Notes on Matthew Yglesias' Call for a Billion Americans via Mass Immigration-Invasion

For Steve Sailer's criticism of Matthew Yglesias' book One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger, click the following link:

https://www.takimag.com/article/666666666-immigrants/ 

Billionaires for one billion Americans or a billion minions for billionaire oligarchs. It all depends on the perspective. To a cattle rancher, what matters is how many heads of cows, not how they fare in ever more crowded conditions. Does a pig farmer care about the well-being of his pigs? No, he doesn't care if they're crowded together and can hardly move as long as it means more profits for him. Same with chicken farmers. So, for billionaires, a 'billion Americans' just means more livestock. Matthew Yglesias is their scribe and spokesman, especially because many billionaires are Jewish and he is one too.

Yglesias’ main argument for adding 666,666,666 immigrants is that this would help us compete with populous China.

China's main advantage isn't population per se but relative homogeneity(as even non-Han Chinese are mostly East Asian). India has a population equal to China's but is deeply divided and ineffective. Why? Far greater diversity and caste mentality. US has increasing diversity and the rise of a caste-mentality due to both economic and ideological factors. Economics favor Jews, Asians, and elite whites, whereas ideology favors the consecration of blacks, many of whom are mired in socio-economic problems. Jews and homos enjoy both economic success and ideology-idolatry, whereas many whites do well economically but are vilified ideologically while many blacks, though placed on the pedestal, are stuck with the panhandle. China's capitalism encourages enterprise, and its communist legacy ensures some degree of 'national socialism' to sustain a sense of unity and equal justice. Still, this is easier to pull off in a nation that is more than 90% Han Chinese and nearly 97% Asian(of the yellow variety). If MORE PEOPLE is the formula for China's success, then India and Africa should be major players in the global power game. But India would probably do better with a population of around 500 million, and MORE PEOPLE in Africa have only led to desperate scramble for other parts of the world. For sure, the US has benefited from brain-drain immigration, taking in smart people from around the world; this is where China can't hope to compete with the US. It seems the best of the Greeks and Irish came to the US. Greece and Ireland now seem to be run and inhabited by second-raters. US has also taken in lots of smart Chinese and Hindus. Quality trumps quantity. No wonder Japan has a bigger economy than India or all of Africa. But the danger of new quality is it may take over as the new elites, and that is precisely what happened with Jews in America. If the US hadn't taken in Jews, most likely Christian Anglo/Germans would still be ruling the place. Now, why are Jews not threatened by New Quality? They correctly see Chinese and other East Asians as essentially weak in identity once separated from their homelands. They regard Hindus as more identity-oriented, but Asian-Indians are a divided lot. Also, Jewish Power relies on support of Whites and Christians who, for reasons of Holocaust Cult and Biblical Prophecy, feel okay with Jews. They don't feel the same for Chinese or Hindus. So-called White Guilt is almost entirely about Jews and blacks. Even American Indians don't much count(as their tragedy is a lesson in the dangers of mass-immigration-invasion, as with the case of the Palestinians). In a way, 'white guilt' is more a social and political construct than the product of white conscience or 'pathological altruism'. If indeed whites are more conscientious by nature, why aren't they ashamed of what they've done to the Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims by their support of Zionism and Wars for Israel? Why aren't whites as guilt-ridden over American Indians as over blacks? It's because white minds are molded by academia and media to weep and atone for certain groups but not for others. If indeed white conscience was genuine, it would follow its own moral logic than be led by the nose by the Power. Anyway, Jewish elites figure East Asians are too mellow to challenge Jews. Hindus are too divided and distrusting of one another. Unlike Judaism that binds Jews together, Hinduism has always divided Indians along caste/color lines. As for the teeming masses of immigrants without elite prospects, they are just more serfs, peons, consumers, foot-soldiers for empire, cattle.

In short, Yglesias seems to imply, America must invite the world in order to invade the world. Just think of the possibilities! If we had two-thirds of a billion more immigrants, we could conscript a humongous army and militarily conquer the world…which would finally give us some place to dump all the teeming masses of immigrants.

I doubt he has such in mind. After all, most immigrants are coming for jobs and stuff, not to join the US military. As the military relies mostly on high-tech, manpower is far less important. Unless the US is planning to invade Russia or fight a long bloody war with China, manpower in the military isn't an issue. Besides, Americans have no stomach for wars with high casualties. Iraq War killed only a fraction of lives lost in the Vietnam War but upset a lot of people. As many Americans have few or just one child, they don't want them dead in combat. The only effective way to increase military personnel would be with the draft but no one wants it, especially the elites. Many elites, especially Jews, protested against the Vietnam War because they might be drafted and sent into steaming jungles infested with Viet Cong guerrillas. But once Richard Nixon ended the draft, the protests faded fast. The elites don't much care as long as they aren't the ones to end up in body bags. Americans are now are lured into the military with money and benefits, which has made the military far more expensive, but that also means the military cannot have too many people. As for INVADE THE WORLD, the plan is not for the US to invade the world but to steer the Third World to invade the First World with the exception of Israel. Jews have the mindset of 'nationalism for me, not for thee'. Jewish Power sees national unity of any gentile nation as an obstacle to Jewish penetration and influence. So, it seeks to increase Diversity in both Poland and Japan. Any kind of Diversity is okay as long as it allows Jewish Globalists and their minions to play divide-and-rule, especially by guilt-baiting the native majority with charges of 'racism' against the immigrant/migrant communities. And as the elites of Japan, Poland, and other nations are influenced by US media and academia, they go along with the suicidal nonsense. US leads, others follow. Look how Canada, UK, and Sweden all accepted their own form of 'Americanization' by reformulating their nations as those of 'immigrants'. So, Yglesias' plan isn't to make the US literally invade the world. Rather, it is for the US to serve as the role model for all other First World gentile nations to open up and invite diversity. That means, while Israel gets ever more Jewish, other First World Nations get more Diverse. So, the greater unity of Jews shall exploit the greater divisions among the goyim. Yglesias mentions China, but he thinks more like the British Imperialists in India. As a small minority-elite, the Brits often found Indian diversity useful in playing region against region, Islam against Hindus, caste against caste, that is until Gandhi and Jinnah, at least for awhile, banded together to oust the British.

Seriously, Yglesias argues, we couldn’t have won WWII or the Cold War without a big population.

If US already had a big enough population during WWII, why did it need more? Why does the US need a billion? Of course, 'big' is relative. China now has 1.3 billion, but its population was considered super-big when it was half that 50 yrs ago. Also, modern technology in agriculture has made it possible to feed many more people. Who would have thought India could sustain a population of 1.3 billion that is poised to take over China's(if it hasn't already). And some say African population will be in the billions in coming decades. Still, one crucial difference between US and China/India is the former developed as a Big Land for a growing population. There was bigness as empty space to be filled. Also, US population grew along with technological development that made life easier despite bigger numbers. In contrast, Chinese and Indian populations expanded in a Malthusian trap that wasn't solved or half-solved before the coming of modern technology to those parts. Mechanization of agriculture means that a nation doesn't need tons of laborers to produce food. Only 2% of US population works in agriculture. The value of More People to the modern world is as producers and consumers. But unless Yglesias and his ilk are willing to promote economic nationalism and bring back factory jobs(and slow down advancement in mechanization), more people will not mean more production. A lot of people who come to Europe just end up living on the dole. Still, don't More People have value as More Consumers? But More Consumers without More Production sounds like an economy based on More Debt. (If consumption is key, why not create robots that consume? Have robots to go some fast food joint and order burger and fries.)

Of course, mid-20th-century USA was far more unified, due to the immigration shutdown in the 1920s that wisely ruled that no interest groups would be allowed to use immigration to change the country’s ethnic balance. Hence, the political system was more cooperative and functional than today...

But in retrospect, maybe immigration-restriction wasn't such a good idea in the 1920s. As race was a factor in immigration, more immigration would have meant more White Immigrants. It would have made the US whiter. And as the immigrants came from different parts of Europe, their only hope of unity and assimilation was by learning English and adopting the Anglo-American model. Also, European emigration to the US might have alleviated economic conditions in Europe, thereby lessening the threats of both communism and fascism. In a way, a billion Americans isn't a totally terrible idea. Ideally, the US should have stopped at 250 million, if only for nature's sake. But US can easily accommodate a billion people as it has the best land in the world. If India, a nation 1/3 the size of the US, can hold 1.3 billion that is still growing, the US can hold a billion. The habitable space in Japan is only that of Indiana, but it has over 100 million people. There are still lots of empty spaces in the US. If US could have a billion people who are mostly white, it might be doable, even a worthy goal. But of course, a Billion Americans means 250 million whites being outnumbered by 750 million non-whites. It'd be like Afro-Latin-America on a super-scale. Now, Jews don't mind because they'd be rulers at the top. Also, as Jews were a tiny majority throughout US history, they have no majority-status to lose. Besides, Jewish Power has relied on money and pulling-the-strings, not electoral numbers. They buy off and control the politicians who are voted by the dummy masses. Now, if Jews were to identify strongly as whites, they might fret about losing their white majority to non-whites. But Jews primarily identify as Jews and regard whites as the Other, even the Enemy. Therefore, More Diversity among Goyim is regarded as Jews as good for their power.

Now Democrats envision using immigration to alter the racial balance to achieve perpetual one-party rule.

The problem isn't one-party rule per se. Japan pretty much had one-party rule since end of WWII. China has one-party rule, and it's nationalist. Putin's Russia is a semi-autocracy with one dominant party, but it looks out for Russian interests. The problem with one-party Democratic Rule in the US is it is essentially Judeo-centric than concerned with majority interests. But then, given the slavishness of the GOP to Jews and Israel, the US is already a two-party-as-one-party-state, at least when it comes to total obeisance to Jewish Power. Consider the spectacle of Jews calling Trump a Nazi but Trump going to hell and back for Jews. In a way, democracy is bad because it divides a populace and pits one group against another. White 'liberals' vs white 'conservatives'. Indeed, one-party groups have gained so much against two-party groups. Jews are a one-party group as most are Democrats. In contrast, whites are a two-party group as roughly one half votes GOP and the other half votes Democrat. In the past, the Irish in big cities gained big against Anglos because, unlike the divided Anglos, the Irish were mostly a one-party group whose power was centered around Democratic Machines. Blacks fail in so many areas, but their one-party mentality has led to great gains against the divided two-party whites. One-party groups are united, two-party groups are divided. The tragedy for whites in the US is they are the ONLY two-party group in America... and even the whiter party, the GOP, is usually making more noises about being good to Jews, blacks, browns, etc.

One obvious problem with this plan, however, is that all the immigrant ethnicities would then turn on each other in a struggle to control the capital of the world.

Not true. Most immigrant groups come with weak identities and just become globo-Americans. They hardly care about their nations of origin, cultural heritage, or ethnic loyalty. Black African immigrants soon become like rapping black Americans. Asians turn into globo-homo advocates and, if anything, berate their nations of origin for 'racism' and relative lack of diversity. They all support Zionism and give speeches at AIPAC. Also, non-white groups gain currency only with the support/sympathy of the white community. As Jewish Power has steered whites to care mainly about Jews, blacks, and homos, most other groups receive no special sympathy. Therefore, they realize they must join with the idolized-identities that matter. So, they become shills of AIPAC, wave the homo banner, or chant BLM slogans. Take Muslims. As most whites don't care for Islam or Arabs, many Arab-Americans feel their only chance of gaining favor is by displaying their globo-homo bona-fides. But as globo-homo is really a tool of Jewish Power, they unwittingly become dupes of Zion. Palestinian-Americans who wave both the Palestinian and Homo flags put themselves at a moral disadvantage because Israel is more pro-'gay' than Palestinians and Arabs are.

Why compete with the United State militarily if you can use your co-ethnic immigrants to simply subvert the USA from within (such as this week’s example of an immigrant NYPD officer arrested for spying for China on Tibetan exiles), especially if Washington were so foolish as to invite in two-thirds of a billion immigrants?

Except he didn't subvert US interests. Tibet has nothing to do with the US, that is UNLESS the US intends to interfere in Tibetan affairs. It is precisely because US interferes in Tibet(and other problem spots in China) that some Chinese in the US spy for China on the matter of Tibetans-in-American working with the US. There are Chinese spies who carry out corporate espionage or funnel secrets from the US government, but Chinese keeping an eye on Tibetans in US seems more like Chinese Politics by other means precisely because US interferes with Chinese affairs. Also, it is nothing compared to American Jews doing all they can to suppress BDS, Palestinian-American voices, and critics of Zion. Some Chinese NYPD spying on some Tibetans is kid-stuff compared to Jewish campaigns on college campuses, industries, and government to shut down any effective criticism of Zionism and Wars for Israel. So, if the big fear is about China or some foreign nation taking over and subverting American Interests, it has already happened under Jewish Rule. Perhaps, whites are still under the delusion that Jews are white and working for 'white interests'. Or maybe some whites regard Jews as Prodigal Whites who will finally return home and side with whites. This is like battered wife syndrome with no basis in fact.

Germany would have liked to do that using German immigrants in 1917, but the self-righteous WASP ruling class proactively crushed any German-American resistance with heavy-handed assimilation methods, such as banning Beethoven concerts.

It's too bad Germany failed to. US had no business interfering in WWI. It only ensured Germany's defeat and all the hell that followed. US intervention in WWI had nothing to do with American Interests but with Banker Interests and Jewish interests. Indeed, even UK had no business entering the war. Without Brits in the fight, Germany would have won within a year or two. But UK got involved and ultimately dragged the US into the war, turning a continental war into a World War that led to many more millions of white deaths. A strong anti-war movement by German-Americans might have kept the US out of the war. It would have been better for US and Europe, but US got dragged in. It's a shame that German-America caved under pressure to Anglo-America. US would have been better as an equal partnership of Anglos and Germans. Such a nation might have been a fairer broker between UK and Germany. But as German-Americans assimilated fully into Anglo-America, they became foot-soldiers of the Anglo/American Empire. Though the Anglo/American Narrative depicts Germans as militarist aggressors, the fact is World Conquest was spearheaded and dominated by Anglos, British and American. Germans fought WWI to secure its place in continental Europe, not to take over the world. In retrospect, Anglo paranoia about Germany proved disastrous. If Germany had been given a place in the sun alongside UK and France, so many disasters could have been avoided. An Anglo-German alliance would have been better for the West than the eventual Anglo-Zionist one. Of course, Anglo-German amity was impossible by Adolf Hitler came along, but there would have been no Hitler if UK and US hadn't intervened in WWI. Indeed, without UK and especially US intervention, it wouldn't have been a world war but just a continental one in Europe.

But these days the Chinese are slowly learning how to play the White Guilt card against America.

But when Asians play the 'white guilt' card, it's usually not about Asian victim-hood but Jewish, black, or some other victim-hood. Chinese know they are 'uncool' and disliked by whites(and other peoples), and so, they seek to gain 'woke' points with BLM slogans or 'taking the knee'. The history of Southeast Asia suggests that, even as Chinese know how to get rich, they aren't really into ideological or political domination. And despite so many Chinese having settled in Canada, they are mostly spineless imitators of white 'wokeness'. If anything, they adopt 'white guilt' as their own and imitate white 'virtue-signaling'. Perhaps, some immigrant Chinese feel loyalty to the motherland, but this isn't the case at all with most born outside China, especially with all the race-mixing. All this China-bashing seems so much like Russia-bashing, the product of an unwillingness to face the fact that Jewish Power has done most to subvert and destroy traditional Americanism and sensible patriotism. The 1619 Project and TV shows calling for Mitzvah murders of 'white supremacists' are the products of the Jewish Media and Imagination(that stokes of flames of black rage, not least to use the black-Jewish alliance card to cover up Jewish Segregation and 'Jim Crow' antics in the West Bank). Also, I don't see much in the way of the 'circular firing squad'. It's more like The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly style, with Blondie and Tuco understanding, wink wink, 'get Angel Eyes'. Now, there are problems between blacks and non-black POC, but blacks cause problems for everyone. There is some disagreement between browns and yellows on Affirmative Action, but as yellows tend to be rather sheepish and servile to prevailing ideology, their elites seem to be pro-diversity and pro-affirmative action. Asians are not supportive of Trump's noises about anti-Asian discrimination. Muslims and 'Latinos' don't seem hostile to one another. As for Jewish-Muslim tensions, it's hardly a thing because Muslims have little chance of making it to elite ranks. Also, the kind of Muslims who do gain prominence tend not to care about the Palestinian issue. Farad Zakaria is only to happy to work with Zionists and cheer on the bombing of Syria. More immigration is the main issue for Muslim groups, and they will work with any group, even Jews, to secure more immigration. If all those Muslims in North Africa and Middle East have been so ineffective in working together on behalf of Palestinians, what hope is there for Muslim-Americans who come from all over the world?

Indeed, one reason for this summer’s mania over whites supposedly oppressing blacks is because blacks vaguely realize that the white man’s days are numbered due to immigration. Once the immigrants take over, nobody will take seriously anymore African-Americans’ sad stories about George Floyd, redlining, and Emmett Till.

Perhaps. I think black rage politics is more in competition with globo-homo, the designated celebratory item in June. True, not all blacks are enthused about immigration. Still, blacks, especially elite ones, care less about immigration because their power is invested in the Democratic Party and more immigrants mean more power to Democrats, and that means more power to blacks-who-matter. On some level, blacks know that they've become the sacred cows of the US due to Slavery Narrative, Jim Crow Narrative, Lynching Narrative, Civil Rights Narrative, MLK cult, and black prominence in sports and pop music. It's like blacks are lionized and celebrated all over Europe, even in Poland with few blacks. Anatoly Karlin says even Russian TV is filled with blacks. So, while most immigrants remain faceless masses and minions, blacks will dominate the celebrity of Americanism. That means an endless tug-of-war between whites and non-whites in laying claim to fealty to Noble Negro-hood. Why not? Just about all groups in the US are now into Globo-Homo as the new spiritual theme. So, when push comes to shove, blacks feel more empowered than emasculated by mass immigration. It will mean whites and other groups bidding for black blessing. If people used to bid for black slaves long ago, the new auctioneering is about bidding for blessings by black godhood.

The better part of One Billion Americans is about how to reverse the declining fertility of American citizens... The total fertility rate for American women was dropping even during the Trump Boom before the pandemic, down to a below replacement rate of 1.72 children per woman in 2018. And yet when asked how many children they’d like to have, women and men both average about 2.6.

Too many women in the workforce, and too many women with elite aspirations. After all, even nations with traditionally low or no immigration are cratering in child birth. Japan didn't have much immigration for decades but is so sterile that it has no choice but to take in immigrants. There is immigration to a nation with healthy fertility to bring down wages. That is bad stuff. But in the case of Japan, immigration is becoming necessary because birthrate is around 1 child per woman. And Russian birthrates are still far below what it should be. American women may want 2.6 kids, but of course, their expectations are pretty high, especially among the college graduates. This means MOST MEN are not good enough for them. And many men may have higher expectations for the women as well. If most women want successful men, most men want supportive women. But if more women take jobs from men, there are fewer successful men. Also, if women have been instilled with bitchy feminism and trashy slut mentality, they are far less likely to 'stand by your man'; even Tammy Wynette didn't stand by hers and went through D.I.V.O.R.C.E. Even without overt feminism, education and work for women are going to lower birthrates. While most women may want man and family, they would prefer to be single than be stuck with an inferior man and/or low-IQ children. Their attitude is the Moon or Bust. They want the Best or Nothing at all. Such attitudes are as common in Iran and Japan as in Germany and UK. Educated Iranian women are less likely to get married and have children. Many choose to be single and self-supporting. Many Japanese men are ashamed to work at 'dirty jobs', and Japanese women only want to find 'winners'. Unless society turns away from individualism and adopts a more organic function of life, nothing can be done about the problem of birth dearth in the developed world... that is unless future of mankind is Brave-New-World-like. Lab-created people.

Why does Yglesias want to make the U.S. three times as crowded, especially at a time of infectious pandemic, riots, urban looting, and wildfires? The most likely reason is that he doesn’t, really, but taking an extremist stance on immigration, calling for an order of magnitude more than the 52 million immigrants expected under Joe Biden’s plan, inoculates him from getting canceled...

No, he probably does really want it. He likes crowded America. He knows Covid is utter BS and just part of the coup to wreck Trump's economy. He figures more immigrants in cities will mean less rioting by blacks and Antifa ne'er-do-wells. And immigrants don't loot like blacks do. And maybe more immigrants will lead to less forest fires as more forests will be cut down for building communities or for fuel.

As he admits on page 256, “I am not personally a nature lover or an outdoorsy person…”

He should know nature exists for its own good, not to serve us. I don't much care about the bottom of the ocean, but that doesn't mean it should be destroyed. I don't much care to visit the jungles, but rain-forests should be preserved. He's sounding like Woody Allen.

GLENN BECK SLAMMED AFTER CALLING FOR ONE BILLION IMMIGRANTS TO COME TO AMERICA

The Need for ‘Commonal’ Sense of ‘Prioritism’ in a World out of Balance — Dangers of Universal Meritocratism to National Community — Feminism and Family

The Modern West, indeed the Modern World in general, has lost a sense of Common Interest and Shared Priority. The Rise of the West owes to its better understanding of those two principles, but in the pursuit of radical individualism, narrow identity politics(fetishization of Diversity), alien elitist globalism(mainly Jewish), deviance as the New Normal(especially related to Homomania), sanctification of the Other(mainly Negro), and division of organic unity(due to selfish feminism), the West has lost its Great Way.

What used to be the Priority and Common Interests of the Past West? There was an appreciation for freedom that allowed for flowering in the arts, necessary criticism & reform of power, new ideas & visions, and advance in science & technology. But of course, freedom in and of itself could be chaotic and infantile. Therefore, the West also prioritized excellence and hierarchy. Equality of opportunity didn’t mean equality of outcome. Equal freedom for all members of society meant meritocracy, the chance for individuals of intelligence and talent to rise higher no matter his class origin. Without prioritization of meritocracy as means of professional elevation and social advancement, the West would have stagnated like so many other civilizations where power and privilege depended less on provable ability than on birth, connections, or corruption(deeply ingrained in the fabric of society).
But then, the Past West wasn’t just about individuality and personal gain. It was also about shared identity, heritage, & culture. It was about the unity of purpose. So, the talented people of the nation were compelled to feel a stronger bond to his national folk(rich, middle, and poor) than with talented peoples of other nations. Sure, there was mutual respect for talent among the elites all over the world. Still, the talented Frenchman felt first and foremost as a Frenchman just like a talented Englishman felt first and foremost as an Englishman. An Englishman of Talent may appreciate and learn from talented men all over the world, but his core identity & loyalty was bound to nation, culture, and heritage. Thus, there was a balance of meritocratic individualism and cultured communalism.
If individualism is radicalized and pushed too far, the result is deracinated atomization. If communalism is radicalized and pushed too far, the result could be something like a dull Amish community or communism. In contrast, National Humanism can arrive at a Goldilocks middle between individual freedom to achieve and a shared national sense of identity and purpose. And the Past West understood such balance. For this reason, there was sound and rational anxiety about the Other and the challenges it posed to the One. There was Ethno-Meritocracy.

For example, the practice of universal meritocratism can eventually break a nation. Suppose an all-white nation has athletic meritocracy and lets the best man win. In favoring the superior athletes over the inferior ones, there will be justice in the selection and rewarding of athletes. Best white athletes will represent the white nation. But should such meritocratism be extended to the Other. Suppose this all-white nation takes in blacks and lets them also participate in sports. Because of the BAMMAMA Factor — Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive — , blacks will beat the whites and take the elite positions in sports. It will be meritocratically fair, but would it be good for the nation? Idols and especially Icons are very important in shaping national identity and collective psychology. Human Nature makes people focus more on People of Fame by sports, beauty, talent, and star power. If blacks are let into a white nation, allowed to beat up whites in their own nation, and take over the top slots of athletic idolatry, the repercussions will be huge. After all, a nation’s athlete isn’t just a player-in-sports but the representative idol of nation’s manhood. Therefore, if black men take over sports in a white nation, the symbolic meaning will be Black Manhood as the real manhood and white manhood demoted to benchwarming cuckery. So, even though meritocratism as a principle and method has real value, there is a useful limit beyond which it begins to harm the national community. This is why the Ancient Hellenic Olympics limited the athletes to Greeks. Greeks were too smart to invite a bunch of Jaffers from Africa to kick their butts, humiliate them, destroy the iconography of Greek manhood, and then take over Greek wombs(as women are naturally wired to go with winner men).

Even if the athletes of a particular nation cannot win globally or internationally, they should be assured in winning and dominating in their own nation, their home-field. When meritocratism is globalized and universalized, then every nation will end up with blacks dominating all the sports and taking over the idolic manhood of the nation. This has happened in Japan with Mongols taking over Sumo and blacks(mulattoes created by Japanese women going with black men) dominating track. These developments have meaning beyond the athletic. Sumo has long been a sacred-spiritual sport of Japan. But because Japan stupidly allowed huge Hawaiians, tougher Mongols, and taller Eastern Europeans into the sport, Japanese fatsos have been pushed out of elite ranks. As foreigners took over the ‘idolic’ symbols of National Manhood, Japanese women are now rejecting Japanese men in record numbers and going with foreign men. It won’t be long before Japanese sports are totally taken over by foreigners or by children of Japanese women who have babies with foreign men, especially the 'groids'. But if Japan is headed in that direction, Europe has gone full cuck by letting in tons of blacks from Africa and Jamaica. Look at European track, and just about every nation puts forth a ‘groid’ as its national 'hero'. ‘European’ boxing champions are now likely to be black. And there are lots of mulattoes, almost all of them the product of ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) as white European women are now turned on by black men as the Real Men and Superior Men. And with 200 million black Africans(most of them men) headed to Europe in the next 20 yrs, we know what the future of Europe will be. European race will be sexually conquered by blacks as the native folks of South America and Mexico were sexually conquered by the Spanish. This is the future of EU unless a powerful movement arises to round up the ghastly ‘groids’ and ship them back to Africa(and to punish the white female race-traitor like French sexual traitors were punished after WWII). This is why meritocracy has to be for a specific people and within fixed borders. If you let blacks into your nation and allow athletic meritocracy, they will dominate sports and take over as the representative idols of manhood, and then, the women of your nation will go black and have black babies while the native men of the nation are cucky-wucked. The tell-tale signs of both Japan and Europe indicate that, unless the protection of Native Manhoods from Invasive Manhoods is prioritized, the viability of a nation will rapidly decline. A healthy and viable society is one where men feel confident in their manhood and are respected by their womenfolk. This becomes problematic when a foreign and invasive manhood enters a society and leads to the severe depreciation of the native manhood. What soon follows is loss of male confidence, feminization of men, and the loss of respect of the womenfolk who then offer their wombs to Invasive Manhood. Negroes pose the most invasive manhood around the world. In Cuba since the Revolution, despite the fact that whites kept the power at the top, there has been a massive Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Unless white Cuban males have elite privilege, they lose out to the Invasive Manhood of the Negroes with harder muscles and bigger dongs. Camille Paglia reported that white men in Brazil tend to be weak and wussy whereas white women are assertive and confident. It is surely because white males in Brazil have lost their manhood to the stronger manhood of Negroes. In contrast, white women can just shift their affections from whites to blacks or mulattoes. Men compete to come out on top. Women just put out to whomever happens to be tougher/rougher men. Is it any wonder that the Rise of the Invasive Negro Manhood is happening concomitantly with the wussification of the white male in the West, not least via LGBTQ stuff? And is it any wonder that the ‘faggotization’ of society has reached toxic levels in Japan and South Korea? Having gone global, both nations now worship black men as the Real Men. That being the case, Asian males, having lost in Manhood, seek value in androgyny.

And, we know from the Jewish Example that cerebral meritocracy can be dangerous too. Sure, Jews are smart and talented. If your nation lets in Jews, they will out-compete your people and take over the elite institutions and industries. Now, if Jews were to identify as white, respect your people & culture, and act on the sincere premise of DON’T BE EVIL, their superior intelligence and higher talent may do wonders for your nation. But there is a good chance that Jews will continue to identify mainly as the Tribe, see your people as dimwit goyim, become addicted to Jewish supremacism, and get all paranoid about your folks having their own identity & interests. Then, instead of using their intelligence and power for the good of your people, they may very well use their advantages to weaken, harm, and even utterly destroy your people. Even though Adolf Hitler was a pathological demagogue and National Socialism degenerated into psychotic lunacy, much of Jewish behavior since the 1960s has validated the ‘antisemitic canard’ that Jews tend to be a people filled with arrogance, contempt, venom, and viciousness toward other peoples.
So, again, meritocracy should ideally be restricted to your own people and should not be extended to the Other; the best way to keep it among your own kind is to EXCLUDE the Other from ever gaining a foothold in your nation. (A nation should be closed in borders[at least to prevent Mass Invasion by the Other] and open in ideas. Secure the body but free the mind. Unfortunately, the Current West is about opening the borders and closing the minds[with PC].) It’s best to let Other peoples have their own meritocratic institutions and industries in their own nations. Ideally, German institutions and industries should provided meritocratic means of elevation for Germans, and Japanese institutions and industries should allow such opportunities for Japanese people. While a nation may benefit from universal meritocratism in science, technology, and business, there is a good chance that the Others will take over the nation in terms of wealth & power and then use their influence to radically alter the character of the nation. Surely, if Jews had been allowed to take over Japanese industries and institutions, they would have pushed far more PC and ‘multi-culturalism’ in Japan. In a way, the US benefited greatly in science and enterprise by taking in peoples from all over the world and offering them meritocratic path to success. But even if Abstract America gained something from this, the Concrete White America lost tremendously. By allowing blacks to participate in what were intended to be white sports, blacks have totally taken over the most popular sports and toppled the white male from the idol of manhood. As white-only sports no longer exist, even white Americans have no choice but to watch sports that are totally dominated by blacks. The psycho-social effect of this has been that white men are made to feel like cucky-wuck white boys rendered effete vis-a-vis black men. And in terms of sexual behavior, it has been totally devastating to the white race. White girls now grow up with Jungle Fever because Sports, Music, and Pornification of Mainstream Culture condition them to see Black Men as the real idols, heroes, and representative of American Manhood. In the end, the Fever Factor may be more dangerous than Guilt Factor. After all, despite all the PC brainwashing, the main problem is not white guilt about non-whites. Rather, the main problem is white FEVER for black sports, music, and sex.

Universal Meritocratism in sports has been devastating for whites. And Universal Meritocratism in academics and brainy endeavors has been no less disastrous for white folks. Especially beginning in the 1960s, Ashkenazi Jews used their superior wits to take over so many institutions and industries. But Jews didn’t rely on talent alone. Jews learned from history that mere superiority in wit, talent, and drive is not enough to stay on top. After all, the less intelligent and less affluent stupid goyim might organize, march with pitchforks, and bring down the Jew. So, Jews used their power to push the White Guilt Narrative on the Holocaust and Slavery. That pretty much paralyzed any sense of white pride, power, and unity. Most crucially, it meant white elites could no longer champion and defend their own racial kin because it’d be ‘racist’ — but then, Jews insisted that white Americans MUST favor Zionist Jews over Palestinians; go figure. Also, Jews used their control of Law and whore politicians to push through Immigration by non-whites(effectively a form of Mass Invasion), resulting in Diversity among ‘stupid goyim’ that would make Gentile Unity impossible against Jews. The result of Universal Meritocratism of brain power has been devastating to white folks. While it’s true that the US benefited from Jewish genius and smart enterprise of many people from Asia, it’s no less true that many white Americans have been squeezed out of elite institutions and positions by Jews and Asians. Worse, under the current PC system, whites not only lose out meritocratically to Jewish weasels and Asian grinds but ‘affirmatively’ to blacks, Hispanics(even white Hispanics pretending to be ‘of color’), and others. Whites may even have to lose out to Arabs who may soon be categorized as ‘non-white’.

The Past West understood the need to balance Individual Meritocratism and National Unity & Purpose. The problem of universalizing Individual Meritocratism on a Global Scale is that all nations could end up with the same set of winners. If all non-black nations were to allow blacks to compete athletically, all nations will have blacks as top athletes. There will no longer be local heroes in a world uniformly dominated by globo-Negroes.
If all nations were to allow open access to Jewish investment & influence, Jews could very well take over the elite institutions and industries around the world. Look what Jews did to Russia in the 1990s when they were given Universal Meritocratic access. Of course, Jews being Jews, they used a combination of real intelligence and dirty Tribal Networking(that pulled all sorts of dirty tricks to funnel most of the wealth into the pockets of Jews, as Bernie Madoff had done in NY over decades). If you want your people to remain as idols and icons of your nation, they must be shielded from Universal Meritocratism. Indeed, meritocratism must be provided only to the kin-members of the nation. Is it healthy for Southeast Asian economies to be dominated so heavily by the Chinese community? Wouldn't it be better for natives of those nations to find ways to select and train the smartest of their own kind? After all, the Chinese market-dominant minorities in those nations feel no great loyalty and, as such, don’t care for anything but more profits for themselves. And how long will Black Africa allow Asian-Indians to dominate the economies in nations like Kenya? Now, while it’s true that Chinese and Asian-Indian market-dominant minorities may do wonders for the economies of Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, can the natives and locals really trust those people to use their wealth for the general good of the nation? One thing for sure, Jewish talent almost always becomes a net minus for a non-Jewish nation. While Jewish genius and brilliance may lead to all sorts of useful products and services that benefit the nation economically and technologically, Jews will make the bulk of the profits that will be used to eventually subvert, harm, and even destroy the identity and interests of the non-Jewish majority population.

Anyway, the West needs to regain a sense of what might be called Common Priority, a shared consciousness that prioritizes certain interests over others for the overall good. Now, having a sense of priority doesn’t mean one thing has value and another thing doesn't. Indeed, just about anything has some value. But some things have greater value. Suppose you have an exam the next day. What should your priority be? Studying? Hanging out with friends? Watching a movie? Listening to hours of music? Going for a long jog? Going hiking and camping? Baking a cake? All those activities have some value, but of course, your priority must be to study and know the material.
Or suppose a family without much money moves to a new town. What should be its priority? Securing a place of residence, finding work, and saving money? Buying a boat and couple of kayaks? Throwing a giant party? Getting a swimming pool? Learning to ride horses? Of course, a sensible family will focus on residence, work, and saving. The other activities also have value, but they are not essential for what the family needs. And indeed, this is what separates adults from kids. Children, having a weaker sense of reality, always want to prioritize fun. They want to go to Disneyland even when the family has no money. Adults must know better. But in the culturally degenerate US, the problem isn’t just a poor sense of priorities among things of value but the insane prioritizing of things of NO value. While it’s foolish for a family that should be saving money to put in a swimming pool or purchase a boat, at the very least a pool or boat still has some value. But what value does tattoos, piercings, and using drugs like meth have? Nothing at all. And among the Negroids, there are so many trashy fat dumb black women whose main priorities are hair-weaves and fancy fingernails. Among stupid black guys, the priority is imitating trashy rappers, flashing blings, and firing off guns to prove how ‘badass’ they be. Or, it’s killing each other over Air Jordans. How did America become like this? That black mama in RAISIN IN THE SUN had a sense of real priority. She done get the insurance money and put a down payment on a house. Granted, she didn’t have to buy one in a white community, but she knew what came first on her set of priorities. But if she had grown up in post-60s America, her first reaction upon getting some money would have been, "Sheeeeeeiiit, gots to have me be 10 buckets of chicken, gots to get me all them weaves, gots to get my nails done..."

One area in which Western People have a poor sense of priority is in the area of sexes and family. And one of the main culprits is Feminism, a confused and hypocritical ideology that demands that women be (1) treated meritocratically as individuals and (2) favored ‘affirmatively’ as a group. So, women, as individuals, should have equal access to all professions, but if women are under-represented in certain sectors by those very rules of meritocracy, there must be remedial policies put in place to ensure that MORE women are represented. There is an obvious contradiction in the demand that women be judged as sexless individuals but also as gender-specific group with special needs and interests. But even if feminists were intellectually consistent and genuinely principled in their insistence on individual-based libertarian meritocracy, it would be violating the Common Priority and Ethno-Priority of the People. Why? Because, apart from intellectual skills at work, men and women are profoundly different in their psycho-social instincts, attitudes, and habits. It is a fact that jobs are many times more important to men than to women. It is a fact that men with jobs will marry women without jobs, but women with jobs will not marry men without jobs. Also, as women get more education, especially in elite colleges, they become super-choosy in terms of finding a mate. And if women get good high-paying jobs, they will only seek out men who are equally or more successful. In the end, a high-earning woman is likely to marry a high-earning man, and the high-incomes of both spouses go into ONE family. Is that fair for the community as a whole? Sure, it’s great for that single individual and her high-income hubby, but is it good for society? Now, imagine if her high-income job had been held by a man. Then, two men with high-incomed could have married, and TWO families could have benefitted from the high incomes. Instead of two high-incomes going into ONE family, two high-incomes could have supported two families.

Now, there are times when women should be favored for elite positions. Suppose a woman shows special aptitude in science and could contribute a great discovery that may very well benefit mankind. In such cases, she should be allowed to pursue her field as far as it can go. But most high-income positions have nothing to do with genius, brilliance, or originality. Indeed, most high-income jobs held by women in law, education, management, business, government work, and etc. could just as well be done by men if not better. Now, if all credentialed men could have high-paying jobs, it might not be a problem. But the fact is there are only so many high-income jobs, and there is great competition for them. And in most cases, women who take such positions are not better than the men they beat out. Also, even if some of these women do have higher credentials, the jobs are such that men could do them just as well. In a world where men have most jobs, they will be willing to marry women with lower jobs or no jobs and start families with them. But in a world where women have the majority of jobs, they will be unwilling to marry a man unless he has a comparable or superior job. In the end, many of these women will use their money on vanity, narcissism, and self-indulgence. Many will live the SEX-AND-THE-CITY lifestyle. If their jobs had been held by men, the guys could have married women of lower stations and started families with them. But women with high-income jobs don’t want to go low in marriage. So, unless they can catch some ideal partner, they just spend all the money on themselves. Or they choose to become single mothers whose children, growing up without fathers, turn out to be confused and neurotic. Not only have they taken jobs from men, but they wasted their earnings on short-term momentary pleasures of vanity. The psycho-social impact of this is devastating on the society-at-large. Except for the high-income woman who meets an ideal mate in high-income guy, everyone else loses out. A high-income woman who is super-choosy and finds no mate — especially because so many people like herself have taken good jobs from men — ends up alone and bitter. The men who were kept out of high-income professions because TOO MANY WOMEN took the positions have a hard time finding mates, especially in an increasingly zero-sum-game economy where the Middle Class is shrinking: Winners win big, the shrinking Middle remains stagnant, and the widening Bottom ekes out a living or falls to terrible vices.

Now, the point is not that the feminist argument has no merit. After all, feminists could argue that they too are about prioritizing certain principles and values above others. They could argue that, from their perspective, the highest priority is female freedom, female choice, female independence, female success, female achievement, and female empowerment. What is wrong with more freedom, choice, independence, success, achievement, and empowerment for 50% of the population? Why shouldn’t women have the same rights and opportunities as men? Fair enough. And one might concede that such argument would make sense IF men and women were simply interchangeable units with hardly any differences. Suppose some screws are green and others are red. What sense would it make to favor green screws over red ones when both are equally screws and serve the same function? If indeed the difference between men and women were really that trivial — if, let’s say, women were merely men with different-shaped ears — , it would indeed make no sense to favor men over women. But the difference between men and women are like the difference between screws and nuts. Green screws or red screws, that is of trivial difference, but there is a clear difference between screws and nuts. They are not only different in shape but serve different functions. Yet, they are also essentially complementary. Therefore, one cannot treat nuts like screws or screws like nuts. One must always be mindful of the fundamental differences between screws and nuts. Ideally, for every screw, there should be a nut. A screw on its own is useless. And so is a nut on its own. What makes both useful is for the screw to be matched with a nut. So, if there are 20 screws and 20 nuts, the ideal would be matching every screw with a nut. But suppose the end result is 5 screws ending up with 5 nuts, 5 screws ending up with 5 screws, 5 nuts ending up with 5 nuts, and 5 screws being on their own and 5 nuts being on their own. Something is clearly out of whack.

Then, the same goes for humanity. Even though skills and professions are important to us, the inescapable fact is we are, first and foremost, organisms that were created by sex and our kind can only continue through sex. Sex is union of male and female. So, the ideal thing is for every man to end up with a woman, notwithstanding the presence of small percentage of homos who want to do something else. Because we are living organisms before anything else, we need to prioritize our meaning as organisms. Human organisms were born through sex, and once mature, they reproduce through more sex. Thus, the main purpose of a man and woman is to reproduce. Some people may disagree and say it’s a matter of ‘choice’(whether one choose to procreate or not), but that’s meaningless from the vantage point of life. Would it make sense to argue that it’s a matter of personal choice whether one eats, drinks, pisses, and poos? In the strictest sense, that is indeed true. Every person has a right not to eat or drink or pee or poo. He or she cannot be forced by society or the state to eat, drink, pee, or poo. But the fact is a person, as a living form, MUST eat, drink, pee, and poo in order to live. It doesn’t matter what books he/she read, what job he/she has, what ideas he/she espouses, and etc. The fact is he/she won’t be alive for long IF he/she doesn’t eat, drink, pee, and poo. Or breathe air. Even though anyone can say it’s his or her RIGHT not to breathe air, no one’s going to last for long without breathing. So, the needs of life trump all else. Try reading a book without breathing air. Try going for several days without drinking? Try going for weeks without eating. Try to last a day without peeing. Try not to poo for several days. That’d be a lot of shit.

Of course, a person can live an entire life without having sex or having kids. And if someone thinks he or she, as an individual, is the beginning and end-all of life, then, I suppose it doesn’t matter if he or she leaves no kibblers behind. But that is such a narrow, vapid, and shallow view of life. After all, no individual created oneself. No individual emerged whole and all-knowing like Athena from the head of Zeus. Because our minds are so complex and because our consciousness is shaped by books, education, culture, and socialization, we tend to see ourselves more as individuals defined by abstract constructs than as biological creatures. Even when people act most animal-like — dancing like having sex at nightclubs — , they are imitating and responding to the artificiality of Pop Culture that have reduced our animal drives into recreational activity than biological functions with a certain survivalist and evolutionary purpose.
But in fact, as creations of biology, all individuals are really part of a continuum. A person is not a stand-alone creation or existence but a continuation of his parents who are continuations of their parents who were continuations of their parents and so on. Every individual that lives today exists only because of this long continuum that goes back billions of years. So, it is vain, shallow, and stupid for any individual to think that he is a separate and ‘free’ from all others. The fact is his DNA — his appearance, intelligence, temperament, disposition, and countless other characteristics — is the continuation of the DNA of his father and mother who themselves are continuations and inheritors of the DNA of their parents and so on. If one’s parents had decided not to have kids, that individual wouldn’t exist. Or suppose a particular individual’s great, great, great, great grandmother had decided not to have kids. Then, his great-great-great parent wouldn’t have existed, his great-great-grandparent wouldn’t have existed, his great-grandparent wouldn’t have existed, his grandparent wouldn’t have existed, and his parent wouldn’t have existed. And he wouldn't exist. That is the effect of life refusing to be part of a continuum. Therefore, a person, as an organism, needs to develop a deeper and richer consciousness. Sure, he or she is indeed an individual but also much more. He or she, as an individual, is a link in a very long chain. Thus, he or she isn’t just he or she but the continuation of his or her parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and etc. Even though all those people may be dead, their organic material carries on in the living individual. And they will continue to ‘live’ only if the individual has children who, in turn, have children. A person is a ‘me’ but also part of a much grander ‘we’. A ‘me’ carries the organic genetic material of all his or her ancestors, and if he or she leaves descendants behind, he or she continues to ‘live’ even long after he or she had grown old and died. He or she, even after death, continues to ‘live’ 500 yrs in the organic material of descendants to continue to carry the torch. From this perspective, having children is as essential as breathing, drinking, eating, peeing, and pooing. From a strictly ‘me’ perspective, having kids is not essential since a person can live an entire life without sex. But from a ‘we’ perspective, a person must have kids because he can continue to ‘live’ only through his kids, grandkids, grandkids’ kids, and etc. Just like all of one’s ancestors 'live' in one’s organic makeup — one’s intelligence, looks, emotions, talents, and etc. are the products of generations of genetic history of one’s ancestors — , everything that organically defines a person is passed down to the blood of his or her descendants. Thus, life isn’t just a individual puddle but a flowing river.
Furthermore, because humans aren’t mere animals but complex beings with memory, history, and expressions, a person doesn’t just inherit genetic material but arts, myths, narratives, and cultures that deserve respect & appreciation and future preservation by being bequeathed to one’s own children and grandchildren. (This is all the more necessary as devilish Jews have taken over the West and have agitated non-whites to join the Tribe in desecrating and destroying all the icons and symbols that are sacred to the White Race.)

Anyway, while every person and every group may have his or its sense of priority, they need to seriously ask what is the ultimate priority of any people and civilization? They need to ask, "What is humanity at the core?" At the core, humans are biological creatures. Before all else is possible, they must exist. After all, everything that happens in arts, sciences, and politics is the doing of those who are living. So, before anyone argues about right-or-wrong, he or she needs to understand that he or she is making the argument only because he or she is alive. So, life comes before all else. Why is he or she alive? Because his or her parents went through the trouble of having kids and forming a family unit. Since every person was made that way, his or her priority must be to make more people that way. After all, no one lives forever and no single life, no matter how remarkable, is the end-all of history or humanity. (Of course, we don't mean a woman should have lots and lots of kids. But at the very least, she should have two to maintain a stable population and to foster a sense of family drama that is unlikely with only one child.)
Also, the deepest meaning of life comes from the family. No one is going to live forever. No one is forever young. Every life is born, live, and die. As purposeful and useful as professions are, they have no emotional value. Even doctors who save lives hardly get to know their patients. A doctor may have mended many bones, but once the patients are healed, they hardly send the doctor a thank-you card. A teacher prepares many kids for skills, but most teachers forget their students, and most students hardly remember most of their teachers. A man working in a restaurant may feed a lot of people, but he doesn’t know who they are. A man working in a bicycle factory makes bikes that many people use, but he has no emotional connection to the people who buy the bikes. There is no emotional content in profession. Also, there is no real loyalty. A person who works for Coca-Cola may work hard for the company, but if he’s fired by Coca-Cola and hired by Pepsi, he will work for his new company against his old company. It’s purely mercenary.

So, where does the real meaning of life come from? It comes after work. It is about having a family to return home to. It is about feeling a strong emotional bond with one’s spouse and having children who grow up to love their parents.
Now, some people may look for meaning by seeking pleasures or collecting stuff. He may attend parties and eat at nice restaurants every night. But as pleasurable as they may be, they are fleeting and ephemeral. While eating a nice meal is more pleasant than feeding a baby or changing his diapers, all the things done for one's child build up to something. It's not just about the moment.
Or, instead of pursuing pleasures-of-the-moment, one could collect lots of books, lots of records, lots of clothes, lots of porcelain, lots of rings, lots of whatever. And such are nice to have around while one’s alive. But they are dead material. They have no independence, no autonomy. They have meaning only to the people who use them or enjoy them. But the minute a person dies, they are just... stuff, like lots of things that Charles Foster Kane collected in his lifetime in CITIZEN KANE. But after he died, did all those dead inanimate objects care? In the end, stuff becomes trash the minute the owner dies. Suppose someone lives alone and has lots of stuff in his house. Suppose he has no kids and no grandkids. Upon his death, all that stuff will just be tossed into the trash.
In the end, the only thing that will matter is whether a person has children and grandchildren to mourn him or her. Having a family is THAT important. It is the core of life and from which the ultimate meaning of life is derived.
Therefore, a good society is one where most individuals are assured of a family life. Before all else, that must be the priority. It is the union of biology, emotions, and culture. Through family, life is created. And in the family, there is real love, loyalty, and attachment that is generally lacking in professions. And it is through the family, at least ideally, that the culture and values of a people & community are passed down through the generations. That being the case, the Common Priority and Ethno-Priority of a People must be Family Formation.

But the Official Ideology and Current Values prioritize something else. They mostly prioritize individual vanity to have it all for the here-and-now. Also, jobs are not seen as economic means to raise a family but an end-in-and-of-itself of status, vanity, and materialism, at least for those with choice jobs. TV and Movies send the message that success and money should be sought not for meaningful Family Formation but Fun-Fulfilment as if there’s no yesterday and tomorrow. The message is to favor fantasy over reality. Fantasy is how 007 never grows old. The franchise continues with new actors, and we are supposed to believe that the James-Bond-Universe is Diamonds-Are-Forever. But look at the actors who played Bond. Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and etc. They are human all too human. They are old men, and away from the fantasy of the silver screen, their life will have true meaning only through the family.
Now, fantasy has its place, and it can be fun, but it’s not real. But in a culture saturated with celebrity-worship, homo vanity, tranny narcissism, rap infantilism, STAR-WARS-forever, superhero comic-book heroes, and etc., it appears the Consumer-Hedonist mode has taken the main seat of Priority in how we define and measure our lives. So, men don’t primarily focus on family formation for meaning but on one's exploits worth bragging about. And feminist-poisoned women don’t think of the common good of the community and culture but ‘my precious vanity’. If feminists have an idea of community, it’s the sisterhood, but it is as meaningless as brotherhood as an identity. Brotherhood is a useful spirit in a sports teams or military platoon, but it cannot be an identity. Likewise, sisterhood has meaning in the sense that some women may develop sisterly bonds, but it's worthless as a real identity. For one thing, women on their own cannot perpetuate themselves, no more than men can. Furthermore, every nation/culture has different female cultures. Also, feminism has failed to be a voice for all women because it is mainly about highly-educated women seeking more wealth and privilege. In the end, rich women, even feminists, have more in common with rich men than with middle class women or poor women. It’s all just a sham. These elitist feminists use feminist ‘victim’ talk to climb up the ladder but only to rub shoulders with winner men and to have children with them.

Anyway, if we were to prioritize what is good for society as a whole, then, we must begin with the fact that the core meaning of life is about the Family. And that means a best society is one where most people can be part of a family of their own. Because men with jobs will marry women without jobs but women with jobs will not marry men without jobs, we must ensure that men are favored for jobs. We can’t have everything — only children and the perpetually childish demand everything — , but we can have a society where most people have something, especially something that is most meaningful and valuable: the Family. Because the family is that important, all other considerations and interests must be adjusted and molded so that we can have a society where the greatest number of people can have families, lead lives rich in love & meaning, and grow old & die with the conviction of having lived a life worth living, which is not possible without family. Without a family, a Sex-and-the-City Lifestyle skank will die an old woman in a hospital where strangers who don’t give a crap about her change her bedpans only for money. And after she dies, there won’t be anyone at the funeral, there won’t be anyone to care. And all her Stuff that she thought had such meaning just became so much garbage at a landfill.

We are told by environmentalists that there is higher Priority than ‘muh car’ and ‘muh energy’. We would all like to have cheaper energy and more consumer products by exploiting nature, but environmentalists remind us that we are ultimately a part of nature, and the destruction of nature will destroy us too. We can no longer fish the oceans like we used to. We can’t just dump toxic waste into rivers because it’s economical and cheap in the short-term. We must think of the long-term. We must think of nature’s needs as well as our needs. We must be mindful of the balance of them and us. That must be the Priority. We must think of other organisms, animals and plants. We mustn’t be selfish but see the Bigger Picture, i.e. we are part of Nature, not the center of Nature. What goes for the environment and nature also goes for us. There is a kind of ecology in human society as well. And the Tree of Life of humanity grows from the family. Unless we have a society that is geared to providing the most people with a chance of family life, the social ecology will fail... and we are seeing the decay and degeneration all around. We need Biological Socialism that says NO to mindless libertarianism, capitalism, consumerism, and feminism.