this is where America fundamentally fails

It takes pride in it's lack of these senses

america fails by ignoring its roots of "free white persons of good character"

america used to be openly 1488

It's the same reason for which Hitler's "Lebensborn" policy would be equally disastrous

it wanted to produce people without origin and sense of purpose, albeit "racially pure", but whose sense of purpose and origins would entirely be provided by the state via process of standardization

which is something inferior, plastic, in comparison to real and proper form

hence in such a society, everything would have to be mythologized,and that's exactly what Nazis did

because people origins would really be mythical rather than real

so?

I fail to see how that makes capitalism good

You didnt read me, this has nothing to do directly with capitalism

Capitalism good for who?

but im explaining what kind of reazoning leads to Americanism

It can be good for you if you have a profitable business.

I have scarcely seen a profit that isn't morally bad in origin

It's in boundaries

that doesn't entail hiring tons of retards to make and sell a bad product to other masses of idiots so they can throw it in the landfill

Many societies in ancient past have actually reached the point where they concluded that they don't want to pursue further expansion or increase in wealth

Modern society has no such capacity

Morals are a thing of the past. Morals are the chains of the white male.

their morality is wrong

aryan morality says it is their obligation to oppress the inferior

the inferior, the ugly, the stupid, the immoral

Morality is subjected to a sens of order

And Christian morality?

christian morality is where all this garbage came from

Most of moral instructions purpose is to prevent excess

and christian morality came from the nicene creed, which came from roman theocracy, which came from their realization that by being "inclusive" and incorporating random north africans and arabs into the "roman family" they can expand and conquer

It's funny to notice one thing

Have you read https://dissidentright.com/2015/12/09/victimization-as-power/ ?

Most of the people who are victims today, either of violence, or crimes which we consider "immoral"

Would never be in such a position in the past due to existence of an extended family, tribe, et cetera

Which would punish any insider, and especially outsider, who would do such a thing

well yes, I would explain that to you in detail TES but you are a dalit

`Slave morality begins as a rejection of Master morality, as the yin to master morality’s yang. Master morality has also created slave morality; it is reactionary in nature, and exists because it seeks to rationalize to the weak their position in life. The primary hallmark of slave morality is one of a ‘relief of suffering and oppression’. Those things, whatever they are, that are useful in opposing oppression is a moral ‘good’. This makes values such as selflessness, altruism, meekness, and feeling pity a moral good to the weak. It is fundamentally pessimistic about the human condition by seeing people as inherently weak and pitiful, questions the happiness of the strong and noble, rejects hierarchy as an manifestation of oppression, and doubts the ‘good’ of this life. Generally, it argues for a morality for all, noble and weak alike. Because of the conditions its adherents find themselves in life, it must look to the future, to ‘progress’, for ‘salvation’. It lacks respect for, and in instances has outright disdain for, tradition and ancestors; what have their ancestors or traditions done for them?`

`To truly understand slave morality, it is necessary to examine where Nietzsche first observed the inversion of master morality, in the Roman-Jewish interactions of Ancient Rome. The Jewish underclass of the Roman Empire ‘achieved the amazing feat of inverting values’. This had the effect of creating a moral outlook from the act of being subjugated. In Beyond Good and Evil (BGE), Nietzsche describes the Jews’ ‘slave rebellion in morality’, and how they managed to invert the higher values as prescribed by the master morality:`

`The Jews, a people “born for slavery”, “the chosen people among peoples,” as they themselves said and believed, achieved the amazing feat of inverting values, thanks to which life on earth for two millennia has possessed a new and dangerous appeal. Their prophets fused “rich,” “godless,” “evil,” “violent,” and “sensuous” into a unity. In this inversion of values (to which belongs the use of the word for “poor” as a synonym for “holy” and “friend”) lies the significance of the Jewish people: with them begins the slave rebellion in morality.`

`Nietzsche noticed that the Jewish subclass ‘were the first to mint the word ‘world’ as a curse word’. Worldly success (what was ‘good’) indicates moral failure (is now ‘evil’). But the Jewish prophets were only the beginning – it was Christianity which carried the flame of the slave revolt to the world.`

`Disregarding the claims of the theological truth in Christianity, it is the primary manifestation of the slave morality mentality throughout the world. Christianity, with its ‘paradoxical god-on-a-cross’, is a reactionary movement born initially from the Jewish ressentiment, a rebuff against the values of the masters and an inversion of their morality upon itself. For slave morality, the primary characteristic in the transformation of moral thought wasn’t one based upon strength, power, and honor, but rather a defensive prejudice against those things that the successful and ruling class had, wanted, and believed in. It transformed the archetype of the ideal person from one in a position of power to one of meek stature, oppressed and impoverished. The roots of this ressentiment grew into a mythos of its own, with the seeds of hate for Roman rule growing into a tree from which the Jewish underclass could climbed upward. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche said that:`

The Christian faith is from the beginning a sacrifice: sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit, at the same time enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation … Modern men, with their obtuseness to all Christian nomenclature, no longer sense the gruesome superlative which lay for an antique taste in the paradoxical formula ‘god on the cross’. Never and nowhere has there hitherto been a comparable boldness in inversion, anything so fearsome, questioning and questionable, as this formula: it promised a revaluation of all antique values. – It is the orient, the innermost orient, it is the oriental slave who in this fashion took vengeance on Rome and its noble and frivolous tolerance, on Roman ‘Catholicism’ of faith – and it has never been faith but always freedom from faith, that half-stoical unconcern with the seriousness of faith, that has enraged slaves in their masters and against their masters. ‘Enlightenment’ enrages: for the slave wants the unconditional, he understands in the domain of morality too only the tyrannical, he loves as he hates, without nuance, into the depths of him, to the point of pain, to the point of sickness – the great hidden suffering he feels is enraged at the noble taste which seems to deny suffering.