Thursday, May 27, 2010

What Is Sovereignty Under Jewish Enemy Rule?

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Many have noted that the philosophy of Plato and Socrates mirrors and was perhaps the foundation of, or perhaps even arose from, Judaism. Aristotle, also, came close to the Jewish model, with his love of the law as if potentially a divine and perfect method of rule.

On its face, Judaism would appear to advocate its countless laws as sovereign over all mankind. But Jewish law contains internal contradictions and unresolved issues, so many in fact, that under Jewish law the Jew can justify any action he would take.

I find the views of the Greeks to be naive. The Jews have a basic understanding and basis for their sovereign rule over the Goyim, over the nations. Jewish sovereignty is a mere guiding principle, "Do always and only what is good for the Jews to the extent that it affects Jews individually or collectively." The opinions as to what may or may not be in the Jews' interest are formed based on Jewish law and Jewish authorities, but these laws and opinions are not sovereign and are easily set aside in favor of pragmatic concerns.

This being the case, Americans suffer under a hostile sovereign and enemy force, the Jewish principle that the State and society must always and only do what is good for the Jew. The Jews view as good for themselves the attainment of all wealth, all media, all political influence, and the destruction of Gentile health, Gentile power, and Gentile genetics, ultimately the destruction of all Gentiles.

This Jewish rule manifests itself into action and substance through the control of public opinion and the exercise of political and private power. Jewish sovereignty over Americans is very much a function of the mentality and mindset of Americans, which the Jews carefully regulate and create. It is also the product of disunity among Americans, the effective vacuum of non-consensus being filled by the Jewish sovereign principle of doing what is good for the Jews.

Understanding how the Jews rule and the nature of their sovereignty allows us to break the yoke of their power. Immigration is presently a hot topic. If sovereignty in a democratic republic resides in the masses and is expressed through their representatives, then the goal of the State ought to be to benefit the masses in sustainable ways. In order to do this, the State must have a working definition of the folk whose best interests the State is intended to serve.

This presents the Jews with a method of attack in America. The Jews have actively sought to undermine every image of what it is to be an American, and instead promote the destructive myth that to be an American is to be international and to subvert your interests for those of others, those others being always the Jews or any other group the serving of which destroys America.

Should the POWER PARTY take control of the powers of the State, we will need a much better working definition of what it is that is American, and what our immigration policy should be and how we are to judge its merits and design its structure. The first question I ask myself when considering immigration on its most superficial level, is in what other countries, or regions of countries, do I feel most at home? For me, the answer is clearly northern European countries and the regions of other countries which resemble northern European culture. This is obviously in part a product of the region of the United States in which I reside, but I nevertheless suspect that those Americans from Florida would in general feel more at home Toronto, than in New Delhi; and that those Americans from Pheonix would feel more at home in Stockholm than in Cairo, though many now would feel quite at home in Mexico City, which brings me to my point.

The Jews are deliberately changing our demographics to make America anything but American, and to make it impossible to define America as anything other than international. At the close of the Second World War, large numbers of Germany's finest scientists came to America and they contributed greatly to our prestige and sovereignty, without changing our culture or pitting us one against the other or destroying our unity or our unity of purpose. The same cannot be said of the general immigration, legal and illegal, from Latin America and Asia in the post-WWII era. The Asians have arisen as our worst and most exploitive competitors (internally and externally and due to the Jews) and the Latin Americans are a growing Communist threat (internally and externally and due to the Jews).

If we are to import more people, and I do not think we need many more unless there is a rational purpose behind the importation, then a first superficial concern is logically to ask ourselves, would we feel at home in the place from which this person is coming? Will they feel at home here, or will they tend to try to change America into something else?

There was a time when it served our interests to import large masses of people, but that time has largely passed. We have labor saving devices, and slavery was a tragedy and a mistake for all involved. It was also a genocide on an almost incomprehensible scale. We have native genius beyond all other nations and we should be nurturing it, rather than importing foreign talent.