Should Asians be the Preservers of Western Classical Music? Racial Souls and Music

 

I recall a video on Youtube with Camille Paglia despairing the fading of the Western Tradition — as a champion of worthless skanks like madonna and other deracinating actors, she sure is one to talk! She spoke of how younger generations of students, for all their intelligence, are woefully ignorant of the Bible and pagan mythologies of Greece that informed and inspired so much of Western Art & Culture, indeed well into the 20th century. How is one to recognize the allusions in Western literature without a firm grounding in cultural canon?
She also lamented the fading of interest in Classical Music among young ones, going so far as to speculate it may survive as a living tradition only in East Asia. (Paglia wanted to have it both ways. She relished irreverence and fanned rebellion against tradition & order but also defended the latter for its richness in heritage and meaning. Besides, rebels can keep at rebellion only against existing authority. Paglia enjoyed the Sixties too much to relinquish the role of the eternal teenager, one who drives his/her parents crazy without ever wishing to murder them. Once authority fades, rebels find themselves as the new authority, and things can be much worse with the combination of the radical will and iron grip. Indeed, it was precisely why Bolsheviks as the New Boss were far more repressive and ruthless than the Old Order. Traditional Authority could be brutal and oppressive, but it was about maintaining the same old same old. Lacking the fiery spirit of revolution, it was like cold iron. In contrast, precisely because rebels and/or revolutionaries lacked institutional power, they relied on inspiration and passion, the stuff of fire. But what happens when the Old Order collapses and the rebels/revolutionaries take over as the New Boss? Result is the hot furnace of fire and iron. Paglia cheered on the anarchists against Church authority but also respected and even secretly revered that authority as a storage of a rich tradition, as well as a worthy foe. Indeed, the worth of any rebellion depends on the quality of the nemesis. It’s like climbing the highest mountain. The pride of conquest rests on the seemingly insurmountable task. Paglia’s attitude was to climb the mountain but keep it intact than blow it up. This is where she found herself at odds with many of her radical generation who were less interested in conquering the mountain than blowing it all up. They weren’t merely rebellious teenagers but had patricide in mind, along with the rape of mother. Jim Morrison and the Doors: “Father, I want to kill you, mother I want to f——–.” Paglia cheers on the Satanists to lay siege to the church but also wants the church to defend its hallowed ground. She’s rocks to “Sympathy for the Devil” from outside the walls but joins in the chorus of “Ave Maria” from within the walls. She’s all messed up like the Kundry character in Richard Wagner’s PARSIFAL. In contrast, Jewish Supremacists and ‘woke’ radicals call for total destruction. They root for Pussy Riot gangs and globo-homo subversives to vandalize and desecrate the inner sanctums of the church. Globo-Homo has been far more insidious because, unlike the blatant blasphemy of Pussy Riot, it feigns a pseudo-pietism that would have us believe Christian Love smiles down on ‘angelic’ tooters getting all fruity with each other’s bungholes.)

At any rate, perhaps there is something to what Paglia said. Classical Music in the future may be better preserved in places like Japan and China than in the US, even Europe. Given the decline of interest in Classical Music among Westerners in general, the obvious solution would be to get more young whites interested in Classical Music as not merely great music but a rich cultural heritage. Instead, the top priority isn’t too-many-yellows and not-enough-whites but where-are-the-Negroes? As if whites losing their musical heritage to yellows isn’t bad enough, the call is for them to lose it to blacks as well. But then, as blacks have been sacralized, many whites surely feel everything is ennobled or consecrated by its association with blacks.

But blackity-black or yellowy-mellow, the truth is the Classical Tradition arose in the West among the whitity-whites. It is essentially European, with some contributions by American composers(but then, what is America but an extension of European Civilization)? Besides, why a need for more blacks in Classical Music when they have their own musical forms, some of them remarkable and inspired in their own right? Whatever blacks are deficient in, musical expression(along with sports) isn’t one of them. But given that the new cult/quasi-religion among whites is the Tri-Idolatry(or Tridolatry) of Jews, homos, and blacks, whites do fret about the Black-Lack wherever blacks fail to excel and/or show much interest. (Yes, it’s ‘racist’ white folks’ fault that not enough blacks are into Haydn and Brahms.) If blackness is sacred, or ‘blacred’, then black holiness must shine its radiance(or cast its cool shadow) over everything. If something is absent of or insufficient in blackness, it is deemed unblessed, unhallowed, or unredeemed. So, it doesn’t matter how great it is for what it is. It is excoriated for its Black-Lack, or B-Lack. It’s like everything has to have blactose, the sugar of vibrancy.

Classical Music is one of the greatest achievements of mankind, and one of the unique contributions of Western Civilization, all the more remarkable because, despite its particular origins, it is perhaps the most universal form of music in its reach and breadth, i.e. its emotions/passions can be felt directly and personally across cultures; the emotions come across as those of Man than of Hindu, Muslim, Turk, Chinese, or Irishman(who’d rather be singing ‘Danny Boy’ instead anyway). Perhaps, this owes to the combination of Christian universalism and Hellenic tradition where the notion of Man became independent of cultural markers.

One thing for sure, even as all the world can appreciate and gain inspiration from it, Classical Music Tradition hardly requires the input of non-Europeans for validation or legitimacy. If there’s an all-white blues band, perhaps one may wonder why there isn’t a Negro in it. B-Lack can be an issue. But what need is there for blacks in Classical Music? If blacks show interest and want to play the music, okay, but what does the form gain simply by having Negroes?
Classical Music has no Negro origins and reached its apotheosis purely as European music. Arguably, the only notable non-European contribution to Classical tradition came from Jews, but these were Europeanized Jews who themselves were steeped in the heritage through semi-assimilation genetically and culturally.

But even as whites wish for more blacks in Classical Music, the reality is it has attracted countless Asians, especially the yellows. Some may argue that even if whites were to abandon the tradition, there will be Asians to keep it alive. But is this a good idea? I think not.

Now, what happens in Asia is immaterial. If Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China want to have their classical music schools and orchestras, that’s their business. But what happens in the West should be the business of whites, the core of Western folks. Classical Music is Western Tradition. For the most part, the Classical idiom has failed to produce great new works. In terms of originality, it is irrelevant and survives mainly as movie scores.
One may argue that the form has been exhausted by past greats who explored virtually all the possibilities of structure and expression(which is also true of Jazz and possibly Rock as well). All art-forms eventually run dry. Then, Classical Music is museum music, something to be cherished and preserved as part of the Western canon and heritage. Modernism’s emphasis on novelty and shock has made people forget the other purpose of art and culture. Ultimately, a civilization is more about inheritance than inspiration. After all, even if Western arts and culture had stopped progressing after 1600, there would have been an immense treasure trove of accumulated masterpieces. Similar claim could have been made 1600 yrs earlier as the pagan Greeks and Romans had already achieved so much.

So, if Classical Music is one of the great treasures of Western Civilization that needs preserving, then it does matter WHO preserves it. It should be up to Western folks to do it. It should be their duty, obligation, and responsibility as well as joy, blessing, and honor(as how many peoples have been bequeathed with such greatness?). It shouldn’t be up to Asians, just like it isn’t the role of non-Jews to keep alive the Jewish tradition. You can’t expect another family to bring flowers to the graves of your forebears.

Now, a distinction must be made between preservation and inspiration. It’s fair game for any people to take inspiration from the Classical Tradition and forge their own music. It’s like white folks took from black Blues and created their own styles of Rock. But when it comes to the preservation of core Blues, it should be up to blacks. White folks can learn to play it, gain inspiration from it, and fashion their own stuff out of it, like the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin. But core Blues is black, and it’s only right that the carriers of the torch should be men like Otis Rush. No matter how well a white guy may sing and play the blues, it seems almost like a parody for him to do it straight, as if he really is a Negro than merely drawing water from the Negro well. Unless he makes it his own through inspiration, he should just give it up. Leave it up to the Negroes to preserve the core idiom.

Sadly, too many Negroes now only care about rappity-rap, leaving it up to non-blacks to care for their musical heritage. But then, whites are doing the same to Classical Music, too often leaving it up to Asians. Just like core Blues expresses something unique deeply embedded in the Negro soul, Western Classical Music flowed from the deep wells of the European soul. Just like anyone can learn to play the blues, anyone can learn to play Classical music. But outward mimicry doesn’t get to the deeper well from which the expression sprang. When a white man plays the blues, he shares in the outward buzz of being Negro-like but remains a stranger to the dark recesses of the black soul, the inner-racial zone of ‘Sheeeeeeiiiiit’ from which the bluesy energy sprung.

Likewise, Europeans, especially Germanics, have a collective soul unlike any other from which greatest expressions of the Classical Tradition swelled and erupted. This isn’t to suggest one kind of soul is better than others but to acknowledge the uniqueness of racial personalities and souls. Consider the link between Jewish Soul and Jewish Humor.
Of course, there would have been no Blues music without white influence as black Blues arose in the American South through contact with white music, but white music had to be sucked into the black hole of the black soul to re-emerge as the big bang of ‘sheeeeeiiiit’. No blacks, no blues. When white American style mixes with Mexicans, it produces something quite else. Whatever it is, it isn’t the Blues.

Just like blacks took from white music to make the Blues, Germanics took from Italians to make their form of Classical Music and Opera that were darker and more powerful. But again, the Italian forms of music had to enter the German soul to re-emerge in the form of Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. Of course, most Germans, like most blacks, had little in the way of originality as geniuses are few and far between among all groups. Still, Germanics were fortunate that those among them with the greatest natural gift for music got to express the soul and spirit of their people(like what Andrei Tarkovsky did for the Russian Soul through film art). If the Germanics didn’t have a Homer to do justice to their mythology in words, they certainly had Wagner to compensate in music. It goes to show that it’s not enough for a people to have a unique collective tribal soul. Fullness is realized only when geniuses among them arise to give the expression it deserves with inspiration drawn from elements within and outside the culture.

Personally, the sight of all those Asians serving as preservers(or ‘preservitors’) of Western Classical Music seems all wrong. It’s not only wrong for the West but for Asians themselves. It’s one thing for Asians to take inspiration from Western Music and create their own interesting variations(like Toru Takemitsu) but quite another to do it so straight and faithfully with a cultural form which isn’t their own. They seem like a bunch of lame, imitative, and uninspired robots. I don’t care how well some Chinese guy plays Classical Piano. I don’t care how well Yo MaMa plays the cello. Or how well some Korean woman is a wizard with a violin or some Japanese guy is so adept with an oboe. They are lamely preserving the tradition of another people. Surely, they have their own traditions to preserve, like Noh Theater. Let Japanese preserve Noh Theater, and let whites preserve Classical Music. Again, it’s primarily a matter of preservation. When it comes to inspiration and creativity, anyone may borrow from anyone or anything as long as he makes it his own.

It seems most East Asians in Classical Music aren’t drawn to it out of passion and love. Rather, as illustrated in Amy Chua’s BATTLE HYMN OF THE PUSSY MOTHER, it seems the product of shallow status-obsessed Asian parents who want to show off their kids as entrants into respectable society by playing high-brow music for rich, privileged, and educated snobs. So, it’s not like most Asian instrumentalists pursued classical music out of personal passion. Rather, they were raised like trained monkeys to pursue whatever’s deemed proper and respectable.
True creativity is suppressed in favor of programmatic repetition to play the notes perfectly(even though maybe the Asian personality, being naturally obedient and conformist, is amenable to this). So, even as Asians master the outward expression of Classical Music, they fail to access the inner well of creativity that made the music possible in the first place. It’d be like some Asian memorizing Greek plays by rote and reciting them perfectly without genuine understanding of the personalities and individualities that created them to begin with.

Granted, most people of all races are not original or creative, and the purpose of cultural preservation is to learn, master, and keep than to be creative. It’s about keeping the flame than igniting new fires. But again, if the purpose is preservation, it should be performed by the descendants/inheritors of those who created the culture. Is it wrong for Greeks to maintain the Parthenon or for the Chinese to upkeep the architectural features of the Forbidden City? Is it wrong for black Africans to keep with the bongo drum tradition? Or for American Indians to carry on with the Rain Dance? (Did it ever work?) True, the West became vast and expansive in ways that no other civilization did, but Classical Music is steeped in European history, culture, arts, and spirituality. Non-Europeans should draw inspiration from it, not merely imitate it or take on the burden(and blessing) of preserving it.

Now, what about Classical Music in East Asia itself? Japan and China have major orchestras. And Japan even produced world-class conductors. In one way, it’s their business, and it shouldn’t matter to the West. Still, I find something ridiculous about the whole idea. Long ago, some Japanese conductor toured the West — no, it wasn’t Seiji Ozawa — as a specialist in the music of Gustav Mahler. He conducted an American orchestra and was well-received. Okay, I understand he really loved the music and became a master in the field. But why? It’s one thing for Japanese to admire Western Classical Music, but why adopt it as something so intrinsic to Japanese cultural life? Not only does it carry the odor of cultural theft but cultural self-denial, as if Japanese are so deficient in a culture of their own that they must borrow a foreign culture wholesale, unaltered and to be imitated note for note.

Besides, given the sheer imitativeness of the East, it is fast adopting ‘wokeness’ and lose interest in Classical Music as the expression of White Maledom. Asians imitate whiteness, and Japan imported Jungle Fever big time from the West, and Taiwan has ‘gay marriage’. Whites now worship Negroes, and so goes Japan, which even hosts countless African men to live with Japanese families, leading to you-know-what. Just look at their national teams in the Summer Olympics. So, as the West falls, so will the East(at least the part within the Western sphere of control and influence), which, as such, cannot be relied upon as the last bastion of the Western Heritage.

But, that isn’t how Japanese culture developed through history. Japanese drew from Chinese and Indian sources in architecture, music, spirituality, philosophy, sculpture, and craft, but they always made the borrowings their own with unique tastes and touches. And even though Japanese cinema drew heavily from Hollywood, Soviet montage, and German cinema, it produced giants like Kenji Mizoguchi, Akira Kurosawa, and Shohei Imamura who did their own thing. Japanese also took Western pop music and did interesting things, like the pop hit “Sukiyaki”, which actually isn’t about beef boiled in soy sauce.
But when it comes to classical music, Japanese, like other East Asians, have taken the Western Classical Tradition wholesale, learning and playing the music note by note. They’ve adopted the music not as a point of inspiration but a matter of preservation. But it isn’t theirs to preserve.

It is duty and honor of Western Folks to preserve… but then, whites today are so colonized by Jewish Power that the running theme of the Current Year is the Black-Lack. Never mind the tragedy of not enough white kids showing interest in this great tradition. The big question among the elites is WHERE ARE THE MAGIC NEGROES to play the violins, cellos, clarinets, tubas, trombones, and etc.? It’s as if everything whites ever created was ultimately to be served to blacks, surrendered to blacks, or to be redeemed by blacks. It went from “Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Culture Gots to Go” to “Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Culture Gots to Go Negro”. Of course, the Negroes have a simple reason for their lack of interest in classical music or nuclear physics: We be too busy rappin’, stealin’, cheatin’, shootin’, sniffin’, and actin’ crazy while you dumbass white folks wash our feet and suck our d—s.

What a dumbass world.

Btw, would it be a good idea to have something like a video series on Classical Music? Ken Burns did one on Jazz, and it reignited interest in the musical genre among many young ones who never paid attention to anything outside the latest pop music. Of course, there are documentaries(available on youtube) on various great composers of Classical Music, but most of them are inferior and disconnected from one another in theme and narrative. Such a project would be worth funding by cultural conservatives with deep pockets who profess to care about the Western Heritage. A unified video series on the whole arc of Western Classical Musical tradition, from within Church walls to the great halls of the modern era.

Limits of Individualism — In a World of Innate Racial and Sexual Differences, Meritocracy based on Individualism invariably leads to Neo-Tribalism — Look at the Owners and Players in the NFL and Imagine what would happen if we forced Individual Meritocracy for Men and Women in Sports

Meritocratic Individualist Competition among Greyhounds

Greyhound and Bulldog. Two breeds with obvious group differences.

In a Perfect World, we would like to believe that Meritocracy based on Individualism would result in 'May the Best Man(or Woman) Win', and that would be that. What fair-minded person would have a problem with the Best Individuals winning due to natural talent and hard work? It would be Meritocracy over Tribal Favoritism. If there’s a society made up of green people, red people, and purple people, and if green individuals are favored over red and purple people solely based on his color, then there would be cases of green individuals of inferior talent being elevated over red and purple individuals of superior talent. It would be unfair. However, if meritocracy based on individuality were enforced, the best individuals of all three peoples would be favored. The best green individuals, best red individuals, and best green individuals would rise to the top. The Social Order would no longer be about Greens(talented and untalented) over Red and Purples(talented or untalented), but Talented Greens, Reds, and Purples over Untalented Greens, Reds, and Purples. This way, all three groups win and lose, and even the losers could take heart in the fact that SOME of their kind made it to the top. So, the lower Greens can identify with and take pride in the success of higher Greens. And lower Reds can identify with and take pride in the success of higher Reds. And lower Purples can identify with and take pride in the success of higher Purples. Pride isn’t only individualist but shared on some level. It’s like a father who never attended college and works at menial job takes pride in his son who attended good college and has a high-paying job. The father, as an individual, is a ‘loser’, but he shares in the success of someone of his own blood.

If Greens, Red, and Purples were all generally equal in talent, then each group would have roughly the same number of talented people and untalented people. Then, a system of meritocracy wouldn’t necessarily favor the individuals of any one group. Green individuals, Red individuals, and Purple individuals could all hope for equal chance at success up the social ladder. Of course, many will not make it, but some individuals of each group surely will(as long as they do their homework and commit themselves to competition). So, meritocracy will undermine tribalism, at least as a means of deciding the success of individuals. Tribalism may still continue to the extent that the successful individuals of each group may still identify with the lower elements of their own kind and vice versa. For example, a successful Mexican in America who rubs shoulders with successful non-Mexicans in professional life may still feel a deep connection with Mexicans, rich or poor. And poor Mexicans may look upon him as a ‘role model’ and ‘representative’ for the Mexican community.
Still, when it comes to who-gets-what, meritocracy based on individual ability should work against tribal favoritism where winners are chosen on the basis of identity. Success would be measured on the basis of WHICH INDIVIDUALS have the most natural talent and work ethic. Thus, pride of success, power, and privilege would not belong to any single group. After all, individuals of all groups would be represented in the upper ranks because they gained success by a combination of natural ability and hard work. So, if there is an institution of higher power, not only the Greens but the Reds and Purples could point to it and notice successful individuals of their own kind. There would be successful Greens, Reds, and Purples. Success would exclusively be a Green, Red, or Purple thing but an individual thing. Furthermore, since there are successful Greens, Reds, and Purples at the top, Individual Meritocracy would result in a Success that is Green, Red, AND Purple. It'd be ‘And’ over ‘Or’. Individualism will ensure success of all three groups to the extent that some members of each group will make it to the top. Thus, Meritocracy is both color-blind and colorful. It chooses winners in a color-blind manner, but the result, at least in a Perfect World where all groups are innately equal in talent, is very colorful as individuals of all groups will win in part. Of course, many individuals will lose, but there is consolation in knowing that SOME of their own kind won. It’s like even a Jewish nobody takes pride in the fact that there are rich, powerful, and successful Jews.

The problem is we are not living in a Perfect World where all groups are innately equal in talent in all things. We’ve been told over and over that Race is just a ‘social construct’, that Jewish Success is purely due to history & culture and not to biology, and that even Sex is just a man-made concept that should be called ‘gender’(and that maleness and femaleness are, above all, states of mind, e.g. if a man insists he is a ‘woman’, we must take him at his word and address him as a ‘she’ and even let him or ‘her’ participate in female sports... with predictable results, of course, which we are not supposed to notice).

In a world where all groups are generally equal in innate talent, social policy and cultural re-conditioning can conceivably produce roughly equal results for all groups. So, if Group A and Group B have equal talent but Group A has work ethic but Group B doesn’t(and therefore members of Group A succeed more), the problem could be remedied by re-conditioning members of Group B to develop a pro-work-ethic mindset. But what if there are real innate differences(which aren’t negligible) between Group A and Group B? If Group A is innately more talented than Group B, the only chance of parity between A and B would be if members of A are talented-but-lazy whereas members of Group B are untalented-but-studious -- lazy hare vs dogged tortoise. But if members of both are equally studious, Group A individuals will still outshine Group B individuals. And the differences will be even more dramatic if Group A individuals are talented and studious whereas Group B individuals are untalented and lazy. By the way, there would be little incentive for Group B individuals to be studious at something if they instinctively feel they don’t have a chance-in-hell against the naturally advantaged individuals of Group A. In the US, why would an Mexican-American work hard at trying to make it in the NBA or 100 m sprint? On some level, he must know that NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIES, he can’t compete with the Negroes(and some whites who just eke into the NBA).
The most obvious example of how Individualist Meritocracy will most certainly lead to triumph of Identity would be if men and women were made to compete purely as individuals. So, there would be no Men’s Sports that bans women and no Women’s Sports that bans men. All males and females would be required to compete purely as individuals, and may the best individuals, male or female, win. The result will be obvious. All the sports will be dominated by men, most likely totally. Even if all men and women were to pretend that the winners are the best individuals than Male athletes, one would have to be jaded or deluded not to notice that the result is Triumph of Maleness and Defeat of Femaleness. Sure, the system allows all individual, male and female, to compete for the same sports, but the fact is men will always be favored over women due to innate sexual differences. When nature has made men stronger and faster as a sexual group, all this talk of individualism rings hollow, at least when it comes to Men AND women in physical competition. Among men only or women only sports, individualism would be meaningful: Best Men winning over the men or Best Women winning over the women. But the notion of ‘best individuals’ among both men and women is useless because the men, as a sexual group, have such a decisive advantage over women. So, pretending, as radical libertarians do, that individualism should be the ONLY standard of success is to ignore reality. Individualism and Meritocracy make sense ONLY AMONG those of roughly comparable talent. So, it makes sense to have greyhounds race with greyhounds. That would be a matter of individual meritocracy among greyhounds, all of which are designed by breeding to be fast. But in a case of greyhounds vs bulldogs, individual meritocracy becomes beside-the-point because greyhounds, as a group, are so decisively faster than bulldogs, which have NO CHANCE against greyhounds. Granted, a mutant bulldog with extra speedy legs might beat a mutant greyhound that is exceptionally slow, but for the most part, individualist meritocracy makes NO SENSE when applied to greyhounds vs bulldogs because of dramatic innate differences coded in their DNA. So, if one wants to discuss the relative merits of greyhounds as individual sprinters in a race involving greyhounds, that makes all the sense in the world. But any discussion of individual merit between greyhounds and bulldogs is, at best, a solipsistic abstraction, and, at worst, willful deception to lend false hope to bulldogs and their owners.

When we look at the real world and real people, despite all the dogmatic PC yammering about how Race and even Sex(misleadingly called ‘gender’) are mere Social Constructs formulated by ‘racists’ and ‘sexists’, we see real group differences in all walks of life and all spheres of high intensity endeavors. One would have to be downright retarded not to notice innate differences between men and women. Even PC-cucks who toady up to the Power must, in their private heart of hearts, know they are just mouthing BS... even though there are always those True Believer types whose passions get the best of them. (More often than not, the True Believer types have no agency, and therefore, must be FED what to be most passionate about. They compensate for their lack of individuality by being most fanatical with received passion or 'wisdom'. Since they can't own their belief or conviction on the basis of originality or autonomy of thought, the ONLY WAY they can claim it is by sheer zealotry. It's like dogs, having no agency, obey their masters as to what to bark at and bite, and their own means of pride is sheer doggedness of aggression.) I mean, what honest person doesn't understand that there are two sexes, men and women? And who, in his or her right mind, really and truly believe that a man with a wig and dress, after a few hormone injections, qualify as a 'woman'? We live in strange times. In truth, a man pretending to be a 'woman' is a social and ideological construct(as well as the product of Frankenstein or Trankenstein Medicine), but we are told THAT is 'natural', whereas the notion of 'male' sex and 'female' sex are 'social constructs'. Truth has been turned upside down, and black has been made white.
There seems to be roughly four groups of people on matters such as this. (1) Those who see the BS and say so. But calling BS on PC can jeopardize one's career prospects, especially in government and fancy institutions like Finance, High-Tech, and Law. (2) Then, there are those who see the BS and remain silent or grumble only in private. Most of Conservatism Inc is like this. (3) Then, there are those who parrot the PC line but don't really believe it in private. It's probably the case that many Liberals actually don't much care for Tranny Politics but remain mum because it's currently fashionable in the Prog Community and favored by the Power. 94) And then, there are the True Believers who swallow PC whole. These morons may be useful to the Power as inquisitors and attack dogs, but No One really respects them. It's like the Power in the Middle Ages had little respect for the most rabid witch-burners even though it found them useful enough at times to carry out purges.

In the real world, individualism becomes pointless in uni-sexual sports. While it's true enough that some women are bigger and stronger than some men, elite sports will favor men over women to the point where sports will be all-male affair(unless some of the top male athletes decide to suddenly declare themselves as 'women'). According to PC, women should not be alarmed by tranny men taking over female sports because those trannies are really 'women'. So, when trannies win in Women's Sports, it's the power of Sisterhood.
PC is controlled by Jews and push such nonsense because trans-sexualism runs parallel to trans-nationalism. Jews figure that the mentality that accepts trans-sexualism(or trans-genderism) will be more amenable to trans-nationalism. After all, an idiot who believes that a male athlete in Women's Sports is really a 'woman' is more likely to believe that African migrant-colonizers in Europe are the New Europeans. Whether sexual identification or national identity, it all becomes a matter of State of Mind. So, we should accept that a man is a 'woman', just like we should accept that an African is a 'European'. But try convincing Jews that they should accept Arabs and Africans as fellow Jews or New Israelis, and they will balk at the proposal and call you an 'Anti-Semite' for suggesting that Israel adopt Immigration Policies that are sure to wipe Israel-as-a-Jewish-State off the map.
The fact that so many white people go along with the Trans-sexual & Trans-national charade that men are 'women' and that Africans are 'Europeans' goes to show that Jews have the white race by the balls. But then, Jews don't need to really convince all the white people or even majority of white people. They only need to buy off the white elites into cuckery of acquiescence (white Democrats) or silence(white Republicans), and then, most whites will either fall in line(like the libby-dibbers) or remain comfortably numb or 'numbstruck'(like conzo-bonzos). In a representative democracy, it doesn't matter what the people say IF there is no elite representative to stand up for their views. On Wall Street, there has to be brokers to process your investments, and in a true democracy, there has to be politicians, leaders, and public intellectuals to take up your cause or the voice of the people. But because virtually all white elites have been bought up by Jews, they are more likely to take commandments from the top than take up 'demandments' from the bottom. White elites don't represent the white masses; they serve the Jewish Supremacist Hegemonists. They don't need the masses as stilts when they have puppet-strings from above to hold them up.

Now, let's consider what Individualist Meritocracy has wrought in the West. Even though it was sold as an anti-tribalist and anti-'racist' means of selecting the most excellent and most deserving individuals of all groups, the result has been neo-tribalism and race-ism. (By 'race-ism', I mean race + ism = belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Ism means belief, so race + ism should mean belief in racial truths.) If indeed all groups are more-or-less equal in talent, Meritocracy-based-on-Individualism would have meant a colorblind system of producing colorful winners in all fields and sectors. But the fact is group differences are real. In the realm of sex, this has long been known, which is why the sexes were segregated in sports because women cannot compete with men on the basis of individual merit. The recent phenomenon of male trannies entering female sports has demonstrated why women must be segregated from men if they are to have a sports culture of their own. If men and women are both seen as mere individuals in uni-sex competitions, women have no chance no matter how hard they train as individuals.
The differences among the races, while not as dramatic as that between the sexes, are nevertheless significant enough to produce results that favor group domination than individual success. This is most obvious in sprinting. It's been noted that Blacks of West African descent have such a group advantage over other races that it makes little sense for non-West-Africans to even bother to compete. But it's much the same in professional football and basketball in the US. Even though all groups are free to try out and compete for those sports, the only race with any real chance of making it is the blacks. So, football and basketball have essentially become black sports and platforms for black identity and black pride. The result has been neo-tribal and race-ist.
And, when it comes to ownership of sports teams(and the media that broadcast the events), Jews have been dominant. As the saying goes, a Jew is more likely to own a sports team than play in one. Now, one might argue that super-rich Jews are the results of Individual Meritocracy(though less so in sports for obvious reasons), but when so many Jews outwit goyim and gain dominance in sports franchises, media ownership, finance, law firms & courts, entertainment, Big Pharma, Big Tech, and etc., the result isn't merely the Success of ultra-smart individuals but a neo-tribal consciousness among the winners.
Yuri Slezkine said as much in THE JEWISH CENTURY in his chapter on Soviet Jews in the early period of the Revolution. Even though they'd pledged their hearts to communism and universalist ideology, they couldn't help noticing that so many of their elite peers were Jews. So, despite their conscious efforts to be Good Communists, they always felt an undercurrent of Jewish pride and power. And Slezkine notes how, in the end, the ethnically conscious Jews won out in Israel and the US over the Soviet Jews who made a serious effort to favor universalism.

It should also be noted that, in the long run, the more ethnic-conscious Eastern European Jews won out over the more assimilationist Western European Jews who aspired to be the Other Wasp. Animal House Jews won the Frat War against the Wasps. It goes to show that those with stronger ethnic identity/personality wins over those with weaker ethnic identity/personality. Wasps did much good for their own society by practicing individual meritocracy, but they made a fatal mistake in extending meritocracy to other groups, especially those with innate superiority in brains or brawn. Even though such reform was done in the name of fairness, justice, and merit, the result has been neo-tribalism and race-ist in producing a New Order dominated by Jewish Supremacists in brains and Black Supremacists in brawn. The New Order may be more just in the sense that the superior-brained Jews and stronger-muscled blacks won out -- meritocracy in action, no doubt -- , BUT the result hasn't been what was promised. The promise was that all groups would win out equally-and-proportionately under a system of individualist meritocracy because there is only one race, the 'human race', because 'race is just a social construct', and because all races are virtually the same except in skin color. But the fact is innate differences among groups are real, and this is why individual meritocracy among groups with markedly different traits only leads to neo-tribailsm and race-ism. In the end, smarter Jews make more money than other groups, develop ethnic pride & consciousness, buy up media and politicians, and use their power to serve Jewish interests. Jews whine about how Bad Old Wasp America favored whites over others, but they muster all their power and influence to make all of us support Israel, not least by buying up whore goy politicians who do the bidding of ADL and AIPAC to shut down BDS movement and the Constitutional right of all Americans to speak and spend freely.
And what has happened to black consciousness over the years? After decades of black domination in boxing, basketball, football, track & field, and even tennis, blacks feel pride as the superior badass race. Almost no one looks at basketball & football and just think of athletes as mere individuals chosen by colorblind meritocracy. The fact is, even if the system isn't rigged to favor blacks, biology has been rigged by evolution to favor blacks in sports. So, Western Sports have become platforms for black pride and black consciousness. This is why black football players took up the BLM cause and 'took the knee'.

If blacks weren't so dominant in sports, such racially-charged and tribally-minded gestures wouldn't make much sense. But blacks could act thus in football because they are naturally so dominant. Top that off with the pornified pop culture of the West where the big black dong is a dominant trope, and the end-result of individual meritocratism has been neo-tribalism and race-ism. Jews win with wit and intellect, blacks win with fist and dong. So, despite all the PC propaganda about diversity-and-equality, the result has been the New Tribalism. The reason why so many blacks are filled with arrogance and self-esteem is because they know they can beat up whitey and other races. It's because they watch sports, listen to pop music, and consume pornified culture, all of which boost black megalomania.
And who can deny that Jews are full of arrogance, supremacism, and contempt because they amassed so much money, power, and influence by the use of their superior wits. Granted, Jews with brains have one decisive advantage over blacks with brawn. Many more people can make it with brains than with brawn. Many people can work in law, finance, media, and high tech, whereas only a handful can make real money in sports or pop culture. Also, whereas those in sports must demonstrate their superiority in the most naked way -- one can't fake ability in 100 m sprint or football -- , sufficiently clever Jews can gain over smarter and more deserving people. Also, smart Jews can help and favor less smart Jews in fields such as management in ways that talented black athletes cannot help less talented blacks in sports. So, while many elite fields have Jews who aren't the very best, sports only have blacks who are the very best.

Of course, just as Jews are inferior to blacks in sports and blacks are inferior to Jews in smarts, neither group is superior in everything over other groups. Generally, whites are smarter than blacks, and this is why pure individualist-meritocracy will not really work between whites and blacks. White individuals(even excluding white Jews) will win out over blacks individuals. Under pure individualist meritocracy, much smaller number of blacks will make it to good schools and a tiny few will make it to elite schools. This is why blacks insist on Affirmative Action. Blacks are all for individualist meritocracy in sports where they have a natural advantage over whites, but they totally oppose it in academics where they are bound to totally lose our without group-preferences and set-asides.
Given the truth of innate group-differences, this makes some sense. What is really offensive about Affirmative Action is the LIE that blacks need extra-help because of the legacy of Slavery and Jim Crow. If blacks are so traumatized by history, where do they get all the energy for Booty Call, House Party, Sports, Dancing, and letting the good times roll? They should all be sullen and depressed. But, it seems blacks got plenty of energy for Soul Train and Funky Town and for dribbling basketballs from morn to night. No, the real reason why blacks dominate in sports and fail in school is due to nature. Nature rigged the odds for blacks in sports and rigged the odds against blacks in smarts. But because of black pride and white 'guilt'(and the virtue-vanity highs that 'good whites' get from vaping on holy-schmoly 'guilt'), we are supposed to believe that black failure in schools is purely the result of Evil Whitey, and that's why whites must do more for blacks. (But if whites must prioritize black needs, why are Progs pushing for more immigration-invasion that exposes blacks to more competition?)
Still, blacks are currently favored by both individual meritocracy and group-preference(or group-protection). In fields where blacks have a natural advantage, they are allowed to totally dominate without any regard to diversity. No one complains that sports are Too Black. And in fields in which blacks are naturally handicapped, they get special preferences. In contrast, whites must shut up and accept total defeat in areas in which they are naturally disadvantaged -- notice there is no talk of affirmative action for white or non-black athletes and no talk of white-only sports where whites are shielded from competition with superior blacks -- but also make concessions to blacks(and even to browns) in areas in which whites are naturally advantaged and winning purely on individual merit. The system is rigged so that whites lose by both meritocracy and group-protection. In sports, whites must accept total defeat, and in areas in which whites are better than blacks, whites must give up their rightful achievements to blacks and others in the name of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'.
Of course, by 'whites', we mean non-Jews, especially those in flyover country and rural areas who tend to be Christian or culturally conservative. Jews rigged the system so that they can pull strings from behind the curtain to favor their own kind in elite institutions. Also, because any criticism of Jewish Power is deemed 'antisemitic', so many Jewish abuses & hypocrisies go unnoticed or unnamed. When so-called 'progressive' Jews combat the bogeyman of White Privilege, they don't mean something must be done about Jewish power and privilege. It means sacrificing more positions of white goyim to appease non-whites(especially blacks and white Hispanics) to maintain the Alliance of Jews and People of Color against whites. It means using the white-privilege-scapegoat to distract people from the real power in America that is controlled by Jews. (Also, by claiming that the problem of Hollywood, Big Tech, and Wall Street are 'too white', it gives the false impression that they are controlled by Texan Cowboys, West Virginia Hillbillies, country club Republicans, and Mormons than by Jews.)

Recently, Asian-Americans at Harvard and other Ivy League universities have gone forward with lawsuits on grounds that the current admission system violates the principle of colorblind individual meritocracy. Asians are generally seen as inferior in EVERYTHING but hitting the books, studying for exams, and getting better grades. So, academics seems to be what Asians cling to most dearly because they can't succeed or gain victory in anything else. The reactions of big academia and big media have revealed how confused, convoluted, and contradictory the current system is in terms of what it professes and practices.
At any rate, if there is a niche in which Asians do better than other groups under a system of colorblind competition, it's just another example of how individual meritocracy among groups of different abilities will de facto lead to neo-tribalism and race-ism. After all, Asian-Americans noticed that their best bet is in academia, and therefore, any barrier to their success there undercuts what is their only meal ticket. Why don't Asians complain that there aren't enough Asians in sports and pop music? It's because they know they are generally inferior as athletes and have weaker voices in a musical culture where the hottest thing is to holler like a black man or woman.

Response to "Voters elect against dividing Koreatown to include Bangladesh Town"

http://abc7.com/politics/voters-elect-against-koreatown-split/3628714/

When US cities were white, non-white immigrants sought to assimilate with whiteness.

The idea was US is essentially a white nation but open to others as well.
The idea was that white people had the power, wealth, and good stuff. So, whiteness was the ideal, the standard. Quintessentially American. John Wayne stuff. After all, the immigrants left their own nations. And they didn't want to go to non-white nations but to white majority nations, especially America.

So, as long as whites had the numbers, prestige, and power, all non-white immigrant groups shared something in common: Respect for whiteness and wish to merge with whiteness. Whiteness lessened non-white vs non-white tensions because all non-white groups could ignore one another and move toward whiteness.

But over time in many cities, whites lost the numbers, the power, and the prestige(due to Jewish-controlled PC). So, in a city like LA, there are lots of non-white groups living alongside one another. But none of them represents something that all non-whites would want to move toward or merge with. Non-white groups once valued the movement-toward-whiteness as the process of 'Americanization', but the same cannot be said for movement-toward-non-whiteness(even though the official narrative is that 'American' is purely ideological and has nothing to do with race or even culture). (The exception is movement-toward-blackness in style and attitude but certainly not in jobs, schools, and residence.) It was once considered(and still is, albeit mutedly) prestigious for non-whites to merge with whiteness --- synonymous with becoming 'Americanized' --- , but the same cannot be said for merging with, say, Mexicans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Hindus, and etc. Even though the official ideology says Mexican-Americanism and Vietnamese-Americanism are just as American as white-Americanism, no one really feels this way in real life. Diversity really means the desire by non-whites to be included in the White or White-made world. Diversity without whiteness would be like building a model without glue. The structure wouldn't hold together. It's been said that Diversity means 'no more whites', but that'd be self-defeating like a model set without glue. Indeed, diversity without whiteness isn't appealing to most people. Latin America and North Africa are very diverse, but neither has enough whites. India is very diverse, but Hindus prefer to move to a white nation. Most people in diverse nations with no or few whites prefer to move to white nations. Ideal Diversity requires the White Magnet. Hindus don't want to be with blacks or even with fellow Hindus. Black Africans don't want to be with Hindus or even with fellow black Africans. Both want to be with whites, and the Diversity in UK is the result of non-whites preferring whites over non-whites(even their own kind).

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41HICBc0vZL._SL500_AC_SS350_.jpg

If an Asian-American moves to a white community, he or she feels 'Americanized'. Indeed, he or she is willing to surrender his or her own identity to take up this new prestigious ersatz-white identity. But would Chinese-Americans want to give up their identity to merge with Mexican-Americanism, Hindu-Americanism, or even Korean-Americanism? I think not.

Indeed, it's interesting that Chinese have been in Southeast Asian nations for so very long BUT they've mostly retained their Chinese identity and pride. In contrast, so many East Asians in white nations instantly surrender everything about their race, culture, and language to merge with whiteness or 'westernness'. People will surrender their culture for something higher but not for something lower. Chinese will surrender Chineseness to become 'white' or 'western'(deemed superior to Chineseness) but not to become 'Filipino' or 'Indonesian'(considered lower than Chineseness). Maybe Sephardic Jews mixed more with Muslims and Arabs because they weren't all that smarter, whereas Ashkenazi Jews in Europe, being markedly smarter, were less willing to merge with goyim. I dunno.

If Los Angeles had lots of whites, this 'fancy' Asian vs 'jungle' Asian dichotomy wouldn't matter. Both the 'fancies' and 'junglies' would focus on merging with whiteness as the American Ideal. Indeed, Asian women find it most ideal to marry white and have white-looking kids. And even in Asia, lots of Asian women get plastic surgery and dye their hair brunette or blonde to look like cartoon-white-people.

But because whiteness is becoming a more precious commodity in places like LA, the 'fancies' and 'junglies' are becoming more ghettoized in their own identities. Vanishing of whiteness means less of something for which Asians(or other non-white groups) are willing to surrender their own identities in order to merge with something higher or more quintessentially American.