Meritocratic Fallacy — Choosing the Brightest doesn’t necessarily choose the Best — Problems of Symbolic Morality over Real Morality among the Powerful

In the most basic sense, meritocracy is the fairest and most effective way of selecting the most capable. This is most obvious in sports. The fastest runner is the fastest runner. Fastest swimmer is the fastest swimmer. The heaviest-lifter is the heaviest-lifter. We can’t argue with the results. But, we also know that the most capable are not necessarily the best in terms of morality and character. We know that many top athletes are scummy lowlifes. Who can forget the saga of OJ? Still, there is an idolatrous aspect to our nature that wants to believe that the most talented, most skilled, or most able is also the best in character. This is why most action movies have heroes who are not only the best-looking but the toughest. There is an idealized combination of attractiveness, ability, and morality. Good guys look good and are really the best. The handsome hero of SHANE really is the fastest gun in the West. Even so, we don’t expect too many athletes or some such to be paragons of morality and ethics. (But then, in our nihilistic age, many thug athletes and rappers are admired precisely because they spit on norms of morality and decency.)

But what about the elites in law, academia, government, enterprise, and media? Unlike athletes who merely need to prove their mettle in brute strength, people who succeed with their minds must gain knowledge, attend prestigious schools, and demonstrate worth on many levels of human relations. Because education is about the teaching of history, literature, science, ideas, and culture, we would like to believe that those who won by intellectual meritocracy are indeed the best kind of people. Not only the smartest but the wisest and most judicious. After all, they read so many books and gained so much knowledge. Unlike sports where brutal performance is all that counts, academics isn’t only about getting good grades but attaining higher and deeper understanding of many facets of truth. Or so we like to think.

Now, there are certain inbuilt virtues within meritocracy itself. Any serious student must have the simple virtues of effort, diligence, discipline, commitment, and stamina. Without such habits and attitudes, one cannot do well in school(unless one happens to be a super-genius). But simple virtues are just that. They are useful in the service of attaining certain goals, but they don’t reveal the higher truth or deeper meaning. After all, simple virtues can be in the service of an evil system. Dutiful and sober men can work hard to support the system. The men in the German film DAS BOOT are high in simple virtues. They are men of commitment and patriotism. But they ultimately serve an evil system.

Higher virtue arises from the question of "What kind of power am I serving?" The main character of LIVES OF OTHERS is a hard-worker and has simple virtues. But for most of his life, he never asked whether what he is doing is worth doing. He's been a ‘good soldier’ who followed orders and did his duties. He has simple virtues but is blind to the full moral implications of his work... until something alters the course of his life.

This is worth keeping in mind because there is no guarantee that those who study hard really care about anything but status, privilege, and power. They may read books, do homework, pass exams, go to good schools, get degrees, and get good jobs, BUT they may not have cared about truth, justice, or meaning. Education for them was just a means of gaining credentials to have the Good Life. They are like the vapid yuppies of AMERICAN PSYCHO(horrible movie).

Now, one may argue that the very process of education will change a person. Surely, no matter how cynical or materialistic one may be, wouldn't he be moved, inspired, and transformed by the great knowledge that he absorbs from literature, history, psychology, humanities, and maybe even some courses on philosophy?
True enough, but then, is there a lasting impact of education on most people? Consider Billy Boy Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Two high-IQ people who read many books and attended top colleges. Then, why are they so shallow, cynical, scummy, vile, stupid, trashy, hideous, insipid, and despicable? What did they really learn from all those books and all those courses? Despite their high intelligence and credentials, why are they so lacking in ethics, conscience, virtue, balance, wisdom, and basic sanity? We would like to believe that people so smart who went to top schools and learned from the best professors and read many more books than we did would be people of genuine worth. But it seems the ONLY thing they ever cared about was egotism, vanity, privilege, fortune, and fame.

So, what does that tell you? Meritocracy in academics may, more or less, choose the brightest but far from the best. In the 50s and 60s, there was the idea that the best-and-the-brightest were going to do wonderful things for America. But even as many such people were indeed the brightest, they were not the best(in character). Robert McNamara was the poster-child of the divergence of brightness and best-ness. And after the fiasco of the Vietnam War, he came to realize this and felt bad for the rest of his life. Well, at least he had a conscience about it. But look around today. So many people who have high IQ, went to best schools, got the credentials, and were chosen for high positions turn out to be total scum. And even after they destroy everything, there is no sign of conscience. Look at the intellectuals and officials around Billy Boy Clinton and George Dubious Bush. Look at the brightest bulbs around Obama who helped him destroy nations around the world.

Some of these people went to the best schools. They got credentials and prestige. And yet, they act like gangsters, sociopaths, degenerates, and monsters. And someone explain how any sane, sensible, and moral person can endorse something like Homomania? Indeed, consider that Jews have the highest IQ and got the most education. And yet they are the biggest proponents of degenerate Homomania that conflates homo fecal penetration and tranny pud-cutting with the ‘rainbow’ that is then associated with cookies, sodas, and churches. Did Jews gain so much knowledge to peddle that kind of nonsense?

It may be that some people of ability will gravitate toward power out of ideals. They hope to gain power to do what is good for the people and nation. But the system has a way of choosing the talented-and-vapid over the talented-and-valid.
After all, one thing that becomes apparent to anyone seeking power is that the path is compromised. Even as doors open to people of ability and talent, they must also kiss a lot of ass, compromise their principles, keep their mouths shut, spout platitudes, and learn to go along. Such are necessary in any social setting, but it either turns idealists into cynics or exiles. As cynics, they do gain power eventually but come to care for nothing but the power. As exiles from the corrupt system, they maintain their ideals or integrity but they gain no power.
Generally speaking, the system seeks talent-and-vanity than talent-and-integrity. Those with real integrity have a serious problem rising up the ladder of power because they must remain silent, tell lies, or dirty their hands. They must play the game and keep their mouths shut. The must accede to the 'omerta' not unlike in GOODFELLAS.

In contrast, those who are talented and mainly into power for vanity don’t care if they must make compromises and even embrace corruption. They just want to be among the Winners and Players. And this may account as to why so much of the Deep State has genuine deep talent but is so utterly shallow when it comes to ideals, ethics, scruples, and principles. The filtering effect of power tends to keep out those with integrity in favor of those who will say or do anything to gain power. So, we have a world of Samantha Powers, John Boltons, John Yoos, James Comeys, Donald Rumsfelds, Hillary Clintons, Dick Cheneys, Victoria Nulands, and other such scumbags who aren’t troubled in the least by all the mess they cause around the world. They just want to be with the Winners and play the game of power.

But actually it’s even worse than that. These lowlife scum and sleazebags are so full of themselves and think themselves noble, honorable, brilliant, and amazing. Those obsessed with privilege, status, and power tend to be narcissistic by nature. Also, they conflate meritocracy & credentials with morality & credence. Because they went to fancy schools and got fancy degrees and rubbed shoulders with 'respectable' peoples around the world, they think they are the best of the best. And because they often wield power above the law, they feel as if they’re imbued with divine powers of higher wisdom and understanding. So, while the rest of us should be judged by the law, they are above the law because they are so... special. Just like the hands of gods can’t be hampered by the laws of mortals, the power of the Deep State cannot be hamstrung by the banal laws of the hoi polloi, the ‘little people’. While such a view might be deemed as arrogant and corrupt, those in the Deep State believe it is their duty to be above the law because their role is SO VERY IMPORTANT. So, they tell themselves that they must bend and twist the law for a ‘higher loyalty’.
Also, there is the mostly compliant and complementary media that works with the Deep State. And there are think-tanks and the academia made up of pretty much the same kind of people, and they are all into "If you scratch my back, I will scratch your back." So, even though most people in the Deep State are really shallow, venal, and vile goons, there is a vast cottage industry to shower them with praises and prizes. Sometimes, it can be downright ridiculous, as when Obama awarded Joe Biden with the Medal of Freedom. Imagine that, the president giving the vice-president the award.
Perhaps, there might be more of a balance IF both parties were equally represented in the deeply entrenched institutions of Washington D.C., but the fact is the DC and the Deep State are now an almost entirely a one-party system where most people are into clone-think, worshiping the same icons and idols. Notice that Pompeo in the Senate questioning was asked about his views on ‘gay marriage’. Homomania is sacrosanct in all areas of the Deep State because the Jewish top dogs made it so. Because Homomania is considered sacred, it is easy for any sleazebag in the Deep State to signal that he too is part of the holy crowd. He needs only to wave the homo flag. Or spout off platitudes about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ or yammer something about how they are inspired by MLK and etc.

So, the system is rigged not only to favor the talented-and-unscrupulous but also to make the unscrupulous feel that they are moral paragons and agents on the side of angels. Without such manipulative psycho-mechanisms, members of the Deep State will just feel utter cynicism as gangsters, crooks, and liars. Such people cannot maintain morale for long.
So, the secret of the Deep State is to attract those without scruples but to make them feel that they are the most scrupulous. We see these traits in sleazebags like John Brennan and James Comey. Both are hollow men, empty suits when it comes to principles. They are pathological liars and crooks who will pull anything to serve the interest of the Deep State. BUT they sincerely believe themselves to be on the side of angels BECAUSE the system showers praise on those who stick with the Official Narrative and Sacred Cows of the Current Year.
People like Edward Snowden cannot go very far in the System because they have too much of a conscience. Comey may claim to have a ‘higher loyalty’, but it really means his loyalty is to the Deep State. In contrast, Snowden had a deeper loyalty to an idea of justice. He spilled the beans on the Deep State and, as such, paid a huge price. The system praises the Comeys and McCabes of the world while trying to destroy people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who see the need for transparency in the Deep State of the lone superpower that, since the Cold War, has grown ever more arrogant, aggressive, and demented.

It is the logic of power. Power wants those of ability who will serve the system loyally. Power wants technocrats and commissars than truth-seekers and idealists. But the Power also needs to maintain the morale(if not true morality) of its servants by making them feel that they are on the right side of history.
It was the same in communist nations. The system obviously wanted yes-men and sycophants who would never ask too many questions. But the goons also had to be convinced that they were the most virtuous because, without such conceit, they might just grow awfully cynical and operate only as gangsters. The system wants dogs that believe in the nobility of service to the master.

This isn’t easy to do because the Power(of whatever nation or ideology) is always corrupt, compromised, and dirty. It is very difficult to get close to power and keep one’s principles. It may be that idealists hope to gain power to do good, but by the time they’ve come close to power, they’ve become the dirty Power. Imagine a Broom that is to be used to clean up society. But to get to the Broom, one has to wade through all the filth. By the time one finally gets to the center to wield the broom, one is as dirty as the former holders of the broom. And there is the realization that the broom itself is so dirty that using it will only spread than clean the filth.
This is how the Boomer generation idealists all turned out. It’s a sad story really. Those who loathed Richard Nixon became worse than Nixon. And their main reason for going after Donald Trump, no saint himself, is because Trump, despite his own sleaziness and filth, poses a threat to the ways of the Deep State, for which Hillary was like the Queen Bee to protect and serve. To the Deep State drones, Trump is like a bear that messes up the Deep State honeycombs. Trump’s victory sent out a massive signal among the drones to bring back Hillary and kill Trump. So, he’s been stung from many sectors of the Deep State.

Because the Power is so corrupt and compromised, the most effective means by which it instills drones with a sense of righteousness and holiness is by promoting symbolic morality, which is so much easier than real morality. Symbolic morality is characterized by icons, idols, mantras, rites, and rituals.
It was always easier to be a symbolic Christian than a real Christian. A real Christian had to seriously regard the teachings of Jesus, examine one’s own failings, sincerely seek redemption, and seek personal salvation in the eyes of God. In contrast, a symbolic Christian merely needed to wear a Crucifix, hold a rosary, say a bunch of ‘Hail Mary’s, and attend certain services. Michael Corleone is no real Christian in THE GODFATHER, but he is a good symbolic Christian who donates generously to the Catholic Church and attends the ritual that makes him godfather to his sister’s child. Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church came to favor symbolic Christianity over real Christianity, which found new hope with Protestantism, which, however, also succumbed to new concoctions of rituals and symbolism... or just grew tired because how can spiritual movement define itself as a ‘protest’ forever when it’s become so deeply entrenched in the Order and the Power.

Anyway, symbolism means never having to say you’re sorry. So, never mind if you were one of the Teutonic Knights in Russia or Crusaders in the Holy Land. Never mind all the brutality and violence you carried out. Never mind all the un- or anti-Christian acts you’ve committed. As long as you stick to symbolic Christianity, you can tell yourself that you carried out the will of God. After all, your battle shield had a sign of the Cross. And before charging into battle, you knelt and held your sword like a Cross and prayed to God. You might have even sung a hymn with other warriors. And after sacking the city and raping women and killing children, you may have offered a prayer to God in a Church. Thus, by making the symbolic gestures, you can feel blessed and righteous in your violence. And you can conveniently forget that so much of what you did went against REAL CHRISTIAN teachings.
This is why symbolism is so appealing. Consider the studio executive in HAIL CAESAR! by the Coen Brothers.

In many ways, he acts like a gangster and henchman. He is ruthless, cunning, and not above using bribes and blackmail to keep people silent. He’s about making the system run smoothly as possible. And yet, he feels himself to be a good man. Why? He goes to Church and make confessions before a priest. Of course, it’s about trivial stuff like his failure to stop smoking, but the rituals makes him feel as a man of God.

The Deep State is secular but paves over its gangsterism, corruption, and venality with its own version of Symbolic Morality. Gee, the New and Improved FBI must be noble because its agents must make a pledge to the MLK statue. James Comey thinks himself a goody-good man because he compares himself to the attorney in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. And he must be a goody-good man because Obama, the historic black president, showered him with praise. It’s all symbolism. Never mind Obama the real guy is a sleazebag who shilled for Jews to bail out Wall Street and to destroy nations hated by Jews or Israel. He has magical aura because of the symbolism of being the ‘clean cut black guy’ and the ‘historic first black president’. So, never mind what he really is. Just fixate on what he symbolizes. He’s supposed to represent the fulfillment of the Dream that was cut short by the death of JFK, Malcolm X, RFK, and MLK. He’s supposed to be all those things, with a touch of Sidney Poitier-ness. In reality, what was Obama but a punk? As president, what was his idea of moral progress? Worship of homos and trannies. And what was his foreign policy? The destruction of nations at the behest of Judeo-Nazis.
We’ve heard the counterculture mythology many times that the Vietnam War and the Cold War could have been averted IF John F. Kennedy, MLK, and RFK had not been killed by the evil Deep State. How ironic that Obama, the fulfillment of the Dream, started a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, spread wars all over the Middle East, pulled off a coup in Ukraine, and became a compliant favorite of the Deep State. But never mind all that. Just focus on the symbolism.

The emptiness of symbolic morality can be seen in James Comey’s wife. She was a Hillary supporter and was so very angry over Hillary’s loss because she so badly wanted a ‘first woman president’. Again, it’s symbolic morality over real morality. Never mind what Hillary Clinton really did as Secretary of State. She acted like a gangster and did the bidding of the EOJ(the Empire of Judea) to destroy Libya and spread terror and war all over the Middle East. Millions of people had their lives destroyed as a result. Never mind her long history of corruption. Never mind her total lack of scruples. Never mind her arrogance, contempt, and vileness. The only thing that matters to Comey’s vapid, shallow, and disgusting wife is that Hillary would have been the ‘first woman president’. So, her symbolism trumps all other considerations.

This is how PC operates. It has no use for real morality or truth. Rather, it icon-izes or idolizes certain groups as magical, special, or deserving. So, if the military promotes a black woman to the rank of general, that must be good because of its symbolism. Never mind if she really deserved the title or if she, along with everyone else, is being used to fight immoral Wars for Israel. Or consider how we were supposed to praise Trump's decision to lob missiles into Syria in 2017 because a female naval officer was involved in the operation. PC symbolic morality. A feminist soldier pushed a button, so it must have been a blessed act.

Or, never mind how corrupt and sick the Deep State is. Hey, it appointed some holy homo to some important position. It is a game played by both sides. So, the vile GOP goes for the symbolic morality of being the best friend of Israel. Since Jews are supposedly the Holy Holocaust People and Israel is the Holy Land promised to Jews, the GOP is supposedly righteous and moral whenever it is associated with the symbolism of Jewishness. When morality shifts from a matter of personal responsibility and individual conscience to rites and rituals of symbolic signaling, society becomes as corrupt as when the Catholic Church was selling ‘indulgences’. Once sin was altered from a reality to a ‘symbol’, it could be bought and sold, like commodities in a stock market. (It is all the more dangerous today because the most powerful group in the US, the Jews, cannot be touched. In contrast, while past Wasp elites held much pride and prestige, they were not seen as holy, and therefore, it was fair game to notice their power and call foul on it. This had a restraining and reforming effect. But try to speak truth to Jews, blacks, and Homos. It'd be like sacrilege since they are the Holy Three.)

James Comey is a sleazebag but thinks himself so holy-shmoly because the ‘historic black president’ anointed him. And his wife thinks she’s such a noble person because she so passionately wanted a ‘first woman president’. Never mind that they are preening and privileged members of a vile, venal, mendacious, and murderous community that concocts policies to turn the world upside down at the behest of Judeo-Nazis and soulless corporations, the bottom line of which is more profits-at-any-cost. As long as they got the Proper Symbolism, they don't care. They think they own goody-goodness.

We have a pretty effective way of meritocracy. Despite the problems of Affirmative Action, for the most part the System does a pretty effective job of selecting and pooling the best in talent. But it has done an atrocious job of favoring the ethical-talented over unethical-talented. If anything, the Power tends to push away anyone with any integrity, honesty, and true morality based on facts. Political Correctness or PC has made this problem much worse. Though ostensibly an agent of justice, its dogmatic formula of predetermined Right and Wrong means that everyone just stick to the script, not unlike in Communist systems where people could not question the ‘scientific’ and ‘moral’ infallibility of Marxism-Leninism itself.
PC makes it very difficult for anyone in the academia, media, and government to speak honestly about Jewish Power, black pathology & crime, homo degeneracy, and female hysteria. PC morality is essentially symbolism-centered around icon-ized identities of holy victimhood. So, Jews are eternal victims of Holocaust. Blacks are sacred victims of slavery, and MLK is bigger than God and Jesus. Homos are angels, and if you say otherwise, you are a ‘homophobe’. And women, especially white women, are eternal victims of Evil White Men like Haven Monahan and must be protected from evil white men by... noble black man. ROTFL.

Reality is very different from the Sacro-Narrative and the Grand Delusion, but the power of symbolism can be such that it makes people hallucinate False Realities. Consider the symbolic power of the TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD narrative. America has changed so much since the 1950s, but we are still supposed to believe that redemptive white folks must do something to save poor helpless Negroes from the KKK lynchmob. While we live in the reality of the 21st century when so many white folks are suffering and being physically attacked by blacks, our sense of reality comes from Jewish-controlled TV and movies that define hyper-reality for us. Also, the False Reality of TV trespasses into our living room and smuggles PC symbolism into our brains while robbing us of our critical faculties, especially as TV shows rely as much on manipulative use of music and other visceral effects.

Thus, we have a world where meritocracy is rewarded ONLY IF it is without integrity. Consider journalism. What is the chance of anyone being hired IF he were to raise truly provocative questions about what is really going on? To work in journalism, one has to adhere to the PC rules of the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos. (Women are holy ONLY IF they can be construed as victims of the Evil White Male, the Haven Monahans of the World.) The fact that David Reich had to close his book on DNA and racial differences with so much PC tripe goes to show that daring to speak the truth is like walking through a minefield. One wrong word, and you can be blown away and ruined forever.
This is really an immoral war on truth and liberty, but PC is seen as moral because of its symbolism. Once certain groups have been ‘sacralized’, facts and reason no longer matter. They are forever haloed in association with a certain event or condition in past history. So, Jews are Holocaust People no matter what they do. Even a black thug-rapist is a Holy Slave person. Even ‘hate hoaxes’ aren’t so bad IF in the service of spreading the message about the Holy Three. It’s like the Catholic Church wink-wink tolerated all those phony ‘miracles’ on grounds that they boosted hope among the faithful. 'Hate Hoaxes' might as well be called 'hate miracles'.

PC is really a form of virtue-vanity and, as such, is about empty calories. Indeed, fake virtue is worse than no virtue because it lulls us into thinking we do have virtue. But look at the modern world remade by the false virtue of PC. There is moral and cultural cancer all around resulting from the radical and mindless worship of everything Jewish, black, or homo OR with anything associated with nonsensical sanctimony about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, which in reality, comes down to the crazy notion that all nations except Israel should welcome Invasion and Replacement by hordes of foreigners who come to leech off the wealth. Unless we can create a New Reality that combines meritocracy of ability with ‘ethicracy’ of truth and reason(backed up by courage and spine), there is no hope for the future.

A Rebuttal to Yan Shen’s Complaint about Betrayal of Meritocracy in Elite Colleges - The Failure of Modern Parenting, West and East - Why Should Alt Right & White Folks Care about Asians when 80% of them Voted for Obama & Hillary and Cheer on the Replacement of the White Race in the Nations of their own Ancestry and Making?

America’s Cultural Revolution- the Obsession with Self Esteem by Yan Shen: http://www.unz.com/article/americas-cultural-revolution-the-obsession-with-self-esteem/

Yan Shen: Although the incident was undoubtedly a source of amusement to many, to me the surreal confrontation highlighted not only just how deeply rotten modern day American culture had become, but also the clear extent to which East Asian and non-East Asian cultural values had diverged in the 21st century.

Values or strategies? People can have same values or ideology and still have different strategies and habits. So, that incident in the library doesn't necessarily mean East Asians have different values from what prevails in the West. It could be that they just have different outlooks, styles, and attitudes. Consider German Socialists and 'Russian' Socialists. Stalin once remarked that German Socialists tended to be punctual and disciplined. If you take an Italian communist and a German communist, they may have the same ideology and same 'values', but they will have different approaches and manners. The Italian communist is more likely to be like the guy in SWEPT AWAY.


So, there's no guarantee that difference in cultural norms means ideological divergence. If anything, even though East Asians are less likely to act wild and crazy(due to cultural and genetic factors), they are more likely to become PC and globalist. As diligent students, they will soak up all the PC taught in schools. Is it any wonder that so many Asian academics, journalists, and bureaucrats are pushing Maximum PC? Maybe that Pan guy in California is not the type to scream in a library, but he's for total censorship in the name of PC.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2018/04/04/california-democrat-dr-richard-pan-proposes-fake-news-bill-shut-internet-free-speech-censorship/
So, it's very possible that the Asian guy who asked for quietude in the library will become another Pan. After all, if he's studying so hard, what kind of materials is he reading? Unless it's math, hard science, or technology, he's likely to get a lot of PC. Also, much of indoctrination happens outside schools in music, movies, TV, and state-sponsored propaganda like celebration of Homomania. A lot of it happens subliminally by icon-izing certain images and symbols.

Yan Shen: A recent article by Wesley Yang derided the fact that in contemporary American society “therapeutic concepts of harm have metastasized to encompass what we all once understood to be the unavoidable vicissitudes of daily life.” His discussion focused on the increasing sensitivity of millennials, in particular highlighting the fault line separating minorities from whites. In my opinion, equating the problem with the political left misses the heart of the matter entirely. Left-wing political correctness is merely a symptom of the more insidious underlying disease, which as Amy Chua alluded to in her now infamous essay Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior, is the American obsession with self-esteem.

Both Yang and Yan are missing the point. These easily triggered 'snowflakes' were made that way by the System. Therefore, we have to focus on the Power at the center. It is essentially Jewish. Most people, even elite academics, have NO ideas or agency of their own. They are dogs, sheep, and sycophants.
The fault line that matters is between Jews and white gentiles. Now, most white gentiles don't feel this way, but Jews do feel this way. Prior to the rise of Alt Right and related movements, I almost never came across hostile views among white gentiles against Jews. Being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel was as American as Apple Pie. Things may be changing with (1) Alt Right and related folks waking up to JQ and (2) white leftists supporting BDS against what is increasingly seen as 'far-right' Israel that is cozy with the GOP.

At any rate, if white gentiles mostly want to welcome Jews as whites who happen to be Jewish, Jews have hostile feelings toward whites. In the past, this was more understandable because of naked discrimination, periodic pogroms, and the Shoah. People may feel fear and hostility when faced with oppression or obsessed with survival. But that was then, this is now. Today, Jews are addicted to supremacist power, and they fear whites not because whites are hostile or 'antisemitic' but because whites might wake up to how Jews have gone into supremacist mode and are pulling all sorts of dirty tricks in Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc. If whites were to withdraw support, Jewish supremacism cannot maintain itself. Indeed, what if whites wake up to how US foreign policy has been usurped by Jews to serve Jewish globalist hegemony. Because whites are still the majority, they are the group that Jews fear most. Not because whites are anti-Jewish but COULD become anti-Jewish.
Jews may be less fearful IF they'd risen in power gradually through a process of being morally vetted. Suppose Jews rose high not only through meritocracy but under moral scrutiny. Suppose the worst kind of Jews had been called out and removed by this process. But because of the Jew Taboo(centered on Shoah and other themes), it became impossible to be critical of any kind of Jewish behavior. So, not only smart decent Jews made it to the top but also nasty vicious lowlife Jews. After all, smarts alone don't mean a person has character. Surely, Bernie Madoff is much smarter than the average Joe, but his MQ or Moral Quotient is close to zero. And yet, he was allowed to rub shoulders with men of power and privilege. Even though it was obvious he was doing bad stuff, he was left alone and even protected... as long as he functioned as a cash cow for Jewish groups.

Now, it wouldn't have been so bad if GOOD Jews called out on BAD Jews, but even the better ones went with tribalism over other considerations. Thus, Jewish Power rose rapidly but without being vetted and filtered of really bad shi*. And this is across so many fields. Just how did that compulsive liar Sabrina Rubin Erderly get a gig at a major publication? She'd been caught lying in college journalism. But the red carpet was rolled out for her, and she wrote a big big lie for ROLLING STONE mag, and then the rest of the media(mostly owned by Jews) decided to push the nasty anti-white message. If not for the internet, maybe the whole fraud would have been covered up or sent down a memory hole.

Now, PC has spread far and wide. There is much anti-white vitriol among non-whites and even among 'goody-good' whites. But WHO were really behind this? Jews. And why? Because Jews want to paralyze whites with collective 'guilt'. Non-whites and goody-good-whites(the self-righteous supremacists and vanity-virtue sniffers) may sincerely believe in PC, but they didn't come up with it. It was injected into them by academia and media that are funded and controlled largely by globalists. And even the character of Leftism has changed over the years in accordance to "Is it good for the Jews?" Notice that class issues are mostly gone from what goes by the label of 'leftism' today. Notice that for much of Obama yrs, homo and even tranny issues took front seat and pushed blacks to the back.
As such, the term 'leftism' has no meaning. If something becomes pretty much the opposite of its original meaning, is it still that thing? If Christianity ends up worshiping Satan but still calls itself 'Christianity', is it still Christianity? Today's 'leftism' is LINO or Leftism-In-Name-Only. It is just a mental-putty molded in any way by the Glob Powers That Be.

Anyway, the main reason for anti-white animus of PC is not about historical justice or whatever. It's about Jewish supremacist need to tame and harness white power into a war horse that can be ridden by the Power of Zion. Just think. If white power is so evil, why are Jewish globalists so insistent on using the US military for attacking nations like Syria? Despite 'inclusion' of homos and diversity cult, the US military is still about white generals ordering lots of right-wing white guys with guns. When the US military attacks other nations, it often translates into White Guys with Guns and Bombs killing bushels of Non-Whites. Like in the movie BLACK HAWK DAWN, almost a remake of ZULU, what with heroic white guys fighting like Starship Troopers against hordes of jivers and mofos. Recently, the US military has been causing all sorts of havoc in the Middle East populated with People of Rag. But, do you hear about how 'racist' and 'white supremacist' this is? Imagine all those white guys with big guns blowing up cities inhabited by non-whites. Apparently, Arab Lives Don't Matter... unless there is a likely false flag report about how Assad is killing babies with a blend of Clorox and Aunt Jemima yellow cake powder. And notice that NO ONE in the US prog community is calling for anti-war marches against the never-ending US aggression in Middle East and North Africa.

The fact is most 'minorities' have no inherent animus against whites. Now, blacks may be the exception for both inferiorist and superiorist reasons. Blacks do have a bitter history of having lived under whites who said stuff like, "Hey ni**er, go pick me some cotton and fetch me some water." This made blacks feel inferior. But black animus is also a superiorist contempt for 'white boy'. Blacks be thinking, "We whup your ass, we shout louder than you, we hump your women, and you be a bunch of fa**oty ass cucks."

But most other non-whites have no reason to hate whites. Now, Mexicans have had this resentment thing because 'gringos' achieved so much more. You can see the difference between the Anglo and the Mexican in THE WILD BUNCH. Pike Bishop is always planning ahead and trying to figure things out. Mexicans just like to laugh, eat, and party if they got the power. Or, if oppressed, they just hunker down and eat tortillas and show no agency. Even the Mexican bandido is a more childish character, like in TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE or THEY CALL ME TRINITY. Because Mexicans don't have leadership qualities, they like to work for 'gringo' or Americano. Look at Guillermo the sidekick at Jimmy Kimmel Show. We are told that the US used to be a bad evil society in the past because of its racial stereotypes, but Guillermo is the biggest Mexican stereotype of the silly, squat, childlike, and docile dufusez.

Anyway, if whites were solidly in charge, Mexicans might feel resentment but no real animus against gringo. Mexicans look up to power, the big hombre. If Mexicans feel more anti-white hatred today, it's because they feel contempt for weakness. Even as Mexicans resented the Grande Gringo in the past, they also respected him. But now, Mexicans see the Blanco Cuckez and feel nothing but contempt. Also, as they lack intellectual or ideological agency, Mexicans will swallow any crap taught to them by schools. And what do schools teach? A trickle-down version of anti-white vitriol cooked up by Jews.

As for Asian immigrants, I don't think there was much anti-white hatred in the past. As with Mexicans, there was surely some resentment and feelings of inferiority. At one time, Big China lost wars to tiny UK. And US clobbered Japan real bad. Still, Asians came to the US because they respected what the Great White Man made. They weren't coming to play Indians or emulate blacks in Detroit(at least not the parents). But as Asians tend to be docile, teacher-pets, and drones, they mostly went along with whatever was taught them. US media and academia weren't so anti-white in the past. And Asian-Americans who grew up back then didn't turn out to be rabid PC tards.
But many of today's Asian students are rabid dogs of PC. They may not burn down cities or disrupt libraries... though if a bunch of blacks or 'radicals' make a scene, you will always find some yellow dogs following and shouting along because that's what dogs do.

But again, who made the media and academia so anti-white? Jews. And what is the main reason for Jewish anti-white vitriol? Jewish moral outrage at the historical crimes of whites? Really? If this is so and if Jews really believe whites must atone for their 'sins', why do Jews insist on whites support Wars for Israel in which whites end up killing bushels of non-whites? And why do Jews insist that white Americans support White European Jews in Israel who oppress brown Palestinians?

Also, if Jews are soooooo outraged by past crimes, why are they easy on Latin-American whites whose 'crimes' were much bigger than that of Yanquis? It's estimated that Spanish and Portuguese arrival in the New World spread diseases that killed 50 million out of 55 million natives. Also, there was much 'rape' of native women. Also, Latin American whites brought over many more black slaves. Brazil alone brought 10x the number of slaves that US brought. And it was Anglo-pressure that finally ended the Brazilian slave trade. And Mexico has long been a civilization where whites lorded over natives. The Mexican Civil War was more than twice as long as the American Civil War and over a million people died. But even after the reforms, Mexico has been a white-ruled society. But how do Jews regard white Hispanics? As 'people of color'. Why is this? Because Jews need them as allies against white Americans.

So,the real motivating factor of Jewish cult of 'justice' is not righting wrongs but securing Jewish supremacist power. Jews know that their supremacist power in the US(thereby the world) depends on whites serving Jews. Whites will serve Jews instead of themselves ONLY IF they remained stigmatized and paralyzed by guilt. Therefore, whites have been led to believe that any sign of White Identity or Interest is 'white supremacist'. In order for whites to be redeemed, they must serve OTHER peoples. And of course, whites end up serving Jews the most since it's most lucrative to do so. After all, redemptive whites who serve Jews will get lots of goodies like Joe Biden, Billy Boy Clinton, John McCain the Cuckaine, Marco Rubio the rubber-boy, and etc. After all, what do whites get atoning for their sins by serving Navajo Indians or fat Hawaiian natives who spend all day munching on Doritos and watching TV?

As for Amy Chua, her book is not about Chinese moms being superior. It's about the lesson that there is no single foolproof method in parenting. Her method worked with one girl, didn't work with the other. Also, upon visiting China, she remarked that Chinese students there lack something American students have and vice versa. At any rate, the Chinese system is hardly better. It's all about robotic mania for tests and good schools. Does anyone in Asia study to learn and to think? No, they only see education as ticket to career and status.
Now, this is also true in the West, but it seems more obsessive in the East. Also, because the main emphasis is on admission, students take it easy once they made it into an elite institution that is treated more like a club(or so it's been said of Tokyo University). It's no wonder that Asian universities get no respect. In Asia, the thing is to get INTO a good school than do real work in one. Bad attitude. Also, this status-elitism is destroying Asia with high suicide rates. Because status matters so much, those who don't make it would rather kill themselves than work at 'dirty, dangerous, and demeaning' jobs. As university attendance has become near-universal in some Asian nations, the overall effect has been to instill almost everyone with hipster-Confucian snobbery that they are too good to do any 'lowly' labor.

Or they'd rather move to the West and abandon their race/culture. Asian status-obsession is value-free. So, if a Chinese parents are ideologically conservative but their kid goes to a good school, has a fancy job, and becomes ideologically liberal, the parents will be happy because their kid made it to higher status... even though his ideology is opposite of theirs. So, in Asia, status is the main ideology. This is not a healthy society. It's all about status, approval, and snobbery. And because snobbery has been universalized in places like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, they are now dying nations. People will not get married or have kids unless they can be assured of social rank and raising kids who will do well in school and gain status. (In a way, Mexican-Americans have a healthier attitude to life. Less snobby.) With the entering of women into careers, this means even less jobs for men, and that means more difficulty gaining status. No wonder suicide rates are so high in East Asia. It's a sick society.

This 'tiger mothering' is a misnomer. It should really be called 'dog-mothering' where both the parent and kid act like dogs. The dog-mother will do anything to train her kid to be good doggy who will win prizes at the dog show. And the dog-student's main obsession is to gain status either by making lots of money or winning approval from PC powers-that-be. It's no wonder that the new crop of Asian journalists in the West are such servile dogs of PC, spouting the same crap as everyone else. Maybe Wesley Yang is a partial exception, but two chopsticks don't make a dinner.
What Asians need is Human-Mothering. American style of Altar-Parenting(offering one's kids on the altar of degenerate pop culture that is all about glory of crazy blacks, degenerate homos, and nasty Jews) is no good, but dog-mothering also sucks. Human-Mothering is best. Raise kids on Akira Kurosawa films, and the world would be a better place. It's like HIGH AND LOW. There is something higher than profits and status. There is a sense of humanity, and humanism is best served on the national level.


Heine said:
“As Western society becomes more individualistic, a successful life has come to be equated with having high self-esteem,” Heine says. “Inflating one’s sense of self creates positive emotions and feelings of self-efficacy, but the downside is that people don’t really like self-enhancers very much.”

Heine got it all wrong. The problem is the West has gotten LESS individualistic. It's gotten more 'INFANTILISTIC'. True individualism is about having freedom and taking responsibility for it. It's like characters in THE BIG COUNTRY. Now, those guys are into individualism. And Gregory Peck's character is about discerning right and wrong based on individual conscience. Now, Pike Bishop in THE WILD BUNCH is a criminal, but he too is a rugged individualist. It's about how even thieves must live by honor. It's about being a tough hombre in a rough world. And that kind of attitude once defined American individualism. It was hard and rugged, like in SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION. Even James Dean's character in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE was messed up because his father was too weak. He wanted his father to be like John Wayne and beat his spoiled namby-pamby butt.



People conflate idiotic obsession with pop culture(the stupid kind) with 'individualism' but it's really about boys and girls wanting to remain kids forever. So, we now have grownups whose main experience of culture is discussing comic book movies. We have women who turned muffs into muppet-shows in their 'resistance' to Trump. Children are not individualistic because they don't have the means to think for themselves. Even their brattiness is manipulated by adults. So, kids will watch a TV commercial and say, "Mommy, buy me, this, Mommy buy me that." They are dupes of advertisers. So, when adults don't grow out of childish mentalities, they fail to develop into true individuals. True individualism is about self-control and having agency and power over one's own soul, body, and thoughts.
But look at the rise of gambling that addicts adults to dumb slot-machines. Look at the spread of drugs where people need a hit of this or hit of that all the time to feel alive. Look at the spread of videogames where full-grown men spend hours pushing buttons on joysticks to kill imaginary dragons. This isn't individualism but infantilism. A true individual is curious and hardy enough to listen to other views. But today's 'snowflakes' shriek in horror or act like Bam-Bam(of the Flinstones) if what they hear goes against the PC goo-goo talk they got from cradle. Given the prevalence of Altar-Parenting that offered so many kids to the 2PCs of Pop Culture and Political Correctness, many parents have no meaningful relation with their kids. Kids think, "my parents are uncool" and identify with pop idols cynically engineered by the dirty entertainment industry. Parents regard their kids as offerings to the gods of Trash Culture, and the kids feel that the main role of parents is to feed, clothe, and house them until they can finally lead lives in imitation of TV characters like in GIRLS or SEX AND THE CITY or some other trash.

Was it individualism that led to the rise of Homomania? Was it individualism that led to all this hysterical waxing about BLACK PANTHER and the Afrotopia of Wakanda? No, only an infantile society where kids were drugged with PC and Pop Culture from cradle could create such a clown world.

What we need is true individualism. It means kids growing into adults and being responsible for their freedoms. But look all around, and we get babytalk from blacks, feminists, homos, and even Asians. Notice how these people are afraid to think or speak as real individuals. They speak in chant-ese and slogan-ese. Their ideo-vocab repeats the same terms over and over: 'racism', 'homophobia', 'misogynist', 'intersectionality', 'black lives matter', and etc. It doesn't even occur to these morons that the main purveyor of violence against women are black rappers who have contracts with Jewish moguls of music industry. These are infantile idiots whose main fixation is with feeling goo-goo-ga-ga-good. They are like babies who can't change their own diapers about peeing and pooing and go waaaaaaaaah. PC and Pop Culture clowns are like babies. When confronted with something that triggers them, they mentally pee and poo themselves and call on mommy, daddy, teachey, and policey to remove and ban whatever is 'triggering' them, goo ga ga.
But then, who made the kids this way? Those who control Pop Culture and PC.
The problem really began with boomers, the first ones to grow up with TV. Many of them grew up feeling closer to TV characters than to their parents. And then, the TV-kids grew up and became parents and had TV in every room,and their kids became even more TV-ed. And then, there was Cable TV with more dumb channels. Thus, parenting became all about offering kids to the altar of degeneracy.

But is it all that different in Japan, China, and South Korea. When the kids are not studying, what is the main source of their culture? In Japan, it's anime and videogames. In South Korea, it's K-pop and videogames. In China, pop culture is pretty retarded too, hardly less than in US and EU. So, parents push their kids to study, and when the kids are not studying, their experience of culture is junk. This is so different from the past when there was no TV and when movies were made for adults. If you were a Japanese student who was taking time off from studies in the late 50s or early 60s, you might have seen a Kurosawa film at the local theater. Now, the kids are watching dumb cartoons and playing video games. It's soulless. Look at the kids in BEIJING BICYCLE. What an empty cultural life.
Altar-parenting is killing civilization. But so many adults were raised on junk culture and think it's some kind of RIGHT and RITE for their own kids to go through the same junk-phase.

The reason why Pop Cultural Junk is worse than ever is because it's been so intertwined with PC. Though the idea of using Pop Culture as platform for political ideas is nothing new, it has now reached into all forms of expression. When I was a child, I used to read Archie's comic books, and they were just goofy fun. Though all arts & culture have some political subtext, there used to be a time when Pop was Pop. Because Pop was just Pop, you didn't take it too seriously. It was something you outgrew. Also, serious people didn't go into pop culture to spread ideas. They became serious authors, scholars, or artists.
It's different today. Young ones grow up with Pop Culture that is packed with ideological stuff. So, Archie sacrificed his life to protect a fruity politician.

If in the past, Pop was something you were supposed to outgrow, today kids regard Pop Culture as sacred text for Moral Truths and Political Consciousness. So, Pop sticks to them like brain tattoos. Why abandon Pop and kiddie entertainment when 'higher' moral and political truths can be gleaned from them? The New STAR WARS is dumber than ever, but the cultural commentariat is treating it like canonical stuff for the ages. And when NYT runs op-eds about the profundity of Wakanda, we are living in some fantasy world. We are no longer reading but living in BRAVE NEW WORLD.

In the past, college was where you went to put away childish things and got some real knowledge about serious stuff. But youth culture dominates most colleges. The music culture of most young ones is infantile rap and other crap. Also, smartphones have fostered a culture of distractions. So, colleges now dumb people down, not just intellectually but culturally.

Feminism was always ridiculous, but there used to be real intellectuals in the movement. Now, it's just about some fat woman with green hair and steel through her nose yammering about intersectionality with Muslims while wearing a pussy costume. It's like Teletubbies or muppet show.
And then, the rise of 'gay' gender studies made it even worse. At least women are half the world. Homos are 2% and trannies are far less than 1%. But because gender studies showered so much attention on them, this was bound to have a Peter Pan effect because (1) homos are vain and prefer fantasy over reality, therefore their impact on ideology and pop culture was to make us favor frivolity over essentiality (2) trannies are like homos, only more so. Homo fantasy's influence on feminism was to make it even sillier. Feminists in the past were about being free of pop cultural influences that turned women into silly idols. It went too far, but given the sheer inanity of pop culture, it had a salutary effect. But then, homos gain greater cultural influence, and they just luuuuuuv fantasy and artificiality. They promote vanity, narcissism, and artificiality. And this impacted feminism, and women are acting like degenerate teenyboppers of Peter Pan. They've become immersed in the celebrity-centric stupidity of pop culture largely fashioned and propped by homos.
With Jewish media and academia having promoted and spread homomania all over, even straight people are raising their kids to be reverential to homos and trannies. This Peter-Pan-izes the kids because homo culture is essentially Michael-Jacksonish.
Moreover, our pop culture is totally confused. If homomania encourages boys to be effete cucky metro-sexual dorks, Rap music encourages them to be thugs and see women as 'bitchass hos'. Also, rap attitude is one of ignorance + arrogance. It's about hatred of curiosity, humility, discovery, and maturity. It tells 13 yr olds that they know everything if they holler rhymes where everything is a 'motherf***er' and if they threaten others with fists or guns. Rap sensibility stunts the soul at around the age of 13. If Rap music becomes one's main cultural mode, forget about emotional development or mental curiosity. Punk had a similar impact on British youths in the 1970s. Arrogance of ignorance.

Also, PC isn't really about self-esteem. It doesn't try to boost self-esteem but makes people feel angry and blame others for their lack of self-esteem. After all, if a black guy says he appreciates the US, doesn't feel oppressed, and is happy with his life, he is attacked of being an 'uncle tom' or some such. PC is a contest of how "My people have less self-esteem because of 'racist' or 'homophobic' or 'sexist' oppression." PC may claim to boost self-esteem, but Progs are hostile to those who say they do have self-esteem and don't need 'social justice' to lead meaningful lives. Thus, PC is like a trick where it promises you more self-esteem but condemns you when you say you got self-esteem and don't need PC to feel good about yourself. PC is like some Christian sects that claim to save your soul but dislike you if you say you can find God on your own and don't need their help. It has to be their way. Your salvation must be through them, but of course, their treatment never ends... just like psychiatry never ends. Just ask Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys who was kept sick in the name of curing him of his sickness.

Yan Shen: The systematic tendency of East Asians to underestimate their own abilities and engage in self-criticism may indeed be part of a constellation of unique cultural traits.

Asian self-criticism may be sincere in part. Asians may have more 'panda' genes of anxiety, doubt, and subservience. As they evolved as a race of rice farming serfs, their genes were selected for servility. It might be somewhat different among Mongols who evolved as bride-stealing yogurt-gulpers. Also, Confucian values stressed modesty. Furthermore, in a status-crazed society, one's worth is always measured in relation to others, and there are always others who are better than you.

But in another way, Asian humility may be a kind of showing off. If in Asian culture, self-effacement is seen as a virtue, then one's self-esteem rises in inverse proportion to one's denial of such. It's like those Hollywood movies about Chinese where some guy says, "Welcome to my worthless house. This is my worthless son. Please have our worthless food." On the surface, it appears as humility, but it's really humility-as-pride, or false humility. After all, a display of humility is seen as a sign of superior breeding and manners.

Also, if you expect the worst, it's not so bad if things don't go your way. So, in a sense, it's good emotional strategy to expect less than more. If you win, you are happy. If you don't win, you don't feel so bad since you told yourself not to expect to win.

This is why blacks get so miffed when they don't win. They be telling themselves they's done deserved it and shi*. It's like that black winter Olympian who didn't get to carry the flag and got all sourpuss. It be my bling. But then, blacks are this way due to genetics than PC. They evolved to compete with one another to kill the most number of baboons and show them off as their bling.

Are whites into self-esteem? It seems PC says there is nothing more evil than White Pride. PC is about invalidating the right of White Identity. This may explain why anti-white vitriol is often most extreme among whites themselves. The ONLY way whites can feel esteem is by being goody-good whites, and that means they must hate, hate, and hate white 'racists' and 'supremacists'. So, that's how self-esteem works among whites. They want it too, but because whites can't have it collectively, whites are eager to earn it by screaming about baddy-bad whites.

Yan Shen: The systematic tendency of East Asians to underestimate their own abilities and engage in self-criticism may indeed be part of a constellation of unique cultural traits... This resilience against negative environmental influences also probably explains why by and large the parasitic memes of left-wing post-modernist insanity which have seemingly hijacked the minds of numerous black, white, and Hispanic Americans alike are absent amongst people of East Asian descent.

It's servility, and it's a trait that can be found in native Mexicans as well. Many native Mexicans are like brown Asians with lower IQ. But emotionally, they are similar. With Asians, it may have developed into a certain neurosis because of the culture's stress on both humility-servility and elitist-meritocracy. On the one hand, East Asian societies were very repressive and people were expected to keep their heads low. If you didn't bow properly in Japan, a samurai could cut your head off. Chinese weren't as ruthless but also had rough justice for those who didn't bow their heads low. So, this aspect of East Asian evolution favored servility and humility.
But because China developed a meritocratic society based on exams, it spread the idea to folks that nothing is as glorious as having a son who passes imperial exams and works for the emperor. So, one side of Chineseness told the people to be humble slavish folks. But another side of Chineseness said every father should try to make his son study and pass exams and bring honor to the family by becoming an adviser to the Emperor himself. So, one side of Chineseness told the people to bow your head low as possible, while another side of Chineseness told the people that, through exams, they could rise very high. So, Asians developed a cultural trait of rising higher with heads bowed low.

In contrast, Mexican natives never developed a universal meritocratic system like the Chinese did. It's interesting that the Chinese exam system was both elevating and repressive. While all forms of education demands form and manners, Professor Kingsfield in THE PAPER CHASE pushes his students to rise higher in intellect and think on their own. Kingsfield is a son-of-a-bitch in pushing his students to think independently. He wants to raise their intellectual independence as high as possible. In contrast, Confucian education meant one's elevation depended on total conformity to established truths and forms. There was no leeway for individual thought. The range of subject was narrow, the style of the essay was set in stone, and the answers were preordained. In this way, Chinese developed their way of PC of Philosophical Correctness that rigidly froze Chinese culture and knowledge, preventing it from thinking outside the box. In a way, Current Chinese education is still a form of PC. After all, what would happen if a Chinese student wanted to freely express his views about Mao, Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, and etc? What if he were to write an essay denouncing the decision of Xi Xinping to prolong his rule?

Indeed, the fact that so many Chinese could be mobilized to carry out something like the Great Leap Forward and later the madness of the Cultural Revolution goes to show that the Asian mindset isn't immune from total lunacy. Asians took rather earnestly to communism-Stalinism and carried out crazy horrors in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and especially Cambodia(though Cams are not East Asians to be sure).

I'm not sure blacks and browns are motivated by 'leftism'. After all, blacks love to see rich and powerful blacks with lots of bling. Same with browns. They are not opposed to inequality or riches per se. Blacks love millionaire black singers, athletes, TV personalities, and etc. If blacks are for black power, they are really black rightists. They just happen to be allied with white leftists. It's like Muslims in Europe ally with homos and liberals but they are NOT pro-homo or liberal. They are Muslim rightists who want to expand Muslim power. The only real leftists in the US are white progressives(who will work against white interest for 'higher good'), self-critical Jews like Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal, and some East Asians as teacher's pets of PC. All three groups are willing to sacrifice tribal interest for a 'universal' or abstract principle. So, white progressives will support Affirmative Action. So, self-critical Jews will condemn right-wing Israel. So, East Asian PC commissars will expend most of their energies in serving a non-tribal cause or interest.

When white progressives and blacks holler 'black lives matter' together, the former are being 'liberal' in opposing 'racist' white police whereas the latter are being 'rightist' in that they are blacks who care, first and foremost, about black lives. Notice blacks don't care about all the black violence against other races. So, to bunch all these peoples under one label misses the point.

Speaking of 'post-modern insanity', it may be missing in China that is ruled by nationalist regime, but it's spread like a cancer in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They have massive homo parades, their pop culture is peter-pan-ish and Michael-Jacksonize the young, and they imitate whatever trends that emerge from the Jewish-homo-controlled West. I read in some blog that Taiwan is on the verge of passing 'gay marriage'. It might be law there already. Now, as long as Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan don't have lots of diversity, they will be more stable than rapidly diversifying West. But with rapidly falling populations, corporate demand for cheap labor, desire to emigrate overseas and abandon their own nations, and PC promoting 'multi-culturalism', it's very possible that East Asian nations except China will turn into Sweden and UK of the East. If we go by most Chinese journalists in Canada and US, it's amazing how fast and total their conversion to PC has been.

Yan Shen: In part because of their own cultural resilience, East Asians are often marginalized in American society and rendered invisible.

That isn't the main reason. Suppose East Asians lacked such 'resilience' and 'stoic' diligence. Would they be the favored center of attention? How many Americans pay much attention to Puerto Ricans? Or to Guatemalans? Do Muslims get much respect? Who speaks up for the Palestinians? There is the budding BDS movement, but most Americans care little about Palestinians. It's not that East Asians are 'marginalized'. It's that they fail to come into cultural focus. One reason is they complain less. After all, people pay attention to complainers, not to those who remain silent. Even among whites, the conservative boomers were more silent while liberal boomers made more noise. Guess who got more attention and power? So, would Asians have gained more attention if they'd complained more? Not likely. For one thing, Asians look geeky and have weaker voices. So, when an Asian complains, it's like the scene with Mickey Rooney in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S. When a Negro bellows to the whitey, white folks get scared like hearing god's thug angel telling them stuff. They pee their pants. But when someone like Mickey Rooney as Japanese shouts 'I protest', it doesn't inspire much emotions, good or bad, among whites. It's just amusing.


Also, Americans are very idolic and pay most attention to exciting stuff. Take Jackie Robinson. Why did he become such a legend? It was a combination of victim theme and victor theme so central to Christianity. As a black man, he stood for symbol of victim of 'white racism'. But as a man who succeeded in baseball, he came to be admired as a superior athlete who overcame imposed inferiority.
Now, East Asians may have achieved something similar. After all, there was the sad history of Chinese rail road workers. And we know about the Japanese in camps during WWII. But despite those odds and bad times, many Asians succeeded in professions and contributed to US society. Okay, but most professions are boring. They may be far more essential to society than hitting a ball, but Americans love exciting stuff. So, a Negro who hits home runs is more idol-worthy than an Asian who becomes a doctor or accountant or nerdy engineer. But then, it's the same in Asia. Bruce Lee didn't do anything but pretend to kick butts of all color on the movie screen. But he's better-known and more revered in Asia than real Asian folks who cure people, cook food, crunch numbers, build bridges, fix roads, and etc. The human mind is essentially idolic and iconologic. People seek heroes who offer thrills and chills.

Suppose East Asians dominated sports and pop music. They would not be 'marginalized'. After all, this 'marginalization' happens among Asians themselves. Take immigration. Why do Asians choose to leave their own ancestral nations forever and choose to settle in the West where they will be minorities of whites, blacks, & browns and live under the power of Jews and Homos? Why do Asian immigrants 'marginalize' their own nations into a distant memory and take on new identities in the West, often changing their name to something like 'Frank' or 'Francis'? Why do Asians reject their own nations, peoples, cultures, and lands to come to ANOTHER nation where their children are very likely to assimilate into non-Asian-ness? Also, judging by the number of Asian women who choose to have kids with non-Asian men, don't Asian women 'marginalize' Asian men? And why? Because Asian men have zero idolic value in America. Things might be different if Asians were good in sports or dominant in pop music, but not so. One may criticize American culture of being shallow and stupid for favoring trivial things over serious things, but isn't NBA huge in China? All those Asian boys worship black athletes. And according to an American Renaissance article, Chinese women throw themselves as white men in China.

So, if Asians reject Asian-ness as inferior, why should non-Asians give a crap about Asians? It seems the best plan for Asian survival is to end emigration and ban non-Asian immigration and deal with the world only in terms of sharing ideas and trading goods. But so many Asians have chosen to abandon their own people, lands, and cultures to come to the West. Once they've come to another nation, they must expect to be treated by the Norms of the New Nation. And in the US, the Norms are 'winner-takes-all' for the most idolic or iconic groups. And this is why only four groups matter: the Holy Three of Jews, blacks, and homos... and whites. Whites don't have 'victim' thing and are targeted by PC 24/7, but everyone still likes whiteness deep down inside. Look at all those Brazilians who want to have white babies. Look at Asian women who get plastic surgery and blonde hair to look white or marry white men to have white-looking babies. Look at black women who just gotta have their weaves. And look at Tiger Woods and black men who go for white women. And look at Jewish Portnoy Complex. So, everyone wants to feed off whites economically, politically, sexually, and etc. (Indeed, precisely because non-whites want to feed on the white whale, they paralyze it with 'white guilt' so that there won't be white resistance to this parasitism.) Whites are very iconic in this sense, but because they lack the 'victim' theme, they are not holy. To be holy, you need both victim theme and victor theme. Jews are the biggest winners in this because they got the victim theme of Shoah and victor theme of having succeeded so much in business, science, arts, and entertainment. Blacks got it because they got slavery-victim theme and victor theme as athletes and singers. With homos, it's largely manufactured, but still, homos claim victimhood because they were in the closet and claim victor-hood because so many homos saturate elite fields.

Now, East Asians may point to the opium trade, imperialism, building railroads, Philippines war, internment camps, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korean War, Vietnam War, Great Leap, and Cultural Revolution, etc. as examples of Asian victimhood. But opium war was with the Brits, not with Americans. And building railroads was tough, but it was not like the Chinese were brought by force like blacks. The internment camps were bad but not that bad. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very bad, but Japan attacked first and Japanese were doing worse in China. Korean War was bad, but Koreans act like grateful dogs of US, so not much happening there. Filipinos are likewise a silly people without historical gravitas. Vietnam War was bad too, but Vietnamese now LOVE Americans and want more business. Just when we thought Americans are amnesiac, I guess silly Viets are even more so. And Great Leap and Cultural Revolution, horrible as they were, were self-inflicted, so you can't blame white folks for that horror. So, even though there was lots of Asian suffering, the events don't really touch American nerves in a particularly tragic way.

Also, unless a people have idolic or iconic power, their past suffering just becomes the stuff of past history than living history. Because blacks are always visible as athletes, singers, and celebrities, white people are always prone to think, "Oh my god, blacks are so special, talented, and awesome, but we white folks whipped them and said, 'Hey ni**er, pick me some cotton'." Same with Jews. Because there has been so much Jewish talent in letters, arts, movies, music, comedy, and etc., people are always reminded of the specialness of Jews. Also, Jewish scientists changed the world. Asian ones are pretty good at grind-work, but Einstein was the prophet who figured out laws of the universe. And Oppenheimer built the mother of all bombs. That's some iconic shi*. Jewish genius got the spark whereas Chinese smarts only got the heat. So, the visibility of Jewish talent and genius makes people feel about Shoah especially. If Jews had exhibited no talent since the Shoah, I don't think people would much care about the tragedy. It is the the continuance of Jewish talent that reminds people of the evil of Shoah. It makes them feel, "The World committed a great wrong to a special people." But the supposed 500,000 Iraqi kids who died of sanctions? Who cares about low IQ cousin-humping Arabs? All those 'white trash' dying of opioids? Who cares about such low-IQ morons? Even Kevin Williamson who came from a 'white trash' community doesn't care. America's view of 'white trash' is they are only useful as consumers of opioids, cannon fodder for Wars for Israel, more meat for the porn industry, and the poster-child of 'racist white populism' that represents the mother of all evil.
Granted, Jews may lose out in the iconic game in the future. PC has undermined comedy, a field Jews have excelled in. In a PC world, guys like Mel Brooks, Rodney Dangerfield, Albert Brooks, and Don Rickles wouldn't have had a chance. Also, with pop music now being so totally rappy and hippy-hoppy and dumbed down, it's difficult for someone like Bob Dylan to emerge and make a difference. Also, if many talented Jews in the 60s were fueled by hunger and ambition, too many Jews born to privilege lack the fire and drive. And too many of them have mixed with bimbos who bring down Jewish IQ or with Asian women who bring down chutzpah quotient as Asians are servile than chutzpahistic.

Anyway, Chinese-Americans are no good in sports(relative to other races) and don't have the vocal power or movements to be rappers and such. So, whites are not reminded of Chinese tragedies because they don't notice Chinese talent in the 'cool' areas. But this is true of Mexicans and browns too. Sure, the progs pretend to care about the 'dreamers', but it's purely about political expediency. There is no interest in most Mexicans who are seen as Brown Asiatics with lower IQ.
Now, suppose Chinese were dominant in sports and entertainment in the US. Then, so much attention would be showered on Chinese winners, and there would be news stories about how such-and-such's grandfather was killed by evil Japanese or was discriminated by 'racist' America, or was once called a 'chink'. It's just how things work. Why do we know(and care) so much more about nations with famous national cinemas than ones without? Take France vs UK. Among cinephiles, France is a special place. UK is much less so. Why? Because French cinema really put French-everything on the map whereas UK cinema was far less renowned, usually seen as the lesser English-language cinema, a kind of poodle to Hollywood.

Yan Shen: For instance, it’s long been known that Asian Americans are discriminated against in the context of elite college admissions, bearing the brunt of the sacrifice required to create affirmative action spots for blacks and Hispanics in this country.

True, but even with such discriminatory policies, Asians are vastly OVER-represented in elite academia. But from a practical POV, wouldn't it be better for Asians if ALL were banned from elite colleges? After all, what happens when people, Asian or white or Muslim or Hindu, are admitted to elite colleges? Do they serve their own people? Well, Jews do. But who else? Whites who enter elite institutions become enemies of whites. Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore, and etc. never gave a shi* about white folks. They just joined the globalist club and raked it all in for themselves. Asians are no different. If you think Asians entering elite institutions means MORE Asian power, you're gravely mistaken. Paradoxically, it will mean less power for Asians. Why? Because Asians are status-obsessed rodentoids. Once they get in to an elite institution, the ONLY thing they care about is My Status, My Privilege, My Position. So, to secure their statuses, they will do ANYTHING to be be approved and accepted. Instead of gaining power to serve the Asian community or their ancestral nations --- like Jews serve Israel and fellow Jews around the world --- , Asian elites in the US will just be running dogs of the Empire. Unlike Jews who have the Covenant, Asians just have the Covetousness. So, if more Asians enter elite institutions, they will use their position to spread the agenda of the Empire to weaken Asia. I guarantee that all those Chinese who graduated from elite Canadian and American colleges are committed to spreading homomania, negromania, and diversity to Asia. And because Asians are such suckers for those with elite scholarly credentials, they will listen to the words of Asian Harvard and Yale graduates as if they're the words of gods. Asian elites will be just like white elites. When has Hillary Clinton the Yaley ever done anything for the white race or her own kind? Ted Cruz is supposed to be a conservative, but his main passion is Israel, Israel, Israel. Even half-white Obama turned traitor to blacks. He didn't do crap for the black folks. He mainly served Jews and homos, and now, he has a $60 million book deal. Look at all the white gentiles who write for NYT or WAPO. Do they ever care about white folks? No.

There was a time when white folks did enter Harvard and Yale and then did something for their own race. But Jews took over the elite institutions and rigged the curriculum to turn everyone into a shill for Zion, Afromania, and Homomania. If one serves Homomania, one is indirectly serving Jews because it's Jewish replacement for Christianity. If one serves Afromania, one is also indirectly serving Jewish power because Jews control the industries in which blacks are featured as athletes and singers. Jews have such power over blacks that they even grab black puds and asses with impunity, and the Negroes just have to take it.


Anyway, think of Harvard and etc as Janissary Schools for all groups except for Jews. Jews enter elite institutions to serve and push Jewish interests. Everyone else is turned into a Janissary of the GLOB. Whether it's a white gentile, Asian, mulatto, or Hindu, they turn into the kind of running dogs who bark for the bombing of Syria. If Asians want to make a difference, they should stay on the outside of elite institutions and form organizations to criticize The Power. Entering elite colleges is like entering the Roach Motel. Your soul checks in but it doesn't check out.

Yan Shen: Even when the correct reporting of the facts began to surface later on, we were still subjected to the typical blathering accusing the Trump administration of being disingenuous by feigning interest in the well-being of Asian Americans and proclaiming that Asians shouldn’t allow themselves to be used as tools by white conservatives in advancing their right-wing agenda. The fact that 64 different Asian American groups had filed a complaint against Harvard seemingly eluded everyone. One generally got the impression that Asian Americans were a group deprived of any real agency, instead being merely hapless pawns in the Game of Thrones pitting whites on the one hand against blacks and Hispanics on the other.

I don't think Trump should give a crap about Asians. 80% of them voted for Hillary, and that means most Asians are for the displacement and replacement of White Americans in the nation that they founded and built. With Asians supporting such a vile agenda, why should Trump or whites care about Asians?
Also, if Asians really have agency, why it did take Ron Unz's article to deal the first real blow to the 'myth of meritocracy'? As Unz pointed out, Asians in California have been ignoring black-on-Asian crime and problems associated with illegals and just dishing out the same old anti-white rhetoric that they absorbed from PC. So, the Asian-American narrative barks on command for its PC master. There is no agency there. Furthermore, Asian-American groups who complain about discrimination have said they support affirmative action for blacks and browns. Their plan is to sacrifice EVEN MORE WHITES to make room for more Asians. It's a dirty move.
Granted, NYT and progs are full of shi* as well. If they really care about proportional justice, why don't they point to Jewish over-representation in all elite fields? Hardly 'fair'.

Yan Shen: Another insidious example of the tendency to marginalize Asian Americans has been the rather curious phenomenon as of late of simply pretending that they aren’t even Asian at all. For instance, we constantly hear the mainstream media bemoaning the fact that Silicon Valley lacks diversity and is too white and male. Yet this conveniently ignores the fact that whites are actually underrepresented overall at many of the Bay Area’s most elite firms relative to their percentage amongst the general population.

LOL. It's also amusing because many of those 'whites' are also Jews, which means white gentile under-representation is the real problem. Anyway, since whites are the Villains according to PC, it won't do to say there are Too Many Asians. They have to be made 'white'. It's like the complaints about Stuyvesant school having 'too many whites' when it's majority Asian. 'Whites' is sometimes used as cover for Asian, just like 'teens' is often a cover for black thugs.

But two things. Aren't East Asians a bunch of white-wanna-be's? After all, why did they leave their own peoples and cultures to be with whites and to attend white-made institutions? Also, with all the race-mixing with whites, it seems East Asians want to have white-looking kids. And even a Chinese American woman, Andrea Cheng, is wondering about Asian women dyeing their hair blonde. Isn't it better for Asians to stay in Asia and defend and tend what they got instead of coming to the West and bitching about unfairness? I think if a people move to another land, they don't have the right to complain much. If whites moved to China, they better accept Chinese norms. Otherwise, they should leave. Same with Asians in the West. If they don't like it, they can just go back.

Yan Shen: The obsession with self-esteem and the fundamental lack of what might be described as a self-critical orientation is hardly the sole province of those on the left...
One of the more disappointing revelations in my opinion has been the extraordinary ambivalence of many right-wing whites towards clear anti-Asian discrimination in this country. On various alt-right blogs where themes such as race realism and affirmative action are often discussed, when it comes to the issue of Asian Americans and meritocracy, many right-wing whites seemingly abandon their principles whole. Thus, while these individuals formerly denounced discrimination against whites in favor of blacks and Hispanics, we all of a sudden hear that Asian American academic success is merely the result of cheating and gaming the system.

Again, much of what is called the 'left' is really the non-white right. Rightism puts one's own people and culture at the center. So, blacks and browns who want affirmative action are really black or brown rightists or 'nationalists' who are for "Is it good for my people?"

As for the Alt Right, of course it is opposed to 'principled meritocracy'. Alt Right is about blood and soil. It values Power over Principles. Now, if supposedly principled libertarians approved of AA against Asians, that would pose a problem of logic and consistency. But Alt Right isn't libertarian. It is first and foremost about racial solidarity, ethnic identity, and cultural heritage. Alt Right is for exclusive meritocracy or meritocracy within the white order for the good of whites. So, in an all-white society, Alt Right would be 100% for meritocracy. But in a diverse order where it's a case of competition among various groups, Alt Right has to be for white power first. It must be race-ist. Now, Alt Right might be for meritocracy for Asians IF Asians weren't anti-white. But Asians in the US are mostly running dogs of PC, and once they get their fancy degrees, work against the white race. The vast majority of Asians voted for Obama the homomaniacal monster and Hillary the race-traitor witch-monster-whore. Amy Chua, the Harvard grad and Yale professor, wrote a new book blasting Alt Right and Richard Spencer. This is the reality. So, hell with 'principles'. The fact is most Asians are status-obsessed running dogs. Since PC is the official religion of the US, most Asians who attend elite colleges will become agents of PC and will do everything to hurt 'whitey'. Now, if Vietnamese patriots wanted to kill US neo-imperialist soldiers, OK. That was their turf, and Americans were the occupiers. But since when do Asians get to come to the US and work against the very people whose ancestors built this country? That's a lowlife shi* move.

Also, the highest principle is not meritocracy but truth, honesty, and courage. After all, Billy Boy Clinton is a very bright guy who made it to Yale with real smarts. But his meritocracy with grades didn't translate into meritocracy of virtue or integrity. He's a slimeball through and through. Indeed, so many of these graduates of elite colleges are just the most craven, repellent, lowlife, scummy, and turdy critters I've ever seen. Just look at Obama, Ted Cruz, Hillary, Biden, Gore, Emanuel, Yoo, Comey, and the list goes on. I mean where did they find these people? What a waste of intelligence.

Being Asian, Yan Shen is fixated on degrees(like Negroes are fixated on blings and Mexicans on pinatas), but he should care less about meritocracy and more about truthocracy, honestocracy, and couragocracy, all of which are missing in the parenting culture that is obsessed mainly with gaining status and privilege for one's kibblers.

Alt Right position makes perfect sense. In white nations, whites should do everything to secure their own pride, power, prestige, and well-being. The fact is races are different, and if one takes a principled approach on universal standards, one's own people will lose out IF the other race is superior. This is why whites need a sports culture of their own. A white league. As whites cannot compete with stronger and faster blacks, meritocracy in sports has led to cucky loss of manhood and jungle fever among white womenfolk. And Yan Shen should know that his Chinese folks are losing out meritocratically in the US for the most part. Even if the US were to get rid of all Affirmative Action and even if more Asians were to attend elite colleges, the fact remains that Asian men lose out sexual-meritocratically to men of other races. Raw manhood is judged by height, muscularity, personality, and dong-size, and it seems Asian men can't keep a lot of their own womenfolks. So, what does it matter if some Asian male geeks attend Harvard? The Chinese girlies are still gonna go with other men anyway. Yan, being Asian, is so fixated on exams and colleges, but meritocracy operates in every field. Why do so many white boys get beat up by black boys? I've seen a lot of it when I grew up. Because blacks win meritocratically in muscle power and aggression. If whites, who are still huge in number, keep losing out in the nation that they made, do Asians want to stake their future in the West? What for? Just to turn into running dogs of PC? Just to have lots of race-mixing whereby Asians become half-whites or mulat-tofus?
The best advice is in Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA. "Mountain doesn't move." Asians have China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and etc. They should do everything to keep it. That's a lot of good stuff. Trying to gain in the West will only turn them into cuck-roaches of globalism. It's like the Mongols failed in the end. They were outnumbered by the Chinese and got absorbed into China. Likewise, all the Asians in the West will be sexually, culturally, and politically absorbed into the West and become cuck-roaches of Jewish and Homo power. The ONLY reason Asians should study in the West is to take back the skills to their home nations.

The real war for the West must come from white nationalists. They are the only hope. Alt Right understands one thing. While individuality and meritocracy are important, the identity and power come first and foremost. All ethno-cultural orders function this way. Israel maintains itself because it favors even mediocre Jews over smart gentiles. Perhaps, Israeli GDP will go up if it welcomes high IQ gentiles from all over and let them take over much of the economy. But what will this mean to Jews in a Jewish nation?
Or look what meritocracy has done to Southeast Asia. Chinese minorities have taken over entire industries. Is that worth it? Even if native majority aren't as smart as the Chinese, isn't it more sensible for them to develop their own means to build and establish majority domination of national industries?

The dark lesson of meritocracy can be learned from rise of Jewish Power. Whites took a chance on Jews as fellow whites who happened to be Jewish. As a child, I felt this way and thought most Jews in my school were basically whites with a different religion who just wanted to do well in society. But since the 80s, Jews use meritocracy to gain elite power and do terrible things to undermine White America. It's appalling. And they are doing it even to Europe with ancient roots of blood and soil. And they are exporting homomania all over the world, even to Asia and even to Muslim Turkey(!) until Erdogan(in one of the few sane things he did) said NO MORE. Because Jews are white, they could have made common cause with white gentiles. But they chose not to. And they are now using their immense power to finish off the white race. Will Jews come to their senses and rejoin the white race? The best bet for Jews and whites is to see the main global divide as being between whites(with Jews as fellow whites) and non-whites. But because Jews see the main divide as between Jews and Gentiles, they seek to maximize diversity among gentiles to break up their power via divide-and-rule so as to serve Jewish hegemony. If things continue as they are, the white enforcement of meritocracy for all groups would have been the biggest mistake ever. It's like the Greek Olympics. It was meritocratic but open ONLY to Greeks. Greeks didn't import big-ass Negroes to outrun and out-whomp the Greeks.
Meritocracy must be a tool to serve the race.

There are two kinds of people. Those who use ideology to serve an identity and those who use identity to serve an ideology. The former will always win. Jews win because they use ideas of both left and right to serve Jewish power. Whites lose because they offer their identity to the service of either a fixed ideology or another identity not their own.

Because the races are different, the results of meritocracy becomes race-ist. Take sports. There is no racial discrimination in sports that says NO MEXICANS, ASIANS, HINDUS, ETC ALLOWED. But there is still biological discrimination that favors blacks and effectively excludes many non-black groups. It's even more pronounced between men and women. Women must have their own space in sports because meritocratic competition with men will lead to total loss for women. (Just see what happens as more trannies enter women's sports.) In the end, even individualism fails because of racial differences. Suppose every black basketball player is a libertarian individualist who doesn't see himself as black but as just a free agent. But when he joins a team that is all black, how can he not notice and feel a sense of black power? Likewise, Yuri Slezkine in THE JEWISH CENTURY remarked that even anti-religious communist Jews couldn't help feeling a certain tribal solidarity when so many Jews ended up in elite institutions by meritocracy.
So, even meritocracy leads to racial consciousness. Some groups are more likely to win collectively and others are more likely to lose collectively in certain fields.

Now, imagine a society of people A, B, C, D, and E. Suppose A constitute 5% of the nation while E constitute 50% of the nation. Suppose A has many more bright people, and suppose they gain 50% of the top spots. And suppose peoples B, C, and D take 45% of the spots. Suppose People E take 5% of the spots. That would be meritocratic indeed, but won't people A feel a great sense of racial pride and power? After all, they are the 5% who got 50% of the power. And won't people E feel lots of resentment as the 50% of the population with only 5% of the power? Even if everyone tried to pretend that it's all about individual merit, they would start noticing factors of race and identity. People A will feel tempted to use their vast power to favor A-interests that may actually harm People E. After all, meritocrats can be real sons of bitches. Consider how the rich and powerful elites lobby the US government to push policies that take EVERYTHING away from white folks. It's one thing for smart people to make lots of money and live well. Even poor white folks didn't have much grudge against fabulously rich folks. But that's not enough for the Koch brothers of the world. They must push for 'free trade' that turns entire communities into rust belts. Even so, one might say white folks still have their nation as common historical property. But nope, even that is to be taken from them by demographic replacism resulting from non-stop mass invasion. So, white folks not only had to accept other people making a lot more money and shipping factories overseas. They were also supposed to swallow the eventuality of losing ownership of their nation that had been founded and built by Europeans. Worse, they are supposed to resign themselves to even ancient Europe being swallowed up by Africans and Muslims.

What recent history teaches us is that meritocracy is no guarantee for loyalty and integrity. Many Jews and globalist elites who amassed tremendous wealth and power through meritocracy felt no loyalty to the historical nation. And they were committed to pushing any number of lies to realize the globalist vision to destroy universal nationalism that had been the basis of so much good and stability in the post WWII order.

Meritocracy turned into Imperitocracy.

Henceforth, history must be seen as a war among races. In a war, there is no 'fair play' or 'principles'. In war, you do ANYTHING to win. It is a primal clash of powers. In order for white folks to have a world of principled meritocracy once again, they must first secure an Order of Power for themselves, one that cannot be invaded by non-whites or usurped by hostile elites. Meritocracy and principles are good in the abstract, but a people and culture are not an abstraction. They are real. And they must first secure reality before they create an order of principles and rules.

If meritocracy leads to another people gaining power over your people and then using that power to destroy your people, the hell with meritocracy... at least for the time being until you can build a new order in which your people are safe and secure.

Jared Taylor Cannot Win with Facts and Reason Alone - Vision of Future trumps View of Reality - Richard Spencer’s Vision Needs to Smoke Less Crack

There are two prominent figures in the alternative sphere of the rightist spectrum. There is Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer.

Jared Taylor makes good sense backed with facts and logic on a host of issues, but he lacks the vision thing. After all, Moses didn’t manage to lead all those Hebrews out of Egypt just by noticing facts around him. He inspired his people with the vision of a better tomorrow and the Promised Land. He promised them the laws of God on the conviction that God, the one and only God, was on their side. Without such prophecy, neither the mythical Moses nor the historical Muhammad could have achieved what they did. We may learn a lot from someone who points to things around us and gives a factual analysis of every item. But we aren’t likely to be inspired by him or look to him for The Truth, the one that lends meaning, purpose, and direction to our lives. Rather, it is the man who points to the distant horizon and speaks of the great future that inspires people and make them want to follow him. He is the prophet who is far-sighted, whereas the ‘factualists’ are short-sighted.

We need all the fact-based people we can find as they get things done in the world, but the future is made by those who lead the people to ‘another’ world. This another world could be literal in the sense of discovering or conquering a distant territory. Or it could be a vision of how our own land could be transformed into something far greater.
Now, Jared Taylor does have a passion and objective of sorts. He is passionately committed to his own race, culture, and heritage. And he looks forward to a world where whites will be safe and secure in identity and posterity. But it doesn’t excite or inspire because the Taylor’s vision of a good society is all about the A-B-C’s of stability. If he could have a Father-Knows-Best-like society for his own people, he would be content, and that would be that. Such a society would certainly be nice, but it’s not visionary enough to inspire masses of white people to view it as their Promised Land. To inspire the masses, the vision must be more than something nice or something-that-had-been. It has to be something that has yet to be, something so great, wondrous, and glorious. It needn’t be something as fanciful(and ridiculous) as Wakanda, but the vision has to be powerful enough to turn people into zealots and true believers who are willing to kill and die for this vision.

If Bolsheviks, Italian Fascists, National Socialists, Zionists, and Lazarusites have one thing in common, it is the Vision thing. Benito Mussolini convinced Italians that they could once again become a race of heroes, like the warriors of Roman Times, if they come together as a people under his leadership. Bolsheviks intoxicated both the educated elites and landless peasants with a future vision of the End of History of justice and truth. Zionists excited Jews with the hope not only of nation of their own but the recovery of their lost Holy homeland. And the cult-worshipers of Emma Lazarus romanticized the notion of America as a Proposition Nation, the full greatness of which has yet to be realized with the arrival of dreamers from all over the world. Good or bad, sensible or insane, those -isms offer more than facts and reasons. They offer a vision.

In the end, people are not moved by clarity of the empirical mind but the fever of the imperial spirit. Clarity of facts and logic reduces our emotional heat. So, while Jared Taylor makes a convincing case on matters of race and culture, he leaves us feeling calm, cool, and collected. But history is not made by gentlemen. Gentlemen are good managers and officials. But they are not the ones who supply the heat and the juice to make the people want to do something more than the usual, the normal, the routine, and the mundane. Napoleon didn’t inspire his men with facts and data. He made them believe in him, his abilities as leader and his vision of glory for France and the Revolution. T. E. Lawrence convinced all those divided Arab tribes to follow him and serve him not with dry lectures on history or cold political analysis. And it wasn’t just the promise of loot either. He made them believe in his special powers and the dream of Arab unity and glory that had been out-of-reach under Ottoman Rule.
And he did all this despite not even being a Muslim. He managed to convince Arab Muslims to fight fellow Muslims of the Ottoman Empire because his showbiz quasi-prophet act was so compelling.

In the end, history is made by people who believe in a Taboo. They feel what they believe isn’t merely factual or true but holy and sacred. Indeed, the holy and sacred is favored even over factual evidence. After all, we can factually debunk or intellectually deconstruct much of Jewish religion, myths, legends, and history. We can say that, as there never was a God, the notion of Promised Land or Holy Land is just nonsense. Based on chemistry, the dirt in Palestine/Israel is no different from dirt in any neighboring nation. So, there was no Covenant. It was all an invention. And Moses probably never existed, at least in the version told in the Old Testament. But none of that matters to Zionists, even the most secular ones. They BELIEVE in a covenant with history if not with God. And this myth fills them with a vision of the future that MUST be. It is NOT negotiable. And this vision is so powerful that even the most secular leftist Israeli Jews will pick up assault rifles and kill bushels of Arabs, Muslims, and Persians IF that’s what it takes to preserve Israel as the eternal vision of home for the Jews.

Richard Spencer understands this need for Big Vision, a sense of not only being right but righteous. In the end, an order cannot exist for long without its zealots. Israel may have secular elites who think about ‘higher’ and drier things, but it survives only because it has its core neo-Zealots who are willing to go to any length to defend the nation from enemies from both within and without. Now, if an order is totally overrun by zealots, things can get out of hand, like Iran during it rabid Islamo-revolutionary phase. A healthy society needs more than vision, passion, and conviction. There is value in liberal open-mindedness and inquiry. But if an order is only open-minded and dryly intellectual, it won’t have the ferocity to come together and defend the order against enemies. It’s like a person needs more than passion and fists. He needs a mind and heart. But without the fists ready to fight off the threats, the mind and heart will have no security. Before any idea or value, the person must survive as an organism, and that means it must be ready at all times to move into the mode of ferocity and fists to fend off any enemy that threatens his survival and well-being. And this will to survive isn’t based on an idea but an animal passion. But since animal passion alone will just keep a person on the level of an animal(like so many blacks), the mind and heart have to create a vision for the fury and fists to serve. And this vision is something more than objective accounting of reality. Israelis are not committed to defending their nation because they have an objective assessment of their land in terms of economics, minerals, agriculture, water, and etc. After all, the rules of agriculture and market economics, like laws of gravity, are pretty much universal all around the world. All nations read from the same economics and chemistry books. No people ever wanted to defend their nation based on the mere sciences of economics, sociology, psychology, or archaeology. After all, a rational and scientific understanding of anything is a universal endeavor and belongs to all peoples. Even non-Germans can read about German history or brush up on what archaeology has to say about ancient Germanic folks. Even non-Greeks can learn about Greek philosophy, and even non-Jews can read about the history of the part of the world called Palestine/Israel. Knowledge doesn’t belong to any single people. So, if anyone can learn about the history of Jews or Israel(and can even gain more knowledge about Jewish history & culture than your average Jew does), why is it that Jews believe that Jewishness and Israel belong to them in the way such don’t belong to any other people? Why are Jews willing to fight and die for Jewishness and Israel in ways that mere gentile scholars of Jewish culture and Israel do not? It’s because Jews have something more than objective or scholarly interest and knowledge about Israel. They have a powerful sense of their myth, narrative, tragedy, and future/destiny that binds them together. And Jews feel that even gentiles who strongly identify and sympathize with Jews cannot be part of the Tribe. (Incidentally, the reason why many whites so strongly identify with Jews and Israel even though they’re rebuffed by Jews is because they’ve been denied passion in their own identity or failed to develop something on their own with their own vision of the covenant.)
Furthermore, it’s not enough to say that whites are special and especially accomplished. After all, a people who do great things only attract attention from around the world. All great empires not only tried to conquer the world but absorb the world. So, if whites are said to be so great, then, it leads to the logic of universalism, i.e. whites should spread their greatness all over the world(because, after all, greatness wants to rule and doesn’t want to be contained), and the rest of humanity should be able to partake of this greatness.
If whites are to survive as a unique race and culture, the notion of greatness or superiority(in IQ or talent) isn’t enough. Greatness only attracts the attention of others. Also, greatness wants to be admired by others. What great actor or actress doesn’t want to be loved by as many people as possible? What great corporation doesn’t want to expand its market share all over the world? Indeed, when it comes to their great achievements in science, financial power, entertainment, and media, Jews want to take over the entire world. While greatness seeks to dominate others, it also absorbs them, and as the result, the Other also becomes a part of the Great Power. Also, greatness, in its sheer meritocracy, doesn’t necessarily favor one group over another. In some cases, group differences are so stark that meritocracy does lead to total or near-total domination by one group. On meritocracy alone, women cannot compete with men in sports. If women want to play, they need a sports league of their own. In basketball, meritocracy has led to near-total black domination. But greatness in many fields does not so decisively favor one group over all others. Greatness in chemistry, physics, and computer sciences led to the rise of many white, Jewish, and Asian scientists and engineers. Since greatness favors greatness over mediocrity, white greatness will favor non-white greatness over white mediocrity. So, even if one could make the argument that whites have achieved the greatest things in history, putting greatness, ability, and talent at the center of everything will undermine ethno-nationalism and identity of collective racial inheritance. After all, even if it’s true that whites have been more adept at reason and science than other races, the fact still remains that most whites are not very smart or creative. Meanwhile, there are plenty of non-whites who are very smart and creative, and if given a chance by the Western system, will do head-and-shoulders better than most whites. And then, whites of intelligence and creativity will favor non-whites of intelligence and creativity because the system would put greatness and meritocracy at the center of all things. And this is why all this stuff about IQ doesn’t cut it. It’s interesting and informative but doesn’t support the Vision necessary for the survival of a race, culture, and territory.

This is obvious from the case of Jews. If indeed Jews should primarily care about greatness and meritocracy, then the smartest, most creative, most successful, and most powerful Jews should primarily seek out their counterparts of excellence among the gentiles. Smart Jews shouldn’t care about dumb Jews just like smart whites are told to dump on dumb whites. Smart whites are told to think meritocratically and identify mainly with smart Jews and smart non-whites. If smart and powerful Jews acted just like smart and privileged whites, would Jewish people, Jewish culture, and Jewish nation survive? After all, even though Jews are, on average, smarter than other groups, there are plenty of not-so-smart Jews. And yet, Jewish identity, culture, and nationalism remain strong because smart Jews believe they should primarily identify with other Jews, smart or dumb. So, even though smart Jews will work with smart non-Jews in elite endeavors of physics, chemistry, finance, and computers, when away from work their main identity and loyalty are with Jewishness, Jewish history, Jewish culture, and Jewish nationhood in Israel.

In contrast, look at the decline of Episcopalians despite the fact that they had an IQ equivalent or possibly even higher than of Ashkenazi Jews. So, why did Jewish power keep rising whereas Episcopalian power faded despite their individual successes. As individuals, there are still many successful, rich, and/or super-privileged Episcopalians. But because they abandoned their sense of racial/cultural unity and history/heritage, the sense of their own community was lost. Episcopalianism was both too exclusive and too weak to survive as an identity. Those within the denomination were exclusive enough to set themselves apart from other white Christians, but they lacked an communal sense that was powerful enough to hold the community together like among Jews(or even Mormons). Power isn’t more than a series of individual successes. True power is the unity of those of individualities. It’s like a bunch of individuals can be great warriors, but if each fights only for himself than coming together to form an army, they won’t stand a chance against the power composed of individuals working as a team. If every wolf acted as a lone wolf, it could not bring down a moose, elk, or bear. But if they work as a team, they can bring down the biggest game.
Jews retained a powerful pack instinct, whereas Episcopalians, despite equal intelligence, eventually turned into lone wolves. Since Episcopalians couldn’t form a pack of their own, their lone talents attached themselves to those with pack instinct. Today, most successful white gentiles just serve Jewish interests because Jews still act as a pack to form a dominant team. The only way this team can be countered is by forming counter-teams, but Jews have used their control of academia and media to indoctrinate white gentiles with the idea that pack-mentality is noble among Jews(and blacks) but downright evil and ‘supremacist’ for whites.

Imagine single beams of light. They are all very nice but unless all those beams converge, there cannot be the super-beam that burns as bright as the sun. Indeed, the Sun is powerful because so much matter converged over time within a single gravitational field to create that great furnace in space. It’s like charcoal. If you have 20 lit charcoals and place them apart, you won’t be able to cook anything because there is no combined heat. To cook a steak, you have to pack the coals together for a real flames that can cook a whole pig(though, to be sure, pigs should be spared for their intelligence). It’s like what Albert Speer pulled off at the 1936 Berlin Olympics where all the beams of light converted to create a super-beam, an artificial sun in the sky.

Jews got the heat because their coals are placed together in a pile. In this pyramid of flames, some coals are placed higher than others, but they all work together to generate the heat for the burnt offering to Jewish Power. In contrast, the only kind of coal-burning that is fashionable among white gentiles is white women having sex with black men to spread ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.
So, it isn’t enough for White National Liberators to focus so much on metrics of intelligence, creativity, originality, personality traits, or whatever. This is especially because ability and superiority tends to be disloyal to the tribe. If a white guy is good in basketball, he will play with blacks in the NBA because he wants to be with the best. A pretty white cheerleader will not side with race. Since she has something of special value(her looks), she will want to be associated with someone else with special value, and if a Negro beats a white guy in sports, she will go with the Negro because of his athletic superiority. A brilliant Chinese scientist may decide to move to the US and work at MIT because American academic institutions are where the best minds are. And even smart Jews are tempted to forgo Jewish interest IF doing so boosts their chances of being with the best people.

Fortunately for Jews, even when Jews go for total meritocracy, they can be assured of being with lots of fellow Jews since Jews have a decisive advantage in IQ. And even when Jews marry non-Jews, it’s usually the case that the latter decides to raise the kids as Jewish since Jewishness has such prestige in the halls of power. The thing is Jews didn’t become so powerful with merit alone. It wasn’t simply because Jews tend to be smarter, and therefore, there are more smart Jews in high places. It’s because all those Jewish beams of light converged to create the Jewish sun of power. Because Jews know this is the secret to their own power, they discourage it among gentiles. Without their strong sense of tribe and unity, Jewish advantage in ability and intelligence could paradoxically be a liability where Jewish power is concerned. Again, despite higher general Jewish IQ, most Jews are not geniuses or even very smart. Your average Jew has an IQ of 110 to 115, which is good but not outstanding by any stretch of the imagination. And there are Jews with IQ considerably lower than that. Israel has a lot of Sephardic Jews, and their IQ isn’t much above that of Arabs. So, if Jews went by meritocracy alone, they could easily become like Episcopalians in no time. The smart and successful Jews will only watch out for their own individual interests and, being deracinated, prefer to identify with fellow successful people regardless of their race, color, or creed. In time, the top talents among Jews will feel closer to smart Anglos, smart Arabs, smart Chinese, smart Russians, smart Latins, and even smart Iranians. The middling Jews and dumb Jews will have no representation, leadership, guidance, and protection from powerful Jews. Eventually, they will lose heart and confidence while the smart Jews just look out for self-interest like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Notice that Jews never speak up for Anglo-identity, Christian power, or European heritage. Indeed, such are seen as bad or tainted. In contrast, Hillary supported Israel even in its savage beat-down of Gazans, and Joe Biden, though a deracinated piece of turd, calls himself a ‘Zionist’. According to the likes of George Hee-Hawley, white people are evil ‘racists’ or ‘white supremacists’ if they want to preserve their own identity and heritage, but it’s perfectly okay for Jews to not only uphold their own identity, culture, and territory BUT compel even non-Jews like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, John McCain, Donald Trump, and Nikki Haley to go all out in their support of Zionism, indeed even Zionist imperialism over West Bank.

The fact is whites need to be like Jews. Smart, middle, or dumb, it doesn’t matter. If you’re white, you’re part of the family. It’s like a decent member of the family doesn’t disown his brother or sister because he or she isn’t very smart. A race is an extended family. A true nation must be a place for this extended family where every member, from smartest to dumbest, has a sense of belonging. So, even though a white chemist at work must cooperate with chemists of all colors around the world, away from work he must be a white man whose main loyalty is to his race, culture, and nation. And if Jews complain, tell them to stop having their own pack mentality.


Jared Taylor is a perfect gentleman, but gentlemen don’t make history, esp if they don’t have power. Gentlemen can inherit and manage power, but they lack the power of vision to generate the necessary passion for power. Gentlemen stand for moderation, civility, and order, all of which are fine qualities to have in an order, but the forceful will of power was not generated by those qualities to conquer lands or convert souls. Gentlemen are about compromise and negotiation, which are necessary modes in what we call a ‘free society’, but an order is almost never created by compromise but by a compulsive drive to make a vision or dream come true(as long as it has real-world chance of success). Granted, the visionaries can’t only be insistent. While it’s true that Jews realized the dream of Zionism by being insistent, persistent, and zealous, they also knew when to negotiate. Also, Jews had developed many sources of power in finance, media, and government to exert influence over goyim. If Jews had been like lowly Gypsies and just made demands, they would have gotten nowhere.
And it’s also true that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao often played it passive/aggressive. They could put on a nice face, appear moderate or willing to compromise, and be very diplomatic. But even when they were playing ‘nice’, they still had a fire burning within them for the fullest realization of their vision. They could speak softly, but they always carried their hot poker. They could lower to heat to assure rivals and enemies that they favor warmth all around, but they still tended the hot fire within the furnace of power. Jews were passive/aggressive in their push for Zionism, but the passive side always served the aggressive side. Jews were sometimes willing to seem ‘nice’ to look for vulnerabilities on the other side so that, when the time was right, they could drive the stake right through the heart. It’s like a boxer will sometimes move back, throw light jabs, and pretend to go easy... only to find that perfect moment to land the real blows to send the opponent to the canvas. So, Jews weren’t just sparring with their opponents. Even when they seemed to go ‘easy’, they had KO on their minds. And this is a kind of instinct that is alien to Jared Taylor. Raised with southern gentlemanly qualities and patrician instincts, he lacks the power of balls and the instinct to bite-and-tear-off-the-other-balls. He wants to remain above the fray and keep his hands clean. He wants to be dignified, rational, and moderate, even though his views are considered ‘extreme’ by the current Narrative. In contrast, Jews, even though they can seem civil and gentlemanly like Taylor, do have the chimpanzee-an power of balls and instinct to ball-bust other balls. Chimpanzees got big balls because they want to hump as many chimpanzesses as possible. They are truly Portnoic in their lust for domination and fun.

Pondering the balls of a chimp, we better understand the nature of Jewish Power.  Despite Jewish intellect and sophistication, the core emotional thrust of Jews is ultra-aggressive, obsessive, insistent, persistent, and boing-ish. If the gentlemanly Wasp way is to courteously back away when the other says NO, the Chimpan-Jew way is to keep pressing on and on and on. It's like Benjamin Braddock in THE GRADUATE. Sure, it's based on a novel about a Wasp written by a Wasp, but the way Dustin Hoffman played it, he was almost like an ape in heat. Or consider THE HEARTBREAK KID where Charles Grodin's character, despite his seeming passivity, goes full-ape to overcome all obstacles to stick his Portnoic pud into the prime poon of a golden-haired shikse. Jews got what Tony Montana has. Big Balls. So, when dealing with Jews, it's not enough to estimate their brain power or consider the validity of their arguments. One has to ask, "How magnum are the balls of these Jews?"

To better understand the problems with Taylor, imagine him standing naked facing off against a naked Harvey Weinstein. The first thing Taylor will wonder is, "Now, why am I standing here with no clothes on?", and he will look for some clothes. And then, upon noticing the naked Weinstein, Taylor will feel embarrassed for both of them and look for some clothes for Weinstein as well. But Weinstein thinks differently. Instead of the Wasp gentlemanly way which is to shrivel the balls into the size of beans and act civil, the Jew expands his nuts to the size of bowling balls(like in BIG LEBOWSKI) and fills himself with ultra-chutzpah. But it doesn’t end there. Like chimpanzees ferociously attack the balls of rival chimps, punching them, bashing them, biting them, and ripping them off, Weinstein the chimp-souled Jew lunges at Taylor and attacks his balls and tries to bite them off. To know your Jew is to know your chimp. Jews are like Italians and Gypsies with higher IQ. Despite their greater knowledge and credentials, they will stop at nothing to go for the kill and get their prize, and their intense tribalism will spare them from any feelings of guilt or remorse.

Anyway, the world would do well with more gentlemen but ONLY AFTER the power has been established and secured. Also, the game of power has to go beyond reason and minutiae. The Narrative Sweep will blow away verisimilitude in favor of vision.

The once glorious revival of the American South in the American Imagination despite the terrible defeat in the Civil War owed to the Southern control of their own Narrative. The South stuck with the Narrative that white Southerners were the tragic victims of Northern white race-betrayal and aggression. And Southern historians depicted the Reconstruction as rape of the South by carpetbaggers, much like Russians feel that their nation was ravaged by Jewish globalists in the 1990s. Also, Southern Whites depicted blacks as the big threat to white social and moral order. D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION had an electric effect on the nation. And GONE WITH THE WIND blew away UNCLE TOM’S CABIN. While Harriet Beecher Stowe won the war, Margaret Mitchell won the peace by ennobling the tragic defeat of the South as a romantic epic. Almost no one reads UNCLE TOM’S CABIN, but GONE WITH THE WIND still has countless fans around the world. Even William Faulkner, though very critical of the South, had great nostalgia for Southern heritage. All of this came crashing down with the Civil Rights Movement and thereafter that not only championed the rights and the counter-narrative of Negroes(which was understandable and justifiable since blacks also had a tragic narrative that had been suppressed by White Southerners) but waged total war on anything that imbued the South with tragedy, nobility, integrity, and beauty. In time, Jews got white Northerners to despise everything about the white south, and Southern elites, having been educated by Jews and Liberals, came to loathe their own heritage. According to the current Narrative, there was NOTHING redeemable about the South. So, if there's any glory to America, it all belongs to the North(mainly because it defeated the South) and Immigrants. But this is, of course, bogus since the North, even more than the South, led the Manifest Destiny that wiped out the Indians. Isn’t ‘genocide’ worse than slavery? Also, didn’t the arrival of all those Immigrants lead to greater westward expansion and more ‘genocide’? Jews may have been escaping from pogroms in Eastern Europe, but they came to a nation created by pogroms against Indians. So, how noble are the Jews? (Furthermore, Jews played a key role in the Southern slave economy.) Now, the American Narrative of Westward Expansion shows that one can have a dual narrative about a nation. One can admire the great white vision of conquering the West and turning what had been a savage wilderness into a great new nation. But one can also acknowledge the tragedy of Indians who got trampled and cast aside by the march of progress. We can honor both the triumph of the cowboys and the tragedy of the Indians. But when it comes to the South, "there is only one side", and this BS from Jews who were heavily involved in communist mass-killing, financial destruction of nations, and Nakba & Wars for Israel in the 20th century and 21st century.

This is why one must KNOW YOUR JEW before doing battle with them. For persistent, insistent, and obsessive Jews, there is no compromise. It’s their way or the highway. Notice how Putin made things very good for Jews despite his move against certain Jewish oligarchs who looted the nation in the 1990s. Many Jews were allowed to remain filthy rich, and the Jewish community in Russia gets extra-protection as anti-Jewish sentiments and actions are severely proscribed. But do Jews show any appreciation? No, the likes of Max Boot the chimpan-Jew wants to get together with other nasty Jews and chew on Putin’s balls all night long.

Jared Taylor is under the delusion that Jews can be negotiated with on grounds of equal partnership. It is a gentlemanly approach, but it is deeply flawed because Jews aren’t interested in equal partnership. They want total domination and control. Jews are pushy and fierce. They want it all. Was the guy in THE HEARTBREAK KID willing to compromise? No, he wanted total ownership of the golden shikse poon. If the father had said, "Okay, you can’t marry and screw my daughter, but she will give one blowjob per month", does anyone think the Jewish guy would have said OK? No way. He wanted the whole nine yards.
There are three reasons why Jews don’t want equal partnership with white goyim. (1) Being smarter, Jews think they have the right to dominate others. (2) Being a minority with far fewer numbers than white gentiles, Jews feel that whites may one day renege on the equal partnership and use their numbers to gain dominance over Jews, as sort of happened in Russia. (3) Jewish appetite for power and control is just insatiable regardless of any other factor. Just like Harvey Weinstein had to grab all those women and just like Anthony Weiner had to keep sending his penis pictures to so many women, Jews can’t help themselves.

So, when people like Taylor offer equal partnership, Jews see no point in negotiating. Also, people like Taylor are now so powerless that they are in no position to negotiate. While all the Zionists who support the violent policies of Israel get to run the media and all the think-tanks, Jared Taylor can’t even keep his Twitter account. And while AIPAC rallies calling on all US politicians to support Israel’s brutal occupation of West Bank are lavishly funded and held at huge stadiums, American Renaissance conferences could barely secure a venue. So, Taylor’s fig leaf to the Jews means NOTHING to the Jews. They see him as a defeated man and are out to silence him totally.
Now, if people like Taylor held the real power in America and if they offered equal partnership to Jews on the premise that Jews must be nice to whites, Jews may take up the offer strategically to bid for time as they keep gaining in power to the point where they can finally dethrone and ‘discredit’ anything associated with whiteness. It’s like Jews in the Old American South arrived at a compromise with the Plantation system, and Jews in Russia pretend to go along with Putin while looking for ways to eventually steer Russia into the pocket of Jewish ownership.

Anyway, Taylor's offer is meaningless because Jews already have the power. Why would they take up on the Taylor Plan when they have nothing to gain from him? What do the likes of Taylor have to offer to Jews who got Wall Street, Ivy Leagues, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Big Media, Deep State, High-Tech, and Biggest Law firms? Now, there is a chance that Jews may have to come to the negotiating table in the future if something really BIG happens. Suppose things get so bad for whites that there are violent upheavals in both the US and EU. Suppose the current ruling elites are toppled from power, and a New White Power emerges to take center stage. In that case, Jews better pray that there might still be some whites who are sympathetic to them.
So, one could argue that Taylor’s Offer to Jews is less about the Now than about the Later when Jews might find themselves in big trouble. Or even if whites do totally lose out to Jews and globalism, Jews may face more dangers from non-whites, especially Muslims in the EU. If indeed the EU becomes heavily Muslim and if these Muslims become ever more violent toward whomever they regard as ‘Zionist’, then Jews better hope that whites will side with them and protect them from violent Muslims and Africans.

Anyway, like it or not, the Jewish elites do have a powerful vision of uniting the whole world under the glob-dome of Political Correctness as virtue-vanity ideology, Pop Culture as the only culture, Homomania as the new religion, US militarism as the sole hammer, and Wall Street finance as the final arbiter of all things. The unholy trinity of Jewish Money, Jungle Boogie, and Justice Junkies. And masses of sheeple addicted to celebrity culture. White females to become meat for Jews & Negroes, and white males to become sappy cucks like CucKen Burns.
Yes, it’s all shallow and crass but nevertheless powerful, enthralling, and mesmerizing because it is so pervasive and relentless in fueling vice, vanity, and (delusion of) virtue as a single combo of ecstasy and rapture, best exemplified by the hysterics of Homomania, the celebrations of which convey the excesses of hedonism, conceits of narcissism, and arrogance of moralism. The vanity of vice is the new virtue.

Of course, it’s all ludicrous, but the power of the electronic media, monopoly of terminology, and fulsome pageantry override the senses that render clear thinking almost impossible for so many people. Because the power of media amplifies images and sounds that have such spellbinding impact on so many people, the effect is sufficient to win over and hold most people... in the way that Christmas lights and celebrations are enough to convince children that Christmas is so wonderful even though they know nothing of the religious foundation of the holiday. It’s like Las Vegas, and its endless cascades of lights. It’s not just the prospect of gambling that draws people there. They feel alive, like a ball inside a pinball machine being bounced around endlessly regardless of rhyme or reason.

To be sure, the very nature of globalist power is its biggest vulnerability. Because it is so false, phony, and degenerate, it can only be kept alive by endless supercharged voltage of fun, frills, and fortune. In Old America prior to the rise of electronic media, many families were isolated and had little, but they found real meaning in the family, community, Church, and patriotism. But all those are gone, so what is there but bogus visions and values? Since bogusness is shallow and stupid, it can only be sold with a lot of glitz and shine. It’s like Bread and Circuses of Ancient Rome. Once the state couldn’t provide them anymore, there was nothing to go on. True value has meaning even when ‘unplugged’. It’s like a genuinely worthy song has value even without all the layered effects of electronica. In contrast, many current hits have very little content without the production values that just add a lot of bells and whistles. It’s like a dish with lots of sauce but hardly any meat. Still, as long as the globalist elites have the juice to keep the mojo flowing, billions of people all around the world will remain captivated by the kumbaya.

Against such power, Taylor’s arguments may be sound and factual but are ultimately ineffective. It’s like facts and data sound boring, insignificant, and irrelevant when uttered between two giant speakers blasting words and music that incite the masses into chants and convulsions.
Rappers yammer nonsensical crap, but why do they have such power over so many people, even those who are well-educated and well-read? It’s because rappers are thunderous and hurl fire and brimstone to the beat. Their way isn’t to argue or discuss a point. They command and demand respect.
The thing is, before humans are creatures of reason, they are emotional and sensual beings, and the reason loses out to the rhythm. Consider the success of the utterly stupid Disney revamping of STAR WARS into yet another franchise. The sheer power of hype makes the myth live.

Whatever his faults, Richard Spencer understands that a vision, however corrupt and tawdry, has to be countered by another vision. This takes boldness and a leap of imagination. Would communism have collapsed in the Soviet Union and neighboring Communist nations if the Capitalist West hadn’t existed? After all, as inefficient and underdeveloped Eastern-European communist nations were, they were still far more advanced than nearly all of the non-white world and the Third World. So, if the US and Western Europe hadn’t existed, many people living under communism would have thought they have the best system in the world... just like the Byzantine Empire, being cut off from developments in Western Europe, thought it had the best of everything in comparison to the nearest neighboring powers. And prior to the challenge posed by the West, the Chinese were confident that they had the best of all worlds. Their own vision of things was enough. It was when the more advanced vision of the West challenged the Chinese vision of civilization that the whole system began to gradually but surely unravel, eventually gaining steam whereupon the nation came to be racked by one revolution after another. Would the people of Romania have stood up to Ceausescu if their only vision of Romania had been the one pushed by the state? Weren’t they inspired by what they heard of the world outside Romania and communism, one of freedom and enterprise and ambition and success? It is the counter-vision that undermines the current-vision.

In understanding this, Spencer is onto something. But if Jared Taylor’s view is too short-sighted and factual, Spencer’s vision is too grandiose and delusional. When the West must struggle to save itself and survive, does it make sense to dream of colonizing Africa once again... or flying off to Mars and stars for interstellar colonies? Maybe such is in the cards centuries from now, but white people today need to fix their vision on matters that are most essential. After all, if the West is lost to the darkies, there won’t be the future of great science and technology. Spencer might argue that whites being a majority is not important, because, after all, Jews are a minority yet have so much power. And Brits ruled all of India with a small imperial caste. But what eventually happened to the Brits in India? They got overwhelmed by sheer numbers and got booted out once nationalism and mass political consciousness got universalized. As for the dominance of Jewish minority elite, it's possible only because Jews have white gentiles to serve them and support them. Could Jews have gained such power if they’d stayed out of white world and set up communities in Africa, Asia, Middle East, and Latin America? Blacks would have just raided and raped them. Asians would have ignored them. Muslims would have severely proscribed their freedom. And Latin Americans would have been too lax and corrupt to provide a system in which Jews could thrive with assurance of Rule of Law and Private Property. It is no accident that Jews gained the most power among white people. So, Jewish power depends on white support. This was the case in South Africa too. Jews grew very rich there because they were protected by the white Anglo-Boer support system. But when blacks took over and the white support system dramatically weakened, Jews found their place in South Africa far less certain, which is why Jews are deeply worried about black and Hindu(who compete with Jewish diamond merchants) condemnation of ‘white monopoly capital’. Given that Jewish supremacy depends so much on the white support system, one would think that Jews wouldn’t be so eager to keep pushing for more invasion-immigration and Diversity that will diminish white power, in which case Jews will have less of a white support system to rely on.
But, the Jewish idea is that Immigration and Diversity should be pushed at least to the extent that white majority power is broken. In other words, Jews want to live in a nation with lots of whites but one in which whites cannot form a majority to block whatever agenda Jews want. Now, shouldn't Jews worry about non-whites working as a new majority against Jewish power? No. Why not? Because non-whites will be too diverse — blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. — to agree on anything and unite into an effective force. Also, even though non-whites will supply the votes(almost entirely for more immigration and more gibs), they will not get to control the agenda since most of them don’t have the means to reach elite positions, and the only ones that do, the Asians, tend to be pretty docile and obedient to the dominant Narrative and Agenda. Non-whites will supply the votes to keep Jewish elites in power, but it will be the Jewish elites who make all the important decisions. And if non-whites get restless, Jews can always use the power of media to direct non-white ire at 'white privilege'.

Anyway, the Vision is the key. Whites must be instilled with a passion so powerful that makes them feel the world is intolerable UNLESS their vision is realized. This vision must essentially be national since white people need to respect the national visions of other peoples as well.
In big things, there must be mutual respect and reciprocity. The notion of one people or nation ruling or controlling the whole world will lead to more disasters. One must have a passionate vision, but one must also have a sense of limits.
Richard Spencer thinks white people have some 'Faustian' destiny to rule, but this is total misreading of history. So much of the world was once easy to conquer because (1) The West was so advanced in arms and technology and (2) the Non-West societies lacked national consciousness. So, when whites conquered a territory and took out its elites, most natives didn't care because their concept of power was something that happened above. They saw themselves as subjects than citizens. So, what did it matter if they were subjects of local power or foreign power? Subjects are meant to obey. So, if foreign imperialists took out local elites, it was the war between the 'gods' that had little to do with most native folks.

That was then, this is now. All the world have gained development in modern technology, and all peoples around the world have national consciousness. India even has nukes. What would happen if the British tried to invade India or China today? Even the lone superpower like the US got badly bogged down in a third-rate power like Iraq.

People need vision, but every vision must have limits. The world is not a STAR WARS movie where people get to play Darth Vader. On the other hand, Taylor's C-3PO-like factualism doesn't quite inspire.