.

Everyone else, obviously, is an anti-semite.

Jews only care about themselves. Their entire religion is about themselves. Their God is entirely dedicated to them, and no one else (unlike the Christian or Muslim God who cares about all humans, Jehova is solely the God of the Jews and has no interest in what anyone else does aside from Jews, or what happens to anyone but Jews. It's such a fitting God. A racist God for a racist people.)

Jews consider themselves the Chosen people. If they're religious, it's because God favors them, which makes them superior to all other humans. If they're secular, it's because they're so much smarter, wiser, and more enlightened than all the other goys on Earth. But their overwhelming sense of arrogance is the same, and as a result, all their thinking about the outside world is the same as well. What's good is what's good for the Jews, the Chosen people, and what's bad is what's bad for the Jews. There is no other value to consult because Jews are the only valuable beings on Earth. Everything else's value is a measure of how useful they are for Jews. Jews are the sun, and everything else can only have the reflected light glory of, at best, the moon.

This is the thinking behind the term Righteous Gentile, which is really one of the most condescending terms on Earth. For anyone who wishes to be a lapdog to the self-decided Chosen people, go ahead and get your praise. No one with any sense of pride, however, would wish to be 'worthy' of such an honor.

I could be a smart-aleck and turn the formula around. "I don't hate all Jews. There's still the possibility of a 'righteous Jew' out there, somewhere. A righteous Jew is someone who prefers and serves gentiles over and above his own race. A righteous Jew would be a Nazi collaborator, like George Soros' Dad. See, I don't hate all Jews. It's possible for some of them to earn my praise."

But then I'd be putting myself on their level. I think people should reap what they sow, but, as entertaining as the thought of turning the formula around may be, it isn't genuinely accurate, because the world is not simply a war between the races. Good doesn't equal 'my race' and evil doesn't equal 'their race.' Righteousness should never have been defined as allied to any race at all. Righteousness is reserved for those with allegiances to God. Not with the Christian God, or the Muslim God, or the Jewish God (which would immediately revert to 'good' just being allegiance to the Jewish race again,) but a God much higher than all of them, the God that created the absolute principles of this universe, including the moral ones, that brought not only light, but also love, truth, and beauty into this world.

Any old star can 'let there be light.' But only God can let there be good. Or in other words, whatever good that exists in this world is so supremely brilliant and deserving of worship beyond all else that exists in this world, that it immediately takes on the meaning, form, and reality of Godhood. You could say the Godhead is composed of a dizzying melange, or collage, of so many good things that no human could ever comprehend or contain it all. Sort of like a robot constructed out of a junkheap, God is continuously being built upon from every spare part it finds. Whenever someone smiles, it manages to grow a bit more towards infinity.

God is good incarnate, wherever that might be found. And it isn't so petty as to play favorites. A righteous gentile is a gentile who is on the side of good, of God, and a righteous Jew is a Jew who is on the side of good, of God. There's no difference whatsoever.

The reason I hate the vast majority of Jews has nothing to do with their race and everything to do with their actual behavior. I don't think their behavior is inevitable. If someone could ever give them a good thumping on the head and a lecture on right and wrong, they could be made to see a much better path. But if everyone is too afraid to ever confront a Jew, disagree with a Jew, or criticize a Jew, how will they ever be redeemed away from their insane, destructive path and converted to worship of the one true God?

Jews currently believe that the world should be turned into one giant diversity park, where everyone enjoys both equality and freedom, despite these two ideas being contradictory. Women and men should be the same, straights and gays should be the same, all races should be the same, the rich and the poor should be the same, the able and the disabled should be the same, the smart and the stupid should be the same, and so on. And once everything has been leveled, every individual will be free from societal pressure to conform to any group identity. All group identifications will be abolished, and individuals, each equal to every other individual, will follow their own instincts alone and self-actualize through some blazing pioneering path of happiness that's just right for them. This is the liberal dream, first defined and argued for by Jews, that has taken most of the world hostage.

It isn't a dream though, because the results will only be a worldwide nightmare. If you mix two dissimilar numbers, it can only be done by reverting to the lowest common denominator. Or if you don't like math, think of it this way. To get two species to be the same again, they can only meet by tracing their evolutionary trees back to their first common ancestor. The only way to force dissimilar things back into equality is to revert to a far more primitive, lower beginning, some sort of primordial goo, which not only erases our differences, but everything else valuable about mankind and society as well.

Our religions are different, so according to liberalism they must be abolished. Our sexes are different, so they have to go. Our outward appearances are different, so they must be homogenized into one muddy brown. Everyone has to become bisexual or at least transvestite so we can all get along. Rich people's money has to be spent on poor people to make up the difference. Smart people must be silenced and controlled, or simply done away with (the answers they came to in Cambodia and Mao's China), so as to not outshine dumb people and make them feel bad. One person, however stupid and irrational, will still have equal say in the future of the world to another, no matter how brilliant or learned, via the democratic idea of universal suffrage. Liberalism must level everything, or we will never reach the next stage of universal freedom. But the leveling is just another word for destroying. It's impossible to rise up the poor and stupid of this world, because they were born that way and cannot achieve more than their inborn potential, so liberalism always resorts to tearing down the heights instead.

Leveling equals destroying everything great and good in this world. The Jewish dream is to destroy everything great and good in this world, like a lawnmower who's only sense of perfection is a freshly mowed field of corpses.

Communism was not a perversion of liberalism. It was the idealistic, logical conclusion thereof. Today's liberals are too cowardly to destroy everything all at once, so they've stuck with their drip, drip acidic approach that destroys things over centuries instead. To tell the truth, I admire the communists more. At least they had the courage of their convictions.

Furthermore, the liberal, Jewish dream would be bad even after the equality part. Suppose they really did manage to erase all distinctions between people. Everyone acted, at least in public, as though everyone else were their equal in every way. This would mean that there could be no moral system that distinguished some people as better than others due to their behavior, because some people would be more apt at achieving that behavior, and then a new crevasse would open up, threatening the liberal utopia with a 'disproportionate impact.'

To achieve equality we would have to sacrifice any belief in the Good at all. Only relativism, ie, nihilism, can save liberalism from its internal contradictions.

And if you have a world of pure nihilists, who assert that nothing is innately good and therefore no one is better than anybody else, what use freedom?

The second part of the liberal dream is that the world, once being freed of all its onerous group identities and responsibilities, could finally blaze forth on a pursuit of happiness. But how can a nihilist be happy? From the very beginning, we had to give up the idea of good and evil, when we gave up group categorizations.

Where should they 'blaze forth' to? All their blazing will only taste like ashes. After all, everyone knows that everything they do is pointless and meaningless from the start, because all actions are equally good and everyone is equal, whoever they are, whatever they're doing.

Even the same individual is equal no matter what choice he makes. After all, if two different people can't be made unequal by their choices, how could the same person become better or worse via making the same different choices?

For a nihilist, there is no freedom at all. It's a paradox. Complete freedom of action implies a complete meaninglessness as to where he goes, what he does, and who he is. That is the only time society would grant him a complete freedom of action in the first place -- when no one cared what he ended up doing. The end result will be people who do nothing. Complete freedom of action includes the freedom of inaction, which, after all, is a lot easier than action. Since action and inaction are equal, inertia would lead to the same inevitable result in every human soul.

A worldwide plunge into alcoholism and drugs.

Russia already told us this would be the result, but no one else seems to have connected the dots. The liberals of the Soviet Union taught, for seventy years, that everything was equal in this world, and no one was better than anyone else. Most of all, they taught that there was no God and this universe was a random, purposeless whirl of atoms, no more, and no less. Then Russians became the people with the worst birth rates, suicide rates, lifespans, alcohol rates, and drug rates in the developed world. But no one ever thought, no one ever wondered, if these two trends were in any way connected.

So I will be the one to make the connection: Liberalism leads to nihilism which leads to self-extinguishment. You erase yourself, in one way or another, and float like seaweed through the sea of whirling atoms until you can finally sink back into blissful non-existence.

It had nothing to do with Russia's lack of freedom. Russia wasn't free under the Tzars and they didn't behave anything like that. Rome wasn't free under the Emperors but they never annihilated themselves. Entire slave populations, whipped and clad in chains, have still lived better than the Russian people brought up in the Soviet Union's schools. If merely lacking freedom led to people abnegating life, we would have seen these trends in worse forms in the past, and in different places. Instead we see practically every culture and people on Earth, whether freer or less free, never acting even remotely as badly as the Russians.

The limitless freedom of liberalism is in fact an illusion. The people who obtain it soon learn to repent of their gains. It's a cursed magic item that eats away at your soul and kills you from the inside out. If liberalism ever did manage to give people limitless freedom, it would be the death of them. If they manage to give the world limitless freedom, it would be the end of the world. Limitless freedom means purposeless chaos. The terms are interchangeable.

Everyone, to be healthy, to feel that their lives are worthwhile, must be constrained by their sense of values. They must have goals. And in doing so, they soon find that everything that hinders their goal, they are no longer free to do. And everything that advances their goal, they are no longer free to NOT do. In fact, they are bound day and night to continue on their pilgrimage, their one lone, straight path to God. The happiest people in this world aren't free of anything. There is a reason behind each and every decision they make in their lives, and they feel the bitter sting when they fall short of it, and a warm self-satisfaction when they fulfill it.

A goal that binds one person likewise binds another. If it doesn't have the weight, the strength, to bind another person, why would it have the weight to bind yourself?

Some shitty maxim like 'everyone is free of each other but can religiously compel their own actions', who would swallow it? If what you're doing is so good, so meaningful, so important, why wouldn't it be a categorical imperative? Why would it only include you? Why, in short, would freedom trump it? If freedom is more important than your 'purpose in life,' that which is supposed to regulate your actions, then why can't other things be more important too? Soon enough you're right back to drugs and alcohol. Unless the good actually matters, it doesn't matter. For the good matter, it has to be the most important thing on Earth. More important than other people's freedom.

To stop the lassitude of nihilism, libertarianism, some crazy principle of non-intervention, is a dumb joke. If something matters, then it must police everyone, not just one. Humorously enough, this logic is implied in the idea that 'freedom' is so important that no one can violate its reign. I grant the logic, there must be something important enough that no one has the right to go against it -- or else I too have the right to go against it, which means I have no reason to pursue anything in particular, which means drugs and alcohol and death. The problem is freedom is just a negative. If the greatest thing in this world of all is a non-existence, a non-entity, such as 'non-aggression,' or 'non-oppression,' then there is nothing good in this world. Good is, apparently, a temporary lack of evil in the world. What a ridiculous foundation for people to build their spiritual houses on.

Freedom is a negative, it simply denotes a desire for certain things not to happen or exist. It has no positive value. It does not assert that anything is actually good in this world. Therefore liberalism, (libertarians being a subset thereof) which has tried to make freedom its God, ultimately worships emptiness, nothingness, nihilism, death. How could it be otherwise? Unless you worship SOMETHING, of course you'll end up worshiping NOTHING.

But there is something of value in this world. Not just a lack of aggression, or a lack of oppression, or such nonsense. There's the actual presence of love. The actual presence of beauty. And the actual presence of truth in this world. There's also some other cool things, that are probably just derivatives of the forementioned terms: Honor, Pride, Justice, Purity, Cheerfulness, Happiness, Wisdom, Piety -- many, many virtues already found, and many, many virtues yet to be found, reserved for the angels, perhaps, or those who will come after the angels, or those who will come after them.

If you value these things, you can build your house on a solid formation, something that actually exists, instead of the thin air of 'lack of x' which is freedom's formula. And, incidentally, you'll throw freedom away as a useless chimera, not only for yourself, but for everyone. In its place will be a new word, a word full of purpose and meaning: Duty.

A world built out of rocks of duty is more fulfilling than a world built out of voids of freedom. Freedom will collapse down immediately, composed, after all, of nothing but air. But the rocks can build all sorts of structures. Eiffel towers and Hagia Sophias of the soul. Rocks can do anything, shaped well enough. Rocks are pretty cool.

Therefore left-liberalism, which stresses equality, and right-liberalism, which stresses freedom, are equally ridiculous and equally destructive to mankind. Swallow any variation of hemlock and the result is still the same. Liberalism's internal conflicts, the fights you see between Obama and Romney, are a fight over which poison we should be picking. It's irrelevant. It's a farce.

Only something that opposes both freedom and equality as improper for the human condition and the human spirit could ever save the world, or even a single individual, from oblivion.

It would say this: You are called upon by God to fulfill your religious duty, to add to my collage. If freedom tells you that would violate someone's whimsy, also known as their 'free will,' then smash freedom. If equality says that would have a 'disproportionate impact' on an 'underprivileged minority,' then smash them already and move on. We don't have time for these stupid, gadfly like buzzing distractions. We aren't the liberals' servants, or beholden to their false idols. We are the servants of God, the righteous, and they are beholden to us, for we are their superiors.

There needs to be a revolution. A physical revolution that puts the power of the state into the hands of the observant. IE, we need to install God's law, not these ridiculous heresies thought up by liberals who date all the way back to the Enlightenment -- 'freedom' and 'equality.' But before then, there needs to be a cultural revolution. There needs to be people with the voice to speak up for a new and higher God, and people with the ears to listen when the bell is tolled. Once the cultural revolution is complete, the physical revolution would be a synch, after all. And before the cultural revolution is complete, the physical revolution wouldn't achieve anything, because no one would be willing to enforce or obey the laws of God in the first place. The people who are speaking and listening to the book of God are the Chosen people. They can be any sex, sexuality, race, blah blah blah they want to be. But so long as various sexes, sexualities, races, and blah blahs behave worse than others, don't expect me to judge them or treat them equally to their betters. If that makes me a racist, sexist, homophobic anti-semite, well, oh well.

After all, it also lets me join a rather exclusive club, in this day and age. I will also join the ranks of the righteous, and live forever in the bosom of God -- as a part of his collage of all that is great and good in this universe, as a memory that I *happened*, and I was Good, that cannot be denied or retroactively undone by any passage of years.