Kathryn Paige Harden, the authoress of "The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality", is a Stupid Dirty Lying Whore

Harden's Folly by Steve Sailer - https://www.takimag.com/article/hardens-folly/

This Kathryn Paige Harden is a real Tarden. Is she really this stupid or just prone to mendacity in an academic culture that prides itself on free inquiry all the while banishing the slightest hint of heterodoxy? Harden tries so hard to prove it's all about the science while pandering to official dogma with mantra-like incantations about race not being real.

All this suggests US and West in general are a theocracy. To deviate from officialdom, you must try to fool the authorities(and even yourself) that your heresy is not only in tune with but in service to dogma. Harden is like a biologist arguing before the Church that evolutionary theory, far from disproving Creationism, confirms it. The problem isn't so much fooling the others — as one must lie sometimes to 'survive' — as fooling oneself, and Harden seems high on her own supply. Perhaps her formative years under PC made her believe in the official nonsense even as her studies indicate otherwise. Kind of similar to some Chinese wishing to believe their much capitalized economy is an extension of Maoism when its model is closer to Singapore. Her book ought to be called Genetic Hide-and-Seek as that's the game she plays(and in which she can't even find herself). Or the Genetic Shell Game.

Steve Sailer: "elaborately contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head off growing Ibram X. Kendi-style science denialism"

But is the Kendi Man really about denialism? His only interest seems to be blackity-black, and the likes of him never complain about black over-representation and over-achievement in certain fields, especially athletics. So, to the Kendi Man, it's not about science or genetics but "We blacks deserve everything". It's not about egalitarianism but privilegism by other means, i.e. blacks are owed rewards even when they aren't deserving. Of course, the Kendi Man is just clever enough(or stupid enough, but how can one tell the difference these days?) to drudge up stuff about slavery and Jim Crow as such dominate the current narrative. Mentioning those precludes the need for any rational debate. It's like people used to quote verses from the Bible for instant holy-than-thou points. Kendi's shtick is, "I'm holy because the Narrative favors black magic, so pay me."

Saying the Kendi Man is for egalitarianism is giving him too much credit as idealist or person of principle, however misguided. In truth, he is an arch-tribalist who, if science proved blacks are smarter, would be most welcoming of the finding... along with all the 'woke' idiots whose real religion is black-worship than racial equality. Their fixation on 'not enough black quarterbacks' but never on 'not enough non-black running backs' gives the game away. Inequality in favor of blacks is never a problem. Jewishness is similarly an object of cult reverence. There can never be enough Jews in any department, but when the Jewish share of Princeton students dipped to 10%(still disproportionate given Jews are 2% of US population), that was a huge scandal. The 'injustice' had to be corrected, and Princeton dutifully complied.

Harden: "When social scientists routinely fail to integrate genetics into their models of human development, they leave space for a false narrative that portrays the insights of genetics as a Pandora’s box of 'forbidden knowledge'…"

Harden or Tarden is absolutely the worst because she's doubly dishonest. The race-realists are honest about race and racial differences. The anti-genetic ideologues are, at the very least, honest in their anxiety about the implications of genetic science that can overturn the very foundation of post-WWII consensus. Political Correctness isn't honest about the science but honest in its fear of the science, just like the orangutan patriarch Dr. Zaius in THE PLANET OF THE APES isn't honest about facts but honest in his fears. In contrast, Harden pretends the science is good for Political Correctness. She's either a devious player of 4D chess(which I doubt) or a smart person made stupid by a sickly blend of dishonesty and dogmatism, dime-a-dozen in media and academia.

Steve Sailer: "But, no matter how people differ genetically... we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people, not just the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry."

This is doable on the national but not the global scale. Every nation has its share of smarties, middlies, and dummies. All modern systems have progressive taxation and other means to help out the dummies. This is manageable within the national setting, especially in smaller and homogeneous nations. But on a global scale, it's like the Aesop's tale of the dog losing its bone to snatch the seemingly bigger bone reflected in the water. In trying to save the world, the nation will be neglected and fall to pieces. And in the end, the world won't be saved either as it's too big to be saved by any single nation or civilization. Besides, how is a nation supposed to take care of its dummies when it keeps on taking in more people, many of them dummies from all around the world? Perhaps, some of the immigrants will work hard and pay taxes and produce more wealth to take care of the native dummies. But then, the dummies will be further relegated to loser status as there are more competitors in their midst. Worse, what if many of the immigrants are dummies themselves? Sweden used to have a pretty decent system for taking care of its dummies, but the social safety net has frayed because Sweden chose to save Africa and Afghanistan.

Now, it's true that the US has been somewhat different. In most European nations(in the past at least), most of the poor and the dumb were ethnically same as the middle and rich. But in the US, many of the poor have been blacks; worse, blacks haven't been merely poor but prone to criminality and other pathologies, made worse by the fact that they are more muscular and aggressive than whites, which is why so many whites are scared-half-to-death of blacks. Especially following the Civil Rights Movement, black behavior, fueled by rambunctious black pride, has been so unruly that many communities figured they would do better with immigrants than with blacks, a running theme in David Cole's columns. Los Angeles with so many Mexicans may not be paradise but it sure ain't Detroit or Baltimore either.
All these 'progressives' like Harden must decide if they're more about loyalty to the Democratic Party(that gains from mass immigration) or concern for blacks. The dirty secret is the so-called 'progressives' elites want mass-immigration because newcomers are useful buffers between themselves and blacks.
Of course, the problem with blacks is that, even minus immigrant competitors, too many fall through the cracks either due to lower IQ or lack of character(as much of black esteem is about out-hustling others than playing it straight — even the attitude of the smart guy in COOLEY HIGH is, "I can lie and steal too good not to survive").
Also, while many blacks are hostile to more immigration(as they see the newcomers as usurpers and competitors), they identify so closely with the Democratic Party that they favor anything to its advantage. There's kneejerk sense among blacks that what is good for the Democratic Party is good for black people, just like many white conservatives believe GOP is implicitly about white interests. Of course, while a party can boast of its concern for blacks(and Jews and homos), it's taboo for any party or political figure to show any interest that pertains to whites as a group.
But the pro-mass-immigration stance of both parties seem hellbent on replacing both historical blacks and historical whites of America. As Jews control America, it's mainly in their interests. Even as Jews flatter blacks to use against whites, Jews know blacks are the main destroyers of cities where Jewish Power is concentrated. So, Jews want more docile immigrants to replace blacks in urban areas. And Jews want non-white immigrants to replace the historical white Christian America because more diversity among goyim means Jews can play divide-and-rule over them.
With Trump at the helm, it seemed just barely possible for blacks and whites to unite on anti-immigration position. But once Jews engineered the 2020 BLM riots by encouragin the worst tendencies among blacks, the black-white anti-immigration coalition seems dead.
Even MAGA people, after the black riots, would prefer immigrants over blacks who ruin cities. And as immigrants tipped the South to Democratic control which led to the toppling of Confederate monuments, blacks are okay with mass immigration too. Blacks alone couldn’t take the south, but blacks plus immigrants are turning the entire South to the Democratic Party. Same happened in the Midwest. They were mostly Republican, but the combination of white globalists, blacks, and immigrants tipped them Democratic.

The silly whore cannot even decide on her stupid hair color.

As the South fills up with more immigrants, Democrats are gaining over Republicans, and blacks welcome the transformation. But won't blacks face more competition? Or, are black elites unconcerned with the black masses and care only about their own privileges by way of Democrat dominance? Or, do blacks regard non-blacks, white and non-white, as just more people to leech off and suck dry? As blacks have lagged in generating their own wealth, much of their 'economy' depends on milking what others create. It's the same in Africa. Hindus and Chinese are let in to build stuff. Black elites get their cut in the form of bribes and contracts(where non-blacks actually do most of the work). And the unwashed blacks get theirs on occasion through massive looting when riots break out.

Harden and her ilk confuse 'palliative' with 'egalitarian' or 'equitarian'(if such term exists). At most, a free society, even at its most social-democratic-leaning, can be 'palliatarian'(or 'palliational') but never truly 'egalitarian'. If parents have two children and one is big and strong while the other is weak and wobbly, the latter can be provided with palliative care so that he can, at the very least, walk and function in life. But there is No Way he's going to be a high school track star or football player. If a parent has a kid who is very bright and another who is retarded, palliative attention can help out the dummy kid, but he's never going to be a smart kid, let alone a genius. And of course, everyone knows this, but people love to pontificate about 'equity' or 'egalitarian' to either feel good, virtue-signal, or conceal their obsession with elitism. Kamala Harris will yap about 'equity' but has been a whore to the rich, smart, and powerful all her life. Nice cover. That so many conservatives attack the likes of her as 'leftist' means they fell for the trap. She is a whore to the rich and powerful but accused of being 'leftist'(ROTFL), which means her cover has worked.

Harden pretends she's saying something original when the modern order has long accepted the need for social safety nets and palliative measures for the poor, the sick, the old, and etc. Social Security for the old provides a measure of stability, but it's hardly egalitarian. If Social Security made old people equal in health and ability, they would be re-entering the work force. It's precisely because age wears down one's abilities that palliative means are provided for the retired. Same goes for the less intelligent in society. They will never succeed by mainstream standards(unless they win the lottery, the real kind), but we don't want them starving, so they are provided with aid or trained for less demanding jobs.

It is so tiresome to hear proposals for more programs and more funding when so much money has been wasted, is being wasted, and will be wasted on expensive public education for countless blacks, among others, who hardly respond to scholastic overtures. It's like arguing a fat person should be fed more food.

If honest, Harden will admit the US has pretty much given up on a large sector of the black population. All this talk of 'equity' and the pampering of the black elite(as trophies) are really to pretend otherwise. By always pretending to be doing SOMETHING, nothing really has to be done, except by symbolic measures like erecting George Floyd statues and teaching 'woke' catechisms to school children. Indeed, whole swaths of the black population aren't even deemed fit for manual labor, much of which has gone to brown people from south of the border. PC is about talking one way while walking the other way.

Harden: "The fact that income, educational attainment, subjective well-being, psychiatric disease, neighborhood advantage, cognitive test performance, executive function, grit, motivation, and curiosity are all heritable... blah blah"

What really matters is this. While non-genetic factors matter, they are overwhelmed by genetic factors when (1) genetic differences are significant and (2) there is sufficient freedom for most people. If society allows women to play sports but not the men, women will dominate the games even though men are genetically more athletic. But once men are allowed to compete, they will trounce the women(even if women are afforded some slight advantages by society).

PC operates on a fallacy that, because some groups were disadvantaged as a result of socially sanctioned discrimination in the past, the removal of discrimination will result in equality. But did meritocracy in sports lead to equality between blacks and whites? Did Jewish Emancipation lead to equality between Jews and Christians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
Inequality can be the result of social policy but can also result from the free reign of genetic competition, in which case social policy often comes into play to narrow the gap somewhat but never totally because dumb people cannot be geniuses and paralympians cannot complete with four-limbed Olympians. Thus, social policy can go FROM favoring one group over another for supremacism's sake TO favoring one group over another for anti-supremacism's sake. In Russia, removal of anti-Jewish laws accorded equality to Jews, but later, 'affirmative action' penalized Jews to make the playing field more equal for non-Jews.

When a socially discriminatory order shifts to free competition, established hierarchies will eventually make way for new ones. It's like American Football went from all-white to mostly black; it's even truer of basketball, which at time, was dominated by whites and Jews. Now, if everyone had the same IQ, same personality, same health, and same physical abilities, a non-discriminatory order may be reasonably egalitarian, but no such society has ever existed.
The rise of new hierarchies has been the story of capitalism where the old aristocracy was replaced by new elites(who became even richer and more powerful). Jews certainly got lots of money and power owing to their IQ in a liberalized order.

Now, how come we can accept Jewish inferiority in certain areas but not black inferiority in any area? We acknowledge Jews are richer because they are smarter but also accept Jews aren't well-represented in sports because they're less athletic than Africans, Germanics, and Slavs. There's no controversy about Jewish lack-of-success in sports. We accept Jewish advantage in one area and disadvantage in another. So, why can't this be of blacks as well? They can run faster and jump higher, but they are relatively lacking in IQ.
Besides, why should any race be the best in everything? In a way, diffusion of talent among the races makes for a kind of fairness or a crude kind of 'equality'. Indeed, the symbiotic relationship between Jews and blacks is based on Jewish business smarts and black rhythm & running. Jews are superior in one area, blacks superior in another. There's no scandal about Jews not making it as boxers and wide receivers, so why is there such outcry about blacks not making it as business moguls or top physicists?

Steve Sailer: "On the other hand, it’s not as if the lowbrow leftists like Ta-Nehisi Coates are losing politically and economically."

Coates is not a leftist but a black tribalist who uses leftish-sounding socio-babble to gain more for his race, especially for himself. When has he, or the Kendi Man, ever griped about the inequality faced by Palestinians? Just like Obama, they know they must flatter Jewish power while dumping on whitey to get their hands in the cookie jar. Calling black tribalists 'leftists' only muddles the issue. We can't have clarity unless we know the real name of the game.

Harden: 'One-drop' social rules have guaranteed that Americans who identify as being White are very unlikely to have any genetic ancestry that is not European, so in this case self-reported race and genetic ancestry appear to converge.

One thing for sure, one-word-rule has rendered the meaning of 'Latino' meaningless. Even brown people with little or no white blood count as 'Latino'(or is 'Latinx') because they speak Spanish. More than anything, this clouds the race issue.

Harden: "…race (unlike ancestry) is an inherently hierarchical concept that serves to structure who has access to spaces and social power."

Just about any concept is hierarchical because everything about mankind is hierarchical. This goes for 'class', 'sex', 'age', 'religion'(With God on our Side), 'nation', 'empire', and etc. 'Education' and 'Academia' are hierarchical too. Colleges are above high school, and elite colleges are above run-of-the-mill colleges. Big Business is bigger than small business.

Also, everything is a double-edged sword. Nationalism can be used as springboard for imperialism, but it can also be the battle cry against imperialism, like in the Cuban Revolution and the Vietnamese and Algerian struggles for independence. Race was invoked in the past to keep blacks down, but blacks used race as means of solidarity and unity. Indeed, why are blacks averse to adopting libertarianism and its emphasis on individualism? They know they can gain more pride, prestige, space, and social power by invoking race. 'Race' can be used as expression of supremacism('our race is better than yours' or 'our race has the right to rule over your race'), but it can also be used to gain and secure historical or social space('our race deserves to be free' or 'our race is deserving of dignity', or even 'our race has a right to preserve itself', which is the theme of Zionism in its national manifestation — Charlton Heston as Moses organized on the basis of tribe rooted in the blood covenant when he said "Let My People Go"). Likewise, 'sex' could be used to argue men should rule over women, but feminists have also built an ideology around it for their own 'space'.

It's often said the 'pseudo-scientific' concept of race is the product of 19th century imperialism(with roots in the Enlightenment and rationalism with its mania for classification). So, was mankind a happy lot prior to this Evil Concept? Maybe it wasn't so bad for the peoples conquered, pillaged, and raped by Turks, Mongols, Arabs, Vikings, and Romans because 'race' wasn't a hot ticket item back then? Will America's current racial problems go away if we do away with the concept of race? That's like saying greed and theft will go away if we do away with the concept of 'money' or 'profit'.

If race = imperialism, how does one account for the Spanish Conquest of the New World? It happened long before the 19th century invention of 'race'. The Spanish sent missionaries and converted the savages, and there was much race-mixing, but was that a happy affair? If anything, history suggests the denial of race can be used as a tool of imperialism. It's a denial of group identity, like when Golda Meir said there is no such people or culture as 'Palestinian'; and the Turks deny the existence of Kurds and refer to them as 'mountain Turks'. Using Harden's logic, one may ask, what right did the brown races have to defend themselves against white conquerors when, white or brown, they're all just the same, part of the same human species?
Come to think of it, one way to resolve the racial issue in America is by arguing that the white race didn't really enslave the black race since race doesn't exist. Rather, some people who thought they were white enslaved some other people who thought they were black, but in truth, they were all just people. So, the racial angle of the narrative was pure fantasy. In truth, it was just a case of some people enslaving some people. Therefore, just as it had been wrong for whites to regard themselves as whites lording over blacks, it's about time blacks stop seeing themselves as blacks done wrong by whites. It only furthers the illusion of race.

Now, one people who were long race-or-blood-conscious were the Jews. In contrast, Christians and Muslims were less so as their big theme was converting the souls of all peoples around the world. Now, which people, the Jews or the Christians/Muslims, were more aggressive, invasive, and imperialist? True, Jews joined in the empire-building, but it was on the backs of Christians and Muslims who sought to break through the barriers of race and blood to create a one-world community united before God the Lord. One result is Latin America, a very hierarchical place beset with countless social, political, and economic woes.
Come to think of it, if egalitarian ethos took deeper root in North America, it was precisely because it was more homogenously white, at least in the northern parts and Canada. Egalitarianism, though always out of reach, is easier to approximate with a homogenous population with a narrower range of talents. Easier among beagles than among greyhounds, beagles, pit-bulls, and chihuahuas.

Harden: "A closer look at the science of genetic ancestry makes it clear that 'race does not stand up scientifically, period.'”

The statement is true and untrue depending on how one defines race. And there are varying definitions. Using the stupidest definition of race, her statement would be true. But then, the current age has no problem with stupidity when it comes to sex or 'gender', which has also spawned the pronoun-craze where some dope claims he isn't only a 'she' but a 'they'. Such nonsense is accepted(and enforced) as 'science' in our age. If Harden means that the human species is far more complicated than the simple groupings of caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid, that's true enough. Bushmen are different from Bantu blacks. Tamils are exactly what? And though the American Indians originated from Asia, they seem to have evolved sufficiently into a new category. And Nazi racial science had its crazy side. But, any concept can be invalidated if defined by its falsities or stupidities. Nationalism can be anything from patriotism to jingoism. Love can mean love for the devil or the love of God, in which case 'love is love' is the stupidest idea imaginable.

Still, if she insists the concept of race is wrong because it's burdened with historical baggage, then give us a new term so we can use that instead. But while there's a lot of terminological violence in rejecting the term of 'race', there is terminological silence in coining a new concept. Why the timidity? I don't care if we shouldn't use 'race' anymore. Just give us any term that means the emergence/existence of different groups within the species as the result of tens of thousands of evolution and geographical and climactic separation. Unless such term is provided, no one should reject 'race' because it's the only term we have. Based on new scientific knowledge, what should be the new term for differences created by evolution? How about 'scatterin' as different races arose from organisms within the species scattering all around the world. White scatterin and black scatterin. Or just scats. ('Scat' means animal shit, but that's okay because people like Harden are full of shit. How about 'guano' for race?)

Harden: "…in reality, you could have it exactly backwards, and the genes that matter for education could be more common in the ancestry group with worse educational outcomes."

That'd be more likely in a socially discriminatory or orthodox order. If a group is smart but denied educational opportunities, it will have high IQ but lack in academic prizes. Or, if the group has smart people but is trapped in orthodoxy, like Jews who only studied the Talmud or Chinese who concentrated on Eight-Legged Essays, it will under-achieve in many areas. Evangelicalism and Creationism probably suppressed intellectual achievement among certain Christian groups.

But the problem of inequality in the West is mostly the result of genetic differences. Once discrimination was ended and all groups adopted modern modes, winners and losers were largely chosen by genetics.

Harden: "For example, we now have a polygenic score for predicting the highest level of education attained. In the latest iteration announced this month, using a sample size of 3 million, those in the highest decile were nine times more likely to graduate from college than those in the lowest decile. It works pretty well for whites in the U.K., America, and New Zealand. It works less well for East Asians and worst of all for African-Americans."

East Asians are so education-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in studies regardless of other factors. The ant-attitude defines their outlook. In contrast, blacks are so fun-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in letting the good times roll. The grasshopper attitude prevails among them. In contrast, being neither intensely ant-like or grasshopper-like, whites tend to divide more naturally between those with ant-tendencies and those with grasshopper-tendencies.

Steve Sailer: "Charles Murray... as Frank Sinatra used to say about Laurence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate, is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life."

Bad example as Sinatra's character was brainwashed to say that about someone whom he actually loathed.

Sailer: "Seriously, Murray is obviously a superb individual."

Maybe he's a nice guy, but the nicest guy can have evil ideas while a nasty person can espouse humane ideas. What is better? A kindly devil or a mean angel? So, even as Murray's critics may concede he's a nice person, they can still find his ideas to be abhorrent. But this applies to people on the Left as well. Some Stalinists were nice kindly people as individuals.

At any rate, it doesn't matter how nice you are in a theocracy. If you blaspheme God, you are agent of the Devil even if you're the nicest person in town. In the current ideocracy, blacks are magical, and it's heretical to say they are deficient in any way, or if they are, it's all the fault of evil whites. So, no matter how nice or kindly Murray may be, he can only be a blasphemer in the eyes of the establishment.

The real problem is Murray's weakness. Why is he nice to people who hate him? Niceness is a virtue when shown to those who appreciate the gesture. It is a worthless vice when extended to those who hate you and mean you harm. Be nice to those who are nice to you, be mean to those who are mean to you. But Murray is nice to his enemies. Worse, he's nicer to people who mean him harm than those who are willing to lend him an ear. He'd rather suck up to Neocons than side with people like Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor(who has problems of his own in cucking to Jews). Murray is a fuddy-dud with 'dangerous' ideas, which means he lacks the cojones to see his ideas to their conclusion. In that, he has something in common with Harden who admits certain things but draws all the wrong conclusions. Murray keeps hoping and pretending that his ideas are compatible with individualism and libertarianism(and with 'respectable society') when they're not. Murray's ideas are rebellious but he plays it respectable, which makes him a fool.

Sailer: "She and Murray disagree over the meaning of 'virtue.' Harden’s New Testament-inspired egalitarian utopianism, in the tradition of political philosopher John Rawls, sees no virtue or merit in a pilot (such as her father) having excellent pilot traits."

She is right, at least partly, on the matter of virtue. If talent or skill = virtue, O.J. Simpson would be a saint. In a way, the problem with the US, no less among the 'woke' than among the 'based', is the delusion of conflating success, especially associated with celebrity and fame, with virtue. People look to athletes and pop stars for 'wisdom'. Conservatives are giddy that the rapper 50 cents be complaining about taxes and thinking of moving to Texas. And then, there was the thing with the vile Nikki Minaj. She went on a rant about her cousin's balls and became an instant hero to the anti-vaxxer crowd.

There is value in meritocracy per se that rewards people based on talent and hard work, but a person's intelligence or professional success doesn't guarantee virtue, even though one can say work ethic is a virtue compared to sloth. The US deep state has lots of of smart and diligent people, but they don't seem very virtuous when it comes to honesty, honor, truth, and justice. When one of them, Edward Snowden, blew the whistle on government abuses, the elite consensus was to totally destroy him.

Perhaps, meritocracy is more about fairness than virtue. It is externally applied and neutral in its lack of a priori favoritism. It observes and chooses for superior talents regardless of other factors. It's like the referee in sports mustn't favor either athlete and must be neutral in rewarding points and penalties based purely on performance. If a lowlife son-of-a-bitch is more skilled than a truly nice fellow, meritocracy favors the former.
But all social orders have sacraments and taboos that make absolute meritocracy impossible. Even a super bright kid will not be admitted to Ivy League if it turns out he said unkind things about Jews, blacks, or homosexuals. In the past, one's reputation could be destroyed if one badmouthed Jesus or is a homosexual. So, the rules change over time, and these rules will favor official norms and dogma over absolute meritocracy. So, success isn't determined only by merit of talent but correctness of creed.
Today, anyone who supports BDS or sympathizes with Palestinians won't gain much success in the elite realm. He will be shut out by the establishment that mainly caters to Jewish supremacism. Imagine any writer or director proposing a movie about the plight of Palestinians. He or she will be blacklisted on the spot and for as long as Jews control Hollywood and the media. Jewish power and wealth were built largely on meritocracy of intelligence and hard work, but Jews also use non-meritocratic means to keep their perceived enemies and rivals from gaining ground. To succeed in today's world, you must bow down to the Jewish-favored creed.
In the past, many Jews had to convert to Christianity to rise up the social ladder. Today, Jews control the gods, and one has to worship the rainbow-homo(as Jews replaced Christianity with Queertianity) to gain access to the Deep State, Big Business, and the like.

Even sports are not purely meritocratic because there's a thing called sportsmanship, i.e. even a great athlete can be penalized for un-sportsman-like behavior. Or he can be expelled from the league for saying unkind things about Zionists who terrorize Palestinians.

Unlike mere fairness(of meritocracy), virtue goes the extra mile and is essentially an internally generated trait. Instead of merely being fair with mankind, it wants to do more to be a better person and/or to make for a better world, sometimes in a self-sacrificing way.

To be sure, meritocracy can be an internally generated goodness, a virtue, in a world where success mostly depends on connections and corruption. If one personally chooses to be meritocratic in such a system, he is going against the tide, going the extra-mile to be a good person. That would be virtue. But in a system where meritocracy is taken for granted as the rule, all it can do is pick and choose winners and losers based on a narrow set of talents. It's about ability then ethics.

Harden: "A lottery is a perfect metaphor for describing genetic inheritance: the genome of every person is the outcome of nature’s Powerball."

Harden is one big idiot. That's the dumbest thing I ever read. The human equivalent of powerball lottery would be if someone is super-beautiful, super-healthy, super-personable, super-leadership-qualitied, super-intelligent, super-athletic(and in all sports from weightlifting to swimming to high jump), super-creative(in music, poetry, and act), and etc. Powerball is about one in a million, or ten million, or hundred million.
Human competition is far more mundane and general. Most people are content to excel in one thing or another. For the vast majority, genetics means having just enough decent genes to finish college, have a nice job, and retire with saving. Powerball-thinking is for likes of Elizabeth Holmes, the too-good-to-be-true nutter, who wanted it all.

Genetics is more like a slot-machine, a rigged one at that. Pull on the genetic lever of a smart man and smart woman, and you're more likely to get a smart kid. Pull on the genetic lever of a dumb man and dumb woman, and you're more likely to get a dumb kid. Of course, smart parents can produce dumb kids, and dumb parents can product smart kids, but genetics means that the game is rigged based on parentage.
Genetics would be more like a lottery in the manner of Rev. Mhoon, that is by randomly pairing dummies with smarties in a mass wedding ceremony. But it's generally not the case that smart women marry some fat guy whose ass crack shows when bending over.

Sailer: "Harden propounds a sophomoric view that intelligence is 'socially valued, not inherently valuable,' and follows that up with a conspiracy theory that early-20th-century eugenicists plotted to get us..."

Harden is correct in the strict evolutionary sense. Every trait has value in relation to the environment. A shark's fins are perfectly engineered for the ocean but useless on land. A chimpanzee's high IQ isn't going to do it any good in the middle of an ocean. A low-IQ fish with gills has infinitely better chance of survival.
And even among human societies, the value of intelligence depends on the culture and social setting. While it's good to be reasonably intelligent in any setting, high IQ would have been useless in most societies through history(and especially pre-history). A strong man who could chuck spears and fight rough was more valued. An Einstein or Plato would have been useless to the Vikings or Zulus.
Extreme high IQ has value only in advanced civilizations with freedom that allows for such trait to explore and express itself. And even though all societies, even the simplest, have recognized the difference between smart and dumb, admiration for high IQ began to matter only with the emergence of advanced societies that capitalized on genius.

But Harden is probably not speaking strictly in an evolutionary sense but to virtue signal that she's more about the heart than brains.

Harden: "…to see intelligence (as measured on standardized IQ tests) and educational success, perhaps more than any other human phenotypes, in terms of a hierarchy of inferior and superior persons is not an accident. It is an idea that was deliberately crafted and disseminated..."

The more a society becomes competitive and achievement-oriented, this becomes inevitable. After all, is a great civilization possible without identifying winners from losers? Jews had their Rabbinical studies. Chinese had their Confucian exams. The Greeks were more multi-faceted as they prized not only intelligence but creativity, athletics, and beauty, which is why they were so foundational in the many pursuits that came to define the West and then the World.
But the Greeks also adopted Christianity, and their highest sense of good came to be piety. Christian piety is less enamored of and even hostile to beauty(vanity), intelligence(skepticism & egotism), athletics(brutality), and creativity(sensuality). Its emphasis on humility would seem anti-superiorist but actually provided yet another opportunity for superiority: holier-than-thou-ism.
On the one hand, Harden works in the Galileo-an world of high IQ science, but on the other, she is a member of new church of PC pieties. And just like Christianity, the new theology of Diversity-Inclusion-Equity has its own superiors and inferiors. The superiors are the Good Good People who repeat the fashionable sacraments(and favor Jews, blacks, and homos uber alles) while the Bad Bad people are those who dare to spout heresies and should be burned as witches. Bad Bad people are also those who support BDS and call for justice for Palestinians who are being 'genocided' by Zionist supremacists.

Now, is the US excessively concerned with IQ and success? If anything, many have griped that the problem of America is anti-intellectualism, populist vulgarity, blissful infantilism, and obsession with sports and pop culture than with science, math, and mental stuff. In any high school, the nerds and geeks are ignored while jocks and 'popular kids' get most of the attention. Judging by mass culture, Americans mainly seem interested in trashy personalities and pop stars. Most Americans would rather watch two women beat the crap out of each other in MMA than read a book by Harden or any female scientist. Also, colleges have been dumbed down over the years. It panders to popular tastes, and for all I know, they're teaching rap poetry in colleges. The rap musical HAMILTON became cause celebre among the elites. That Donald Trump became the champion of so many Americans doesn't say much about their intellectual curiosity either. But is he cruder than HAMILTON or the likes of Lena Dunhum promoted by the elites? Go on youtube, and the videos that get the most views are stupid or trashy as hell, or just plain dumb.

The problem with Americans is they love success and money, which is usually the product of high IQ and diligence, but prefer to conflate success and money with something else. The appeal of Rock/Rap culture is the bad boy wins the girls, drives the fancy cars, and wears all the bling. Bruce Springsteen sang about high school dropouts, rebels, and road-busters, the kind of people who lose in life or end up dead. But he became very rich. Most blacks who emulate rap culture end up dead or in jail, but blacks love the idea of the rich gangsta.
In Arthur Miller's DEATH OF A SALESMAN, Willi Loman's delusion is that success comes by way of the hustle, a firm handshake and likability. Of course, such things matter, but it also requires hard work and real ability. Americans want to believe style should be sufficient for success. Substance is too boring and lame. Success is usually the product of intelligence and hard work, but that's too nerdy or geeky for the American Myth of John Wayne, Elvis Presley, and 50 Cents.

Harden says the less intelligent deserve more help, but that isn't the real problem, especially among blacks. The problem is blacks are soul-corrupted and rebuff any sound advice about what they should do. They find hard work and diligence 'lame' or 'white'. They want success to come with style alone or in sports. But how many blacks can make it to the NBA or NFL? (Black culture in the documentary HOOP DREAMS is surely telling, which is to say depressing.) Has anyone asked Harden, "How can you help people who don't appreciate sound advice?" The forgotten white working class is more likely to respond to constructive advice, but their livelihoods have been outsourced globally. Worse, it is evil for whites to care for fellow whites, not least because Jews demand that whites expend all their energies supporting the Zionist tyranny over Palestinians.

Now, there is a segment of Americans who are IQ-and-success-obsessed, and they are the elites(who are 95% Democratic). Elite parents do everything to make their kids go to elite schools or gain favors through connections — how George W. Bush got to be president, how Hunter Biden isn't in jail but selling junk art for $500,000. The rise of PC partly owes to these parents not wanting to jeopardize their kids' chance at success. They tell their kids to toe the line or else lose it all. Harden is surely part of this IQ-and-success-obsessed class. And these people do everything to gain more wealth and privilege.

But they don't want to admit that they are so focused on themselves and their class; therefore, even as they do everything to win and collect more prizes, they create this bogeyman of the 'racist' to fool the world(and themselves) that THEY are warriors for equality. But in fact, the likes of Jared Taylor and even Charles Murray have zero power in media and academia. All of the establishment elites are ideologically on the same page as Harden. So, if she's honest, she will admit that the most IQ-obsessed people are the so-called 'liberals', her colleague and peers. But instead, she paints herself as a humanitarian fighting an uphill battle against dragon-monsters like Murray. She is really punching down, but because the White Male used to be on top, she relies on historiography to pretend she's punching up against the Eternal White Male Patriarch Oppressor.

Even if Charles Murray and his ilk(and all MAGA people) vanished into the thin air this very second, the problems associated with race, IQ, success, inequality, and etc. would exist just the same among blacks, browns, and whites like Harden... like in San Francisco and Madison Wisconsin, totally libby-dib cities. Indeed, without the racist-as-bogeyman, people like Harden would finally have to face the music and offer a solution to the race problem. THAT would be difficult. But as long as her ilk claims to be fighting the big-bad-white-bogeyman, they can say their hands are tied at the moment and can't really address the problem yet.

If people like Harden are really serious, there is actually a solution. Offer more affirmative action slots for blacks in medicine, law, accounting, and other fields. And then, make sure these white 'progressive' types call on affirmative action talent for service. Need a brain surgery? Make sure it's a black doctor who got his license through AA. Need a corporate lawyer? Get an AA black guy. With so many rich progressive types, this should solve the problem. They got the money to sustain so many black professionals of AA pampering. And why should they complain? They are the ones who say there should be more 'inclusion' and that blacks are just as intelligent, capable, and diligent as any other race. They wouldn't want to be 'racist', would they?

DIS-UNITED STATES: WHY IDENTITY POLITICS ARE THE FUTURE - Black Pigeon Speaks

Chauvinism of Jews, Greeks, & Romans and the Mediterranean Sea as the Petri Dish of History — Why did Northern Europe come to Civilization later but later make unprecedented progress? — Britain as New Rome and Its Problematic Template for Anglo-Americanist Globalism

We've been told over and over, we need to support Israel because it's part of Western Civilization even though, ironically enough, Jews are at the forefront of unraveling whatever that has held the West together as a people, culture, history, and territory.

We have a situation where Jews, who are said to represent the West, push mass non-white immigration on the West, making the West less Western but in the name of 'Western Values' that apparently have nothing to do with race, history, or territory but only a set of beliefs and 'principles' that are supposedly 'universal' in application. These ideas, though having originated in the West, are understood as having implications far beyond the West, thereby encompassing all of humanity that, in order to attain progress and liberty, must also embrace those ideas as their own. I suppose there is a kernel of truth to this as what the Greeks embarked on was a search of objective truth(based on observation and logic) as opposed to cultural subjectivity(based on customs and visions) and the idealization of man as a seeker of truth and justice than mere receptor of tradition or creature of tribalism. Greeks were mighty proud and chauvinistic, but ironically, their pride of achievement rested on breaking freer from cultural gravity than other peoples who remained more mired in their customs, myths, and lore.

Jews were similar to the Greeks in one way. They too came upon a universal concept — the one God of truth and justice for all the world — but insisted on tribal chauvinism, one where they are the Chosen bound in a special Covenant with God. Both peoples were universal in imagination but tribal in pride. And history would have been very different but for the fact that the Greek Way and the Jewish Way came together like chocolate and peanut butter in the Roman Empire. Far more than Alexander the Great(whose dream of Hellenistic Empire fractured and dissipated), the Romans took Greek Ideas and turned them into Imperial Principles. Also, the Roman adoption of Christianity, a Cult that began with heretical Jews, meant that universalism inherent in Judaism could be divorced from Jewish pride and insularity. Thus, armed with universal Greek ideas without the Greek chauvinism and with universal Jewish ideas without the Jewish chauvinism, the Romans set the template for the future West.

Of course, the Romans too were awful proud and aggressive, but far more than the Greeks and Jews, were willing to allow non-Romans a stake in the new imperial order. Though considered as part of Western Culture and History, had the Roman Way been allowed to continue and prevail, Rome would have been less the foundation of later European Civilization than the center between the West, East, and South. After all, at the height of their power, Romans had far greater regard for peoples of the Near East and North Africa than for the Northern Barbarians. Though many people invoke the Fall of the Roman Empire as a warning about the future West, it was probably a great thing for the white race. Germanic tribalism prevailed over Roman Imperialism that would likely have served as a bridge not only of Europeans into non-Europe but non-Europeans into Northern and Eastern Europe. Of course, much that was good about Roman Civilization was destroyed, but there was no guarantee of civilizational health even if Romans had prevailed over the Germanics. After all, Rome was decaying from within, and if the Eastern Byzantine Empire was any indication, civilizational longevity is no guarantee of health and vitality. Indeed, it's possible that the fall of Western Rome was like a forest fire that made the future soil of Europe richer for something like the Renaissance. Also, the fall of Rome(as the bridge between the West and East/South) made the North safer from invasion, thus more racially and territorially secure. And over time, the North came to greatness because it had both the security of homogeneity and the fruits of diversity from the South.

Initially, Southern Europe with its 'diverse geography' had a great advantage over cold Northern Europe that was isolated from trade routes. In contrast, the Mediterranean was the greatest Petri Dish of cultural ferment as it allowed trade in goods, exchange of ideas, and clash of inspirations among the various peoples/cultures of North Africa, Near East, and Southern Europe. Isolation was impossible even if desired. There was a constant flow of ideas, goods, and peoples, friendly and hostile. So, naturally the Greeks and Romans were far ahead of Northern Europeans of both the North-West(Germanics and Celts) and North-East(Slavs).
But, the problem of geo-diversity was instability. With so many great powers in near proximity to one another, massively destructive wars were commonplace. Also, even with relative peace, the clashes and frictions among peoples with different myths, customs, & values and of different colors & looks didn't lead to much of a culture of trust and cooperation. So, diversity led to a lot of sparks but also lots of fires that burned out of control. Diversity giveth but also taketh away. (Still, it must be said the Mediterranean Sea was a divider as well as unifier. It's possible that, had there been no Med-Sea and had Southern Europe, Near East, and North Africa been just one land-mass, there might have been less civilizational spark. Med-Sea was 'small' enough for various peoples to travel & trade and big enough for them to maintain relative security. Indeed, the bigger threats to the Greeks came from land than from sea. Also, it's telling that Jews regarded the sea as divider or isolator than unifier. In the Noah story, a righteous family is isolated in the ark from sinful humanity. The point of the ark is to survive and keep intact a family and culture, not to set out on voyages to unknown lands. And in the Moses story, the Hebrews cross the sea on foot under the divine protection of God, whereas the Egyptians perish under the waves. And Jesus walked on water. And Jonah's experience with the sea was with a whale as a kind of spiritual ark.)

But when the foundational ideas forged in a world of Diversity made their way up to Northern Europe, it was like the best of both worlds. The ideas could develop and grow uninterrupted in a relative world of homogeneity, stability, and security. Then, it's hardly surprising that the Ancient Foundation reached its greatest apex in the isolated kingdom of Britain. On their own, the Brits would have remained isolated barbarians. But equipped with ideas that arose in a world of diversity, they could push those ideas much further as the result of their trust culture made possible by greater homogeneity(relatively speaking) and territorial security. What the Romans ultimately failed to do, the Brits did do. Brits created the greatest empire of not only military power and economic wealth but cultural achievement and scientific progress. They were like the ultimate Romans, and yet, ironically, the source of their power wasn't merely rooted in Classical Civilization but racial consciousness forged through eons of relative isolation. So, in a way, the Anglos had something in common with Greeks and Jews as well. They perfected the Imperial Formula for uniting the entire world, indeed far more than the Spanish(who soon began to stagnate) and the French who could never make up their mind if they wanted to dominate Continental Europe or compete with the British for World Hegemony. Though unprecedented as imperialists who came closest than ever before of creating a universal world order, the Brits were racially proud and chauvinistic, much like the Ancient Greeks and Jews. British Empire was about bringing the brightest light of the highest civilization to all the world, but what that light shone to the world was "Look at our superior white Anglo faces, respect and obey." The British were more ambitious and conquered more than the Romans could ever dream of, but they were far more race/ethno-conscious than the Romans.

So, it took a rebellious offshoot of the British Empire, the United States, to finally detach the universality of British Imperialism from Anglo pride, arrogance, and chauvinism. Though the American Republic also began as a race-conscious nation, its founding principles were far more amenable and even attracted to universality. Perhaps, this owes to Anglo identity never having formed into something distinct and special, something it had in common with Roman identity. After all, Jewish identity and Greek identity survived beyond Ancient Times, but Roman Identity vanished and was replaced by mixture of funny folks called the Eye-Talians. Indeed, despite all the race-mixing and confusion, Spanish identity survived with more distinctness than the Anglo kind. What accounts for this?

Was the rise of the Romans and Anglos too swift and sudden, too identified with power above all else? After all, the core of Jewish identity took shape long before Jews came into their own as a formidable power. And the same was true of Greeks whose culture developed organically for some time before their rise to greatness. In contrast, what were the Romans before they became great? It seems Romans came to define themselves primarily by their greatness. In this sense, even though Macedonians under Alexander the Great came to be regarded as 'fellow Greeks' who expanded Greek power far beyond what Greeks could manage on their own, they had more in common with the late-comer Romans who, if anything, followed their example with certain imperial improvements(that favored systems over personalities) that assured greater stability. That Greek identity survived whereas Macedonian and Roman identities did not tells us something. (Likewise, what is 'Manchu' identity and culture today?) It goes to show cultural resilience owes less to might and money than the formation of a powerful identity rooted in ethnos, narrative, and mythos. Jews and Greeks had a more powerful culture even before they gained power, whereas the Romans had a weaker culture and, upon coming to possess a formula for great power, associated Roman-ness mainly with might, conquest, and glory.

To be a Roman was glorious as long as Rome was the center of the world, but its fall meant loss of everything. In contrast, even in defeat the Greeks and Jews believed their identities and cultures were nevertheless superior and this superiority owed more to tradition and truth than something so crude and transient as political/military power. It could be one reason why American Empire has become so obnoxious owes to a hollow sense of American Identity. Meaning almost nothing and yet everything — anyone from any part of the world can come to the US and, within five years, become 'as American as Apple Pie... or pizza, taco, chop suey, gyros, bagels, etc." — American sense of pride only comes with money and power, especially as democracies are now dime-a-dozen around the world. (When the US was one of the few democracies in the world, there was the pride of being a beacon of liberty. But when millions of Asian-Indians come to the US, they are going from democracy to democracy, and the only difference is US offers more money and is militarily far more powerful; it's just human nature of Will-to-Cower for people to flock to something more richer and more powerful to be part of it.) It's like a person with a strong sense of self in terms of identity, individuality, conviction, and meaning is less enamored of money and possession as matters of pride. While a person of strong identity may still want money and power(indeed lots of it), his core self is nevertheless defined by something other than what he possesses. Thus, even if he loses it all, he still has meaning. In contrast, a person with no meaning tries to compensate with money and power, but without money and power, he feels zero self-value. Jews are a people of strong identity who are obsessed with power and money; the thing is, even were they to lose all the power and money, they'd have meaning in what they are, a part of an ethnicity, spirituality, history, and culture. In contrast, white goy elites seem to possess nothing but the status, success, prestige, money, and/or power as the definitive markers of who they are. But that means they are NOTHING without earthly things(or social status), and perhaps this accounts for white elite class bigotry for the the Deplorables, a bunch of 'loser whites' with little or nothing. (Jews and white goy elites sneer at Rural White America but, for some reason, we must all care so much about Desert Semites in Israel.)

Perhaps, the seeds of eventual Anglo weakness were sown in the creation of the so-called United Kingdom. Unlike Japan that eventually united as one Japanese Folks, the idea of Great Britain or United Kingdom was founded on the prestige and glory of power. When wars came to an end in a united Japan, the idea was that all the Japanese people were rightfully under the rule of the most powerful Japanese clan with the blessing of the divine lord, aka the Emperor. In contrast, the British idea was that different peoples 'agreed' to belong to a united kingdom on the basis that this order was bound for great things. So, if all Japanese bowed down before a greater sense of Japanese-ness, various folks in Britain consented to de-emphasize their core ethnicity in pursuit of greater power, wealth, and glory that would come through their mutual cooperation. And this meant that not only would the Scottish restrain Scottish pride but even the dominant English wouldn't over-emphasize English pride. Of course, one could argue that Japan too had its distinct sub-ethnicities like Britain, but the difference is the central power in Japan insisted that everyone in Japan is Japanese and must submit totally to the central authority and the Emperor, whereas British Political Arrangement was founded on mutual understanding. Thus, British-ness was bound to be more political and theoretic than Japanese(or German) identity. It was like a business partnership where various families agree to forgo extreme clan loyalty for the good of the whole under unity and cooperation. But like business ventures, such an 'identity' could only be justified by success and growth.

After all, if there were no material benefits in the arrangement, why should the lesser 'kingdoms' go along with the greater or united kingdom? So, the seeds of Americanism were already there in British History. Such compromise may have contributed to the rise of class consciousness that prevented the full-blown emergence of a race-consciousness. As racial-minded as the British were, it's telling that they were off-put and disturbed by the German concept of Blood-and-Soil rooted in Kultur. In a way, the British treated race like a class, or a 'rass', and thus they were more rassists and than race-ists. Brits didn't so much considered themselves as the superior race as the better class of race. In a way, the failure to develop a strong sense of British Ethnicity(as Britishness was a compromise position among the various 'ethnicities' that were, by the way, almost homogeneous genetically) meant that the Brits would have to opt for the more generic notion of 'whiteness', which came to define America.

JEWISH PROPAGANDIST DEBORAH LIPSTADT NAMED 'ANTI-SEMITISM CZAR' by Adam Green

Anglo-America Lost Power to Jew-America when its Core Principle became Legality & Individuality than Identity & Unity

Rule of Law is essential. It is crucial to any society governed by principles of justice. Still, legality is a matter of goal-posts than the will to win. It's like one has to obey the signals and rules of the road when driving a car. But adherence to rules doesn't determine when, where, and why you go from A to B. Even if you obey all traffic lights and halt at every stop sign, you drive for your own interest. It is not to serve the rules but to serve YOURSELF. If you need to meet someone for a business deal, you drive to the café or conference room. Along the way, you obey the rules of the road, but your main focus is to get there on time to make a deal for your interests. Rules of the road are important inasmuch chaos and mayhem will reign if everyone drives as he or she pleases like a maniac. We don't want road warriors. Still, rules are never the goal but merely the goal-posts that provide some semblance of form to the movement or competition. Even in race-car driving where cars go crazy-fast, far beyond the speed limit allowed on roads, there are rules and regulations(that prevent the race from turning into Demolition Derby). In order to take part in the contest, all drivers must know and adhere to the rules. But they are not racing primarily to obey the rules but to win. They race for fame and glory. They are motivated by ego, pride, and money. They are fueled by the will to win, to be #1. Even as they do their best to remain within the rules, the rules are the last thing on their minds. First and foremost is their determination to beat the competition and be the first one to zip past the finish line. If one's main priority is to obey the rules, the will to win is immaterial. After all, you can come in second, third, fourth, or even last by obeying all the rules. The trick of power in a civilized order is to do everything just short of violating the rules to win. After all, rules are a drag on one's options. Yet, one must obey them because a world without rules is one of animals, thugs, and gangsters. Thus, the concept of the Golden Rule for the populace. And yet, victory in a world governed by the Rule of Law isn't about sticking to every letter of the Golden Rule but by coming closest to violating the rules without doing so. It's that factor that gives one the edge over the other.

Take a contest like boxing. There are rules such as No Biting, No Eye-Gouging, No Punching-Below-the-Belt, No-Kicking, and so forth. So, do such rules mean that it's a gentleman's game of kindness and civility? No, even with those restrictions, it's a brutal bout between two men whose objective is to knock the other guy out. Each is motivated not by his knowledge of the boxing rule-book but his desire to beat the other guy, win, and become rich & famous. So, even though they can't kick or punch each other in the balls, they do everything possible to psyche and pummel the other guy. They use all sorts of deceptive tricks to land surprise punches. When hurt, they clinch and hold onto the guy as long as possible before the referee pulls them apart. Also, even if one throws an illegal punch but isn't called out by the referee, one keeps boxing because the #1 objective is to win, not to adhere to absolutism of rules.
Rules are important but secondary. Competition is essentially ruthless, brutal, and even 'animal'. Rules exist to govern and control such aggressive impulses, not to negate and prohibit them. Thus, even in a world of Rule of Law, one must know he needs to be driven primarily by his will to beat the competition and come out on top. And the trick is not to stick to the rule-book as closest as possible but to expand one's options just short of brazenly violating the rules. Consider Muhammad Ali's third bout with Joe Frazier, aka Thrilla in Manila. Ali, clocked badly many times by the lunging Frazier with fearsome hooks, kept holding Frazier's neck to slow the pace of aggression. Ali did whatever he needed to do to win just short of being disqualified. Had he chosen to fight the cleanest fight in service to the golden letter of boxing rules, he might very well have lost. He was primarily motivated by the will to win, not to be a 'beautiful loser' with impeccable commitment not only to the rules but the very spirit of the rules. But who'd want to get punched in the face so many times by a monster like Joe Frazier just to demonstrate to the world that ONE LOVES RULES. The only reason to enter into such a brutal contest is to win and come out on top. If one loves rules above all, play Bridge or Old Maid. Win or lose, it's no big deal. But if the contest is for keeps, involves huge stakes, or decides the power & destiny of the world, one better have the mindset of Charles Bronson in HARD TIMES. It's not for weak stomachs.



Also, the contest for power can be directed on an individual, collective, or tribal basis. The individual will/drive to power is all about egomania. It's about 'me over the world'. The only concern is one's own wealth, pride, prestige, and honors. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are this kind of individualists. Sure, both fuss about philanthropy and aiding humanity, but it's all just an extension of their egomania. They know money can buy lots but not necessarily respect. So, like many other tycoons before them, they've created foundations and play do-gooder superman.
Power can be collective, but this isn't the same as tribalism. After all, labor unions work for collective interests but could represent workers of various races and ethnic backgrounds. They could represent men and women of all ages. Collective interest could be based on class, profession(medical, law, trucking, or whatever), religion, and etc. Despite intra-competition among companies and corporations, everyone in a certain industry or field has common interests with others like him. Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola are competitors, but they sometimes work together to push legislation that is good for all of beverage industry.
In contrast, tribal interest isn't merely collective but united on the basis of blood(and soil), identity, nationality, history, and/or heritage. Tribalism can be hierarchical. Despite huge divergences between the richest members and the least successful ones, they are all bound by the consciousness of race and share a sense of deep roots. Thus, a Jewish multi-billionaire in France or Russia may feel a sense of tribal bond with some humble Jewish worker in Israel. Though of different nationalities — France or Russia as opposed to Israel — , they feel as one people, brothers under the clothes. Whether a certain tribalism tends to learn more socialist or capitalist, what really matters is that everyone from those on top to those on the bottom feel that their core identity is unique/particular and that they must maintain unity so that the most powerful never lose sight of the less fortunate of the tribe while the less fortunate do what they can to support the tribal project. Thus, Israel was made by Zionists who ranged from super-rich to dirt poor. Whatever their economic circumstances, their consciousness was molded by the notion of the Jewish Covenant. It didn't matter that most pioneering Zionists were secular and didn't literally believe in God. What mattered was they were all committed to Jewish Identity as defined by the Covenant with deep ethno-spiritual roots.

So, even though the will and drive are crucial in any contest of power, there is a difference between individual will, collective will, and tribal will. A successful man of individual will may do very well, but he cannot conceive of any purpose in life beyond his individuality and self-glory. He is very much like the Ideal pushed by Ayn Rand onto goyim, especially Wasps(though she was perfectly fine with Jewish and Zionist identity and unity). Individual Will, as formidable and successful as it may be, is always a short-lived dead-end. After all, no one lives forever, and once individual titans grow old and die, they leave behind nothing but money without a clear purpose. His heirs may also be rich and set for the future, but they can only feel as lucky leeches of legacy. It's no wonder so many silver spoons kids end up none too well. Furthermore, even though their rich forebear may have created a philanthropic foundation in which the descendants have a place, as its purpose is to serve generic humanity its overall impact is dissipating and enervating on the will of inheritors. With each passing generation, the purpose of the great man's legacy, his philanthropic foundation, is not to concentrate power for a specific goal but to spread the generosity around to various genteel leeches whose whole lives revolve around pretending to help humanity while mostly attending cocktail parties. Consider the sheer uselessness of the Ford Foundation or Carnegie Endowments. They are run by genteel hacks who dole out money to fashionable causes in accordance to trends defined by the Real Power. So, no matter how much someone may achieve in his lifetime, his individual will is a mere shooting star in the firmament of history. A mere flash in the night. An individual who only cares about himself fails to realize that he is part of a deeper history and heritage. A link between the past and future. When, as a rich older man, he compensates for a life of egotism and 'greed' by playing the role of philanthropist, he may end up doing some good for people, but generic good-works don't serve as the basis of power or true gratitude/loyalty. Do all the people who benefited from the Ford fortune, Carnegie grants, or Rockefeller charities really feel as part of the Ford, Carnegie, or Rockefeller tribe? Ta-Nehisi Coates got a big fat paycheck from the MacArthur Foundation, but does anyone think he gives a crap about MacArthur or his family? No, he was just happy to take the check and spend it on himself. His personal will is driven by what he feels about his own people, the blacks. Black tribalism defines what he is ultimately about. The Anglo rich, by creating such foundations, ended up doling out cash and favors to people who don't give a shit about the Anglo people or the Anglo individuals who'd done so much to create vast fortunes. It goes to show that the big fat ego cannot buy love or respect. No matter how much money an individualist makes, his message to the world is "I got mine, and you don't." He may try to buy the love of the world by spreading the money around, but the world just takes the money and sees through the big fat ego. Who really thinks of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Jeff Bezos as true humanitarians? And even if they were born-again saints, power dissipates when spread thin and wide across humanity, most of which feels nothing in common with the giver.

What about the collective will? The fates of communism and US labor movement illustrate the problems of collective will. Masses of workers or the Proletariat are too amorphous to form an effective long-term bloc. While members of the working class have a general interest, it is mainly materialist. Workers want decent wages and living conditions... and some recreation. That's what being a worker is about. It's about the basic needs of life and some fun on the side. That's all very good as economic interests go but, once realized, hardly serves as a potent and effective locus of identity, meaning, and purpose. Working class interests are more about conditions than consciousness. Workers want decent means to support themselves. There is no other meaning to being a worker. Off work, one hardly thinks about work. Work is something you do for money, not something you do for meaning. Communism failed because it put the workers at the center. Workers are essential to an economy but so are creators, visionaries, entrepreneurs, wheeler-dealers, bankers, and the like. So, while it's good for workers to operate with a certain amount of collective will, the interests of other classes must also be respected. After all, for there to be jobs for workers, there has to be businesses that hire workers. Without businessmen, workers must build their own industries, but most workers don't have the brain power or ingenuity to create industry. As mediocrities, they are only good for being hired and being told what to do. As communism forbade business, who ran the industries that employed workers? It was all up to the state, but the central government managing all the economy was bound to fail. Just imagine the City Hall trying to run all the hotels, restaurants, factories, trucking, medical centers, food marts, clothing shops, and the like, and you know why communism failed. Under communism, the collective will of the workers overrode the collective wills of other classes and professions. As such, there was no one left to create or run businesses. The only way was for the state to play the role of avant-garde of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but the idea of a centralized system effectively running just about everything was a pipe dream.

The US labor movement and unions were far less extreme than communism; the collective will of US workers existed in tandem with the collective interests of other classes and groups. Still, the weakness of collective will based on class or economic interests was well-demonstrated by American History as well. American workers paid their Union dues and went on strikes on occasion, but their only interest in work was to get paid so they could have some fun on the side. An Irishman is always Irish. At work or away from work, he is Irish. In contrast, work is meaningful only at work. An engineer who's on a boating trip is not functioning as an engineer. Work has meaning only as activity, not as identity. If an Irishman goes from being a truck driver to a welder, he still remains Irish. But with the new job, he is no longer a trucker. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that his kids will do what he does, especially in the modern world with more individual freedoms. There were societies where the son inherited the economic niche from his father. If the father was a blacksmith, the son was a blacksmith. But in modern society, the son of a working class man can become a middle class man. Or an upper-middle class man or even a very rich man as the result of intelligence, drive, ability, and/or luck. If your grandfather was a peddler, your father was an accountant, and you're an elite lawyer, would it make sense to base your sense of identity on your profession, which is so different from those of your pa and grandpa? On the other hand, if your identity is Irish, it doesn't matter what your ancestors did or what you do. All of you are part of the Irish people and heritage. Ethnic identity and sense of culture have meaning at and away from work. And at any kind of work. Ethnicity isn't determined by how much money you have or don't have. An Irishman doesn't lose his identity for being poor or for being rich. He could have a job or be jobless at the moment. He is Irish because he was born as such and raised in the culture of Ireland and its people.

Just as the collective will of workers cannot be the core identity, the same goes for the collective will of the ruling class. While rich people have common interests of their own, they are too few in number to indefinitely demand that society revolve around their interests. To e sure, most of history has been defined and dominated by ruling classes. But back then, prior to the rise of modernity, the elites were defined not only by wealth but lineage. Society wasn't so much ruled by oligarchs as by kings and aristocrats. We may look upon such system as oppressive and unfair by OUR standards, but the combination of wealth, privilege, and lineage lent some degree of stability to the social order. The masses were led to believe that their social betters and political superiors owed their advantage not merely to wealth and (threat of) violence but better breeding. The caste system went even further in India. The elites could dominate in such a world for many eons.
But this was no longer tenable in the modern world where the rise of capitalism dictated wealth shall be created by enterprise, investment, and innovation than by old privileges and honors. Capitalism soon replaced the old aristocracy with new bourgeoisie who became many times richer than the kings and dukes of old. And yet, unlike kings and noblemen who had titles of blood and honor that meant something even when they ran into misfortune — a fallen nobleman was still a nobleman with a valuable title — , the capitalist was nothing without success in the here-and-now. One could go from rags to riches, but if one returned to rags, he had NOTHING left. Also, unlike the old aristocratic order in which society hardly changed at all or changed very gradually, the modern capitalist world transformed right before one's eyes in so many fields. Consider the revolution of airplanes from World War I to World War II. Then consider the changes that soon led to white folks sending men to the Moon.

Next, consider the Tribal Will. Compared to individual will and collective will, it is far more resilient. 'Tribality' existed before you were born, it exists through you as you live, and it continues after you die, that is IF the people of the tribe see fit to keep the torch of history, heritage, and territoriality burning. It is both a matter of inheritance and work in progress as the living members of the Tribe continue to add to the power and prestige of the Tribe(or subtract if they're a bunch of dammies, pronounced 'dommies' and meaning people who aren't really dumb but act dumb). An individual, however great and powerful in his life, is nothing after he dies. Even if he is remembered as a great man by future generations, it'd be pointless to form a community and shared identity on the cult of individuality. Stalin was once the most powerful man on Earth, but is there an identity based on his cult of personality? While great individuals can play a founding role in a community, it must ultimately be about something far bigger than the individual. Abraham, legendary or mythical, received the Covenant for his people and future generations. It was more about God than his humble self. Indeed, God chose him precisely because he was humble and understood the larger picture: God is boss. Moses played a great role in Jewish History but, again, it was in service to God and agendas bigger than himself. He led his Tribe out of Egypt, and in the end, it didn't matter that he himself wasn't allowed into the Promised Land. His ultimate purpose was to serve God and his people. Thus, under the dynamics of Tribal Will, there can be great individuals doing great or awesome things, but the achievements are ultimately in service to the Tribe, to something bigger, longer, and deeper than any single individual. A Jewish tycoon who doesn't care one iota about Jewishness and has accumulated lots of money only for self-aggrandizement has acted on individual will. And even if he later turns philanthropist and spreads the dough around, it's still about individual will, a publicity stunt to boost his ego as not only a man of money but man of heart. His various donations will eventually turn into dead-ends. Unlike tribalism that concentrates the amassed force into a spear-tip that can push forth and penetrate just about anything, philanthropism leads to the dissolution of one's wealth and power toward disjointed and contradictory goals. While philanthropy can do lots of social good — that was certainly the case with Andrew Carnegie — , it shouldn't be the highest purpose for a man of success. Tribalism is about investing in the future of your people with a deep past and dangerous future(as nothing is certain in life). Individualism, even when it is most generous and 'selfless', ends up investing in strangers who ultimately don't care for you and your kind. If a rich Anglo man gives all his wealth to Mexicans, Iranians, Hindus, Chinese, blacks, Arabs, and globalist shills, the takers will smile and say "thank you", but they will soon run off with the money and not give a crap about the donor or his race. If anything, some will only demand MORE while others will find the rich white man to have gone soft in the head. While giving to the poor of any race can lead to good results, such charity should not be the ultimate meaning of one's life. It should be about one's sense of race, culture, history, and territoriality and about one's investment of thought, energy, and money toward preserving that which is most precious and valuable. Everyone needs to think primarily in terms of his covenant with his people and his people's covenant with race, culture, and history.

Contrast the behavior of Anglo elites and Jewish elites, especially since the end of World War II. While both elites donated to humanitarian causes that benefited members outside their tribe, Anglo ethos(that was increasingly guided by Christian guilt-redemption-universalism, Enlightenment principles, and/or capitalist-individualism) moved away and then against the mind-set of Anglo identity, white unity, and racial consciousness. So, it didn't matter how rich and highly positioned these men were. Even though they were powerful white men, they invested in a future where whiteness would merely exist to meld with rest of humanity on the basis of individuality(among libertarians) or in service to cults such as 'Diversity'(among so-called 'progressives').
Jews were different. Even as Jews promoted 'anti-racism' & Diversity-mania among white goyim and claimed to embrace those ideals, their main emphasis was that Jews should focus on preserving & expanding Jewish Power and, furthermore, making goyim serve, defend, and expand Jewish Power. When we survey the Power Trajectory in the US since the end of World War II, which group has fallen and which group has risen? Just ask yourself, how did Anglo-Americans, once the titans of America, turn into a bunch of sappy-head cucky-wucks while the Jews, though only 2% of the population, came to dominate just about every sphere of American Power? And what happened to the white working class that relied mostly on collective will of class interests? They ended up worst of all. While individual will(especially those of the gifted and intelligent) and collective will(especially those of the working masses of mediocrities) tend to butt heads, Tribal Will can serve as the glue that binds the opposites. This was the key to the success of National Socialism, possibly the best ideology of the 20th century IF NOT for the fact of Hitler's pathological cult of personality and the ideology's cancerous growth into Neo-Germanic Imperialism. Tribal Will can accommodate individual will and collective will. If communism suppressed individual will, National Socialism encouraged it AS LONG AS the talented individuals were for the race, culture, and nation. National Socialism also understood that most people without special ability in intelligence or ability. They are masses of workers, but as part of the volk, they must be treated as national brethren. Besides, the mind is nothing without the body. If communism is war by the body against the mind and if libertarianism is war by the mind against the body, fascism developed as a search and struggle for unity of the mind and body. The main reason why Jews came to hate fascism was it made goyim acutely aware of the secret formula that made Jews so resilient and powerful. After all, the Jewish Covenant had an element of ethno-spiritual 'fascism' in binding ALL Jews, big and small, as a special people with unique history and destiny. Even though Jews pushed communism(which amounted to white workers against white owners) and libertarianism(which amounted to white owners & elites against white masses) on goyim, their own chosen mode for the Tribe was neither. Zionism or the Zionic Worlview focused the Jewish mind and will, consciously and subconsciously, on consolidating the existence of Jews and preparing the expansion of Jewish Power.

Jews understand that most of power is latent or unthinking. No matter how powerful it may be as a mass-of-force, it has no will or agency of its own. Take generals, soldiers, and all the tanks/ships/planes/bombs. That's a lot of mass of power, but soldiers and tanks don't decide what wars to fight and when and why. They remain at peace until ordered to fight. It's like a horse. It is many times bigger and stronger than a man, but it has no Directional Power, which is with the rider. The direction in which the horse moves is decided by the rider, the smaller-and-weaker human but with greater intelligence and will. In any power dynamics, one must ask, "Who is the rider, who is the horse?" Who or what embodies the mass-of-power but without will or agency, and who or what controls the direction-of-that-power or the Directional Power. In the most basic sense, the bosses are the 'rider' and the employees are the 'horse', but it's not that simple when we see the big picture. While higher officers give orders to lower officers who give orders to soldiers, the fact is ALL of the military is one big horse to the so-called 'civilian government' that is really a tool of the oligarchs and elites who now happen to be Jewish. In other words, the entirety of the US military is a great mass-of-power but without any will or agency of its own that is controlled by the so-called 'civilian government', the politicians and bureaucrats of which are controlled financially and/or ideologically by the Jewish globalist elites.
Among Jews, the biggest power is not with the biggest money-men. While the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg are richer than just about all other Jews and have a lot of pull, they know they are part of something much bigger, which is Jewishness and Jewish Power that are represented by Zion and modern Jewish thinkers, ideologues, and strategists who serve as modern-day Moses, Daniels, and Davids. As such, even the richest Jews defer to the Jews of Meaning and Strategy. Profits serve the prophets. Because Jewish individuality, no matter how successful or egotistical, is subordinate to the Jewish Covenant and Power, the primary Will among Jews is Tribal. Of course, Jews are mono-tribalists, a problematic matter for Jews and non-Jews. If Jews were poly-tribalists or poly-nationalists, they could respect other tribes and nations, all the while demanding that their own tribe and nationality be respected in turn. They could co-exist with other groups on the basis of mutuality. But just like the Jewish God couldn't tolerate other gods — He insisted He is the one and only God — , the Jewish Tribal Will has operated on the conviction that Jews and only Jews belong to the one true Tribe. All other tribes, those of goyim, are false tribes just like all pagan gods are false idols. So, non-Jews mustn't think in terms of their own tribal identity and interests. They exist only to serve the Jewish Tribe, the only true Tribe. This is why Jewish Power is so perplexing and/or frustrating to non-Jews who insist on honesty and consistency. Why is it that Jews who make such stink about the evils of tribalism are so utterly demanding upon all goyim to honor, obey, and serve the Jewish Tribe? On the surface, it is so hypocritical for Jews to argue thus, and yet, at another level, it all makes sense and is consistent with the Jewish priority of "Is it good for Jews?" It fails the consistency test as ethical principle but passes with flying colors the strategic test. After all, the thing in war is to do ANYTHING, especially by deception, to win and come out on top over the enemies.

Anglo-Americans once possessed something like tribal will. It was about Anglo-American identity. But due to immigration from non-Anglo parts of Europe, the emphasis went from ANGLO-American to Anglo-AMERICAN, i.e. Non-Anglo-Americans who adopted the Anglo-American way were accepted as fellow countrymen. In a way, the merging of Anglo-Americanism with Ethno-Americanism made America stronger. If various nations were often contentious and often at war in Old Europe, white folks of all stripes merged into one as 'Americans'. Because Anglo-Americans got a head-start in America politically, economically, intellectually, culturally, and demographically, they could absorb and 'conquer' all white immigrants, even non-Anglo ones. Non-Anglo whites arrived en masse to be mentally conquered by the Anglos-as-founders-and-builders-of-America. The Ancient Romans, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Poles, and etc. all had failed to create a united Europe. While certain nationals were more powerful in Europe in certain periods and conquered & ruled over others, the conquered folks never felt as one with the conquerors and, if anything, hoped for emancipation from foreign rule. Also, when one power got too big, the weaker powers united to bring it down. Napoleonic France was brought down by alliance of Britain and Russia. Germany was surrounded by alliance of France, Britain, and Russia. Of course, the British played an anti-gravitational role in continental politics by aiding the weaker powers against the most dominant at any given moment. At any rate, the failure of the various European empires is testament to the fact that no single power was prestigious enough to win the loyalties of the conquered who weren't willing to surrender their own identities to merge with the imperial one. Even the mighty Romans failed at this in the long run. For one thing, the conquered people felt that foreigners were occupying their turf, the homeland of their forebears. So, even as they collaborated with the empire, their true dream was to be liberated and regain sovereignty. Especially as there was precious little mobility for most people who lived and died pretty much near where they were born, an alien presence of a foreign power wasn't well regarded.

But America was different. For one thing, all the non-Anglo-white immigrants had no claim to the land, which had been taken from the American Indians. (The Mormons did try to fashion a Narrative that aligned New World history with the Old World one, but that was mostly for kooks. Besides, Mormons were mostly Anglo.) If Anglos had occupied the European homelands of non-Anglos, the latter would have resisted. But the dynamics of loyalty in Anglo-America was different because non-Anglos freely chose to emigrate to it, one they hoped and presumed to be superior to their own nations. As such, they were in no position to complain about Anglo-American dominance. After all, there was a reason why they chose to leave their homelands for Anglo-America. There was more land, more opportunity, more freedom, more dignity for the common man, and more rule of law. They felt that the American Way was preferable to their own, at least when it came to political rule, liberty, personal dignity, and of course property rights. Also, as Babelic ethnic immigrants came from various nations, what they all had in common was that they rejected their own homeland to seek new freedom and fortunes in America. Besides, Anglo-Americans themselves had set the template of divorce from the Old World. Even as Anglo-America was, in so many ways, a continuation of Anglo Civilization, it also represented a break founded on the mythology of brave liberty-loving colonialists who had had just about enough of British tyranny and struggled for independence, a clear break from the Old Ways. Thus, every act of immigration was like a personal revolution, a choice made by the immigrant to break free of his homeland, reject his heritage, and start anew as a free 'American' with a host of new opportunities. (As most European nations were non-democratic and dominated by elite minority of aristocrats and oligarchs who'd already gobbled up most of the land and wealth, many European common-folk came to associate their own nations with tyranny and poverty. Their main concerns that molded their core consciousness were political and economic than tribal and patriotic. Patriotism in many cases was a hard sell because the elites themselves were more interested in their own wealth and privilege than the national good. Aristocratic legacy had the elites looking upon the masses as subjects than as national brethren, and in some ways, capitalism made things worse as the bourgeoisie were even more wealth-obsessed than the old aristocracy. Furthermore, as capitalism often favored Jews or foreign investors over national elites, it further fostered division between capital and workers. It's no wonder that so many working masses in Europe turned to socialism or emigration as the way out of dire conditions. It was either socialism at home by forcing the elites to share more with the people or capitalism in America where even a common man could own land or start a business as a citizen with rights. Either way, their main concern was materialist and personal than tribal/national. They were even willing to give up their own nation and culture for better material life and more personal freedom abroad. Also, in some ways, national consciousness paradoxically grew weaker just when national self-rule was coming to define Modern Europe. A people under foreign rule are likely to care more about their national identity. They hunger for national liberation like a hungry man dreams of bread and wine. When Greeks were under Turkish rule, they dreamed of national independence. Greeks in Greece and abroad did what they could to hasten the emergence of free Greece from Ottoman Tyranny. And many other Europeans shared similar hopes and dreams. But once they gained national independence throughout the 19th century and 20th century, they became less and less nationally conscious. Compare Irish national consciousness under British Imperialism compared and how it fared since independence. The fulfillment of the national dream made the Irish ever less concerned with national matters — for awhile, only the issue of Northern Ireland kept the Irish concerned about national identity. They came to take the existence of Ireland for granted because they no longer had to struggle for it. Yet, such a lax and lowered guard meant that Ireland became ever more infested with foreign influences of all kinds... and now the much deracinated Irish are just like deracinated cucky-wuck Britons in worshiping globo-homo, Diversity, degeneracy, and abortion as right of hedonism. Just like a satiated man no longer thinks of food, a nationally liberated people tend to think less of nationalism, and that means their nations can be slyly taken from them by globalists who lull them with hedonism and the neo-religion of PC that instills goy nationals with the notion that anything related to blood-and-soil is evil. Some people say Jews lack a sense of honor because they hadn't an aristocratic heritage, but one advantage of Jewishness was the emphasis on the Covenant and the unity of all Jews as equally precious in the eyes of God. In contrast, the aristocratic mindset of the goyim led to elites feeling as superiors and the masses feeling as inferiors. As elite/noble bloodlines were regarded as distinct from those of the masses, it led to a kind of intra-'racism' among the people of the same nation. It was bound to lead to distrust and resentment, which is perhaps why goy elites are more likely to cuck and collaborate with foreign/alien powers while goy masses are more likely to switch allegiances to the New Boss, like when German-Americans and Japanese-Americans sided with Anglo-America against their own nations of origin. Can anyone imagine Jewish-Americans siding with an America that turns anti-Israel or anti-Jewish? It was precisely because Jews understood America to be en Empire of Treason — people from all over the world becoming 'Americans' and supporting the US empire against nations of their own origin — that they made sure that Americanism = Zionism, thereby making it less likely that the American Empire will call upon 'good decent patriotic' Americans to support the War against Zion or Jewish Power. Indeed, in some ways, the rise of Marxism-Communism among Jews had to do with the fact that many intellectual and less fortunate Jews felt betrayed by rich bourgeois Jews, who soon got the message, which is why Jewish capitalists soon forged alliances with Jewish leftists. Jewish profiteers know they better take care of the Jewish would-be-prophets lest the latter turn on them with hellfire and brimstone. In the Coens movie HAIL, CAESAR!, the Jewish writers, the would-be-prophets, are bitter that they are insufficiently respected by Jewish Hollywood moguls and act as communist subversives, akin to heretical Jews who became the Early Christians. But over time, Jewish Money took good care of the Jewish Mind, and since then, the so-called Jewish Left expends most of its time and energy on supporting Jewish Power. Another reason why Jews are stronger in nationalism is they were later than Europeans to have a nation of their own, and their nation, Israel, is tiny and surrounded by hostile powers. One could argue that many Europeans weren't truly nationally independent until the fall of USSR, but even under Soviet rule, the borders of republics such as Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Armenia, and etc. were acknowledged as autonomous. If the point of Americanism was to turn everyone into an 'American', Sovietism was not about turning non-Russians into 'Russians' but allowing them to be autonomous in culture and territory to a large degree. Sovietism was about shared ideology, not shared identity, whereas Americanism was about erasure of Old World identities to take on the new identity as 'Americans'. Nations under the Iron Curtain, such as Poland and Hungary, were still recognized as separate entities with their own folks, governments, and national priorities. In contrast, there was no Jewish nation until the creation of Israel, and just about the entire Jewish Narrative of Zionism has been "Poor little Israel surrounded by hostile forces and struggling to survive". And the Holocaust Cult informs Jews that, "It may happen all over again, new hitlers are just around the corner, and so, Jews must think in terms of Jews, Jews, Jews and Never Again." Such sense of tribal vulnerability will do wonders for National Consciousness.)

As Anglo-Americans had set the template for this liberation/independence or treachery/treason — depending on how one looked at it — , ethnic white immigrants were far more likely to cut ties with their national origins and allegiances. Besides, humans are largely materialist and hedonistic creatures, and there was no doubt that the bountifulness of land and resources — and the managerial skills of Anglo-Americans and Germanic-Americans — meant far better living standards than in the Old World. One might say it was a form of bribery, but More Money has always been effective as enticement. The overall effect was like shared amnesia, and America became like 'Amnesirica'. Memory tends to divide. Amnesia tends to unite. This was especially true in Europe where various ethnic groups had bitter memories of the Other. Indeed, national passions were often founded on how WE were attacked by THEM or how WE beat THEM. To this day, Greeks and Turks have bitter feelings about one another due to historical memory. And Russians and Poles still regard each other in relation to the past, with both sides feeling wronged or wrongfully accused. If two guys often fought, their memory will keep them divided. But if we could wipe their memories clean, they have a far better chance of getting along. Americanism had that effect on the various white groups. Sure, some animosities did linger, and new ones developed in America, what with the Irish, Italians, Anglos, Poles, and other ethnic groups not always seeing eye to eye and contesting for the bigger slice of the pie. Still, as all of them adopted American-style English or 'Ameringlish' as their primary language, were brought up with Anglo-American Narrative as the national mythos, attended the same schools & played on the same playgrounds & baseball diamonds, and developed a self-image based on Popular Culture(all the more so with the advent of radio, cinema and television), they eventually became more-or-less One People. Also, there was the impact of the sexual melting pot, as so many whites married across ethnic lines. As Irish might marry Poles who might marry Italians and etc, it was Catholicism than ethnicity that came to matter most in their sense of who they were. But in the long run, Christianity as identity was bound to fail as it's a credo-religion than a ethnic one, like Hinduism or Judaism. The collective amnesia that defined America led to great things, something impossible in Europe with deep memories that were rich and meaningful but full of bitterness and distrust.

But if culture and civilization are about memory and heritage, then the American Experiment had a dark and tragic side. All that amnesia led to greater unity but also a certain generic blandness to Americanism that eventually came to be about consumerism, hedonism, libertine-ism, trend-ism, and fashion-ism. For too many people, Americanism came to mean stuffing yourself with turkey on Thanksgiving, setting off firecrackers on Fourth of July, and Black Friday madness to start off the holiday season. Anglo-Americans, in order to accommodate non-Anglo whites, came to reject too much of their own cultural and historical essence. Over time, Anglo-Americanism survived only as country club class snobbery among the elites, preening 'progressive' do-goodery among the educated, and moonshine-swilling hillbilly antics among the unwashed. Or, it was the Texan specialty of the deep-fried ice cream. As for non-Anglos, their effort at assimilation meant the loss of their pungent cultures of origin. In their admiration for Anglo-America, they chose to become ersatz Anglo/Americans and became valuable citizens of the nation. As the result, their identities with deep roots were almost instantly forgotten and cast away. Still, it could have been a happy story, more or less. Great gain at great loss but a gain nevertheless. But three factors destroyed the Dream of Amnesirica: Blacks, Jews, and Neo-Imperialism.

Two major groups in the US had legitimate gripes against Anglo-America. American Indians obviously because their lands were taken by Anglo-Americans. Still, as American Indians were too few in number and remained mostly on Reservations(and had a rather stolid countenance like Chief Broom in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST), they came to play an insignificant role in the American Conversation. In contrast, blacks constituted the largest racial minority. Unlike ethnic whites who arrived as free men and were provided with opportunities by Anglo-America, blacks were brought over as slaves. Sure, one could argue that blacks also gained a lot by coming to America. After all, they'd been jungle-jive savages in the Dark Continent. In certain respects, one could argue that blacks benefited the most by far from being brought to America even if they started out as slaves because they underwent an instant transition from primitive savagery to participation in the most advanced civilization. Even if ethnic immigrants hadn't come to America, they still would have had civilization in Old Europe, and indeed, living standards rapidly improved in Europe as well as in America at roughly the same time. In contrast, if blacks had been left in Africa, they would have been nothing but jungle-jivers chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums.
That said, blacks were brought over as slaves and made to pick too much cotton. And if they got 'uppity', they got whipped until they said their name is Toby than Kunta. Also, whites got into the habit of calling them 'niggers', which wasn't very nice. Besides, as blacks had been brought to the US before the Revolutionary War of Independence, they developed roots in America, something that couldn't be said for ethnic immigrants who arrived en masse in the late 19th century and early 20th century. And those roots filled blacks with bitterness, not unlike the kind of bitterness found among peoples of Europe in relation to other more powerful nations/peoples. More problematically, Anglo-American idiots brought over a race that happened to be stronger, wilder, and more aggressive. As a result, whites had to be extra-brutal at times to maintain order among blacks. It's like you have to assert greater authority if you're raising big wild animals than if you're raising dogs. Dogs will obey and listen. But wild animals tend to be defiant and erratic, and so the human master must go the extra step to teach them who is boss. As wilder blacks instinctively sensed that they could beat up the white boy and hump the white woman, they were more bound to act jiggity. White men sensed this as well, which is why they felt they had to lynch a black thug in an especially gruesome way on occasion to send a clear message to blacks not to mess around. If a cat scratches you, you can ignore it. But if a puma growls and acts threatening, you have to remind it who is boss because it can do real harm if it grows bolder. The combination of wild black nature, bitter black memory, and explosive black demographics(quite large and with higher birthrate than whites) threatened to undermine the American Project. Also, a nation isn't just about individuals but idols, the mytho-champions people look up to as the embodiment of the nation's glory. As sports came to dominate American Culture, the black takeover of sports threatened to undermine White American Identity and Pride. How could the US be an extension and even the greatest culmination of Western Civilization while having jigger-jiving blacks as its main champions, heroes, and idols? Blacks were winning the contest of idol-imperialism or idol-hegemony. In that sense, ethnic white immigration was a blessing as growing white numbers ensured that whites would remain the dominant majority in the foreseeable future.

Still, despite the Black Problem, blacks were good only at certain things. Apart from sports and music & dance, they weren't good for much else. And being generally less intelligent than whites, they had little chance of taking over the uppermost levers of power. In contrast, Jews had intelligence higher than most whites. Also, there was the matter of personality. Though Episcopalian Anglos were noted to have IQs equal to that of Jews, their personality was weaker than Jewish personality that was brazen, shameless, and obsessive in its passive/aggressive drive for more and more. If Anglos were adventurous, Jews were insatiable. When it came to power, Anglos liked to hunt the animal, Latins liked to cook the meat, and Jews liked to eat the food.
More importantly, Jews were one people who could not and did not take part in 'Amnesirica'. After all, Jews were nothing without memory, especially in exile as, without the cult of memory, they would forget who they were/are, possibly become Christian or Muslim, and just assimilate & fade into the rest of humanity. Jews kept their identity through compulsive resilience of memory. This meant a deep and rich appreciation of their history & heritage, which was admirable, but it also meant Jews had a long memory of grievances and hatreds, especially as the Jewish Narrative made the Goyim the Perennial Villain in all Jewish-Goy conflicts. So, Jews didn't come to America with a mere chip on their shoulder but the entire tree and all its roots. And yet, Jews understood the value of Amnesirica. While the goyim would lose their original core identities and grow weaker, Jews would keep their own and remain strong. Jews would urge increased amnesia on the goyim while clinging to their own memory. If goyim were to remember anything, it would be determined by Jews who would take over media and history departments. Just as Jews wrote ancient history to fit their narrative in the Torah, they would Torah-ize Western History by selecting, deleting, emphasizing, and/or marginalizing the past in accordance to "Is it good for Jews?" It's like Jewish psychoanalysts sought to gain control over their clients by interpretation of memory. In some cases, Jewish mind-doctors sought to plant certain memories while wiping clean others. It's like the technology of memory-wiping in ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND. Or consider how the corrupt cop manipulates the 'hero' in MEMENTO by messing with his faulty memory.


All of academia, media, and so much of technology are used by Jews to mess with our memory. Jews at BBC and other European Media are now working to convince whites that European History was filled with blacks and non-blacks. Mythic or historical Figures like Julius Caesar, Lancelot, and Achilles have been made black. In a way, Jews fear the idea of whiteness as a race because it is the element of race that binds Northern Europeans(who were later to come to civilization) with the glories of Southern Europe that built high civilization in ancient times in conflict and concert mostly with the Near East and North Africa. In ancient times, Greeks admired Persians and Egyptians far more than Northern Europeans who were deemed barbaric and backward. Romans felt much the same way. Even as Romans defeated Egyptians and the tribes of the Near East, they respected them as fellow-civilized folks. In contrast, they regarded the Germanic and Celtic folks as barbaric and backward. So, purely from a cultural and civilizational perspective, one could argue that the Ancient Greeks and Romans belong in the shared cultural sphere with Jews, Persians, Arabs, North Africans and the like. After all, Christianity developed as a fusion of Jewish, Roman, Greek, and Syrian cultural, philosophical, political, and spiritual forces/elements. Then, how did Northern Europe come to be associated with the glories of Greece and Rome? Why did Greco-Roman classical civilization come to be grouped with Northern Europeans, who played hardly any role in its birth and development. Greeks, for instance, borrowed ideas from Egyptians, Persians, and Phoenicians but hardly any from Europeans-to-the-North who were mainly captured and used as slaves.

The reasons are twofold. First, for whatever reason or circumstance, the achievements of the Greeks and Romans came to flow more upward than southward or eastward. Possibly, the Egyptians and Persians were less enamored of Greco-Roman arts and culture because they had illustrious and proud cultural capital of their own. After all, Egyptians and Persians built awesome monuments and produced great art works long before Greeks built their first cities. In contrast, Northern Europeans lacked a notable civilization or any kind of civilization at all, and they were understandably impressed by the achievements of Classical Antiquity of the Greco-Roman World. The relative cultural vacuum of Northern Europeans led to the rapid spread of Greco-Roman arts and designs in their world. Also, especially with the spread of Islam that came to dominate North Africa and the Near East, Christianity became, for a long stretch in history, essentially a European religion. But there was also the factor of Race. While one could argue that the Greeks and even certain Romans were as close to many peoples of the Near East as to the Northern Europeans — there are plenty of people in Turkey, Syria, and Iran who resemble Greeks and Southern Italians — , the art works of the Greeks and Romans clearly show that they were essentially European in feature. Even though there are many peoples in North Africa and the Near East who look European(and are indeed genetically close to Europeans), those parts of the world became more racially mixed with non-Europeans over the centuries. On those grounds, one could make a racial case that, even though Ancient Greeks and Romans had more cultural interaction with Semites and Hamitic peoples of Near East and North Africa, they were nevertheless racially closer to Northern and Eastern Europeans. It's like Japan led the way in opening to the West and, for awhile, leaned more to the West in culture and ideas in the 20th century, but they are racially closer to Chinese and Mongols than to Germans and English. To the extent that Greek and Roman genius wasn't merely a matter of borrowing from non-white folks but igniting a unique spark within the European soul(that transformed foreign influences into uniquely European expressions), one could argue that the achievements of the Greeks and Romans did represent, at least for a time, the particularity of the European soul. And perhaps one reason why the Greco-Roman legacy was so appealing to other Europeans was it struck a chord with their deeper nature. Besides, any European was more likely to identify with figures in Greek and Roman sculptures than non-Europeans who might admire the craft and creativity but not feel as one with the figures. Likewise, when Europeans wondered at the great sculptures and temples of India and Cambodia, they were filled with admiration but knew that the stone figures were representatives of other races. Europeans could admire the particularity of genius but couldn't claim it. In contrast, any white person who looks at an ancient Greek or Roman statue feels a sense of identification.
Oddly enough, because Europeans became Christians and drew inspiration from the Bible, they applied classical European features to the Semitic figures of Jewish history and tradition. Along with paintings of Jesus, the Neo-Classical sculptures of figures like Moses and David created the impression of Jews as part of the white race. In a way, Jews were flattered(not least because they prefer 'Aryan' looks over Semitic ones), but in another way, they were offended because European aesthetics, especially beginning with the Renaissance, began the process of 'whitening' non-white figures. In a way, it was like what Jews are doing to European History nowadays by having blacks and other non-whites play white roles in TV shows and movies commemorating the past. For Jews, it's sweet revenge. Europeans 'aryanized' Jesus and other Jewish figures, and now Jews return the favor by Africanizing not only the future of Europe but its past as well. Henceforth, BBC and other European TV channels are committed to making historical programs that feature blacks and non-whites as crucial players in past European History.

Another reason for the failure of Amnesirican Experiment was the spirit of imperialism that never went away. Despite the American mythology of resisting British Imperialism to create a Republic committed to justice and freedom, America exists only because of the British Empire. Also, white Americans couldn't resist gobbling up more and more land to the West all the way up to the Pacific Ocean and taking a huge chunk of Mexico. US also tried to take Canada, but the War of 1812 ended in stalemate. Still, over time, Canada essentially became the front yard of America, just as Latin America became its back yard. Now, given the vastness of America and its riches, one might think Anglo-Americans and other white Americans would have been satisfied. One might think they would have been grateful for having more than enough to live in a safe, secure, and bountiful nation, especially with the addition of Alaska bought at a pittance from the stupid Russians. But the very spirit that made America possible in the first place never faded away. This restless drive made the US dominate Latin America. Then, it made the US seek new imperial possession across the Pacific in Asia. This led to war with Japan, which the US won, making it the premier naval power in all of the Pacific. The departure of European imperialists also created a vacuum for America to fill, especially as communism engulfed China. Smaller Asian nations, fearing the communist behemoth, welcomed US imperialists as protectors. Also, American Imperialism was more palatable to the locals as Americans were more open, doled out more money, and were more generous with an economic policy that allowed both sides to profit, with the caveat that Asian nations in the empire take their political orders from the US. So, Japan and Singapore could become rich, but they pretty much surrendered political sovereignty to the US and became military dependents of the empire.
This state of affairs might have been stable for the foreseeable future except the fact that the US ended up with a new boss. The US-Asian relations were established when the US was essentially an Anglo-American-dominated White Christian nation. But the mutual understanding and contract between the US and Asia are being undone and redefined in a radical way because Jews are the new elites of the US. Jews seek to alter the premise of the old understanding/contract between the US and Asia. The old contract was between majority power and majority power. For instance, Anglo-American rulers and elites regarded themselves as representatives of White Christian majority America, and they had no problem with, say, Japan being a Japanese-majority nation ruled by Japanese elites. White rulers representing the white majority came to terms with yellow rulers representing yellow majorities. But Jews hate the idea of goy majority power in the US. They constitute the minority-elite, and their design for America is More Diversity via Mass Immigration-invasion so that there shall no longer be a majority in the US to challenge the minority-supremacism of Jews. In time, every racial and ethnic group will be a minority, and Jews plan on ruling over all of them via divide-and-rule. As Jews have designs on EU as well, they've pushed Americanization or, more precisely, Amnesiricanization on that part of the world. Jews want the borders among European nations to be eroded, followed by fading of borders between Europe and the Middle East & Africa. It is then no wonder that Jews are pushing feminism, minority-elitist globo-homo craze, and mass immigration on the East as well. If the old white majority elites had no problems with Japan as a Japanese-majority nation, Jewish globalist minority elites are pushing Diversity on Japan. And of course, Jews push globo-homo stuff because vain homos in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea represent sexual minorities who are more than willing to collaborate with a foreign power for their own self-aggrandizement. Same goes for US and Europe. When US was ruled by white majority elites, they had no problem with Germany being a majority German nation governed by German elites, or with UK being British and ruled by white majority elites for white majority masses. But as Jews became the masters of the US, the center of the West, the new decree to all European nations has been that they must favor and prioritize the minority — Jews, homos, and non-white immigrants — over the native white majority.

Indeed, the new core morality of whites is to praise, protect, and promote Jews, homos, and Diversity over whites who are increasingly associated with 'racism' and 'Nazism'. With the world being turned upside down as the result of dictates and decrees of an ever-imperialist US, the quasi-utopian dream of Amnesirica is no more. Instead, there is Empirica. If not for the Jewish factor and the restless ur-imperialist element, it's possible that Amnesirica could have been content with itself as a safe and secure republic that has more than enough to sustain itself in peaceful relations with the rest of the world. A land of lotus-eaters lacking in a deep sense of roots and origins but peaceful and prosperous. Imagine a Jew-free America where both Anglo-Americans and Ethno-Americans agreed to be nice, generic, and bland White People. But Jews did arrive, and they were not going to become fellow lotus-eaters. They were going to remain tribal carnivores or leeches and exploit the dissipation of identity and memory among goy whites. While whites were opting for either individual will or collective will, Jews were resolved to keep with Tribal Will.
In a way, it's understandable why Jews weren't willing to forget. Even as they found better and safer lives in the US for themselves, they felt anxious about Jews in other parts of the world. An Italian in America didn't worry about Italians in Italy. After all, Italians were masters in their own nation at least. Likewise, there was no need for Swedish Americans to worry about Swedes in Sweden. But Jews were minorities in all of Europe, and in some nations, especially those in the East, there were explosions of violence against Jews. Even in peacetime, the fact that Jews were minorities held in suspicion and even hostility by European populations made American Jews more eager to press upon the US to DO SOMETHING about world affairs to make it safer for Jews. Back then, many Jews were mainly worried about the well-being of fellow Jews, and this concern was understandable as there were hardly any taboos against 'antisemitism' back then. Today, as masters of the US and EU, Jews make the US play a more aggressive role as the mega-instrument of Jewish supremacist power. Hundred years ago, Jews were pleading with the US to "protect more Jews". Today, Jews are pressing upon the US to "kill more 'enemies of Zion'" wherever they exist in the world. And who are these 'enemies'? Any nation or any people that dare to defy the Jew World Order.

Whatever one thinks of Jews, they are animated by Tribal Will. It is this Will that makes Jews win. Of course, Jews play dirty, fast and loose with the rules. But even if Jews played it absolutely fairly, they would still win against a people without the tribal will. As David Duke said in the video "How Zionists Divide and Conquer", athletes who play as a team will beat athletes who play as individuals. Even if those with team spirit and those without it play totally in accordance to the rules and don't commit a single foul, the former will defeat the latter. If everyone on a basketball team prioritizes his own scoring at the expense of teamwork, his side will lose to the side with team spirit. For most of American history, Anglo-Americans had a kind of tribal will. As Christians with universalist ethos, individualists & freedom-lovers, and social reformers, they didn't have a sense of identity, history, and unity as powerful as those of the Jews, but they nevertheless operated on the basis of sensible race-ism that bound the people together. Consider how, after the Civil War, most whites in the North understood that they were closer to White Southerners than to blacks. Even Abraham Lincoln who emancipated the black slaves felt far more camaraderie with southern whites than with the blacks.
At the crossroads of American History, Anglo-Americans(who set the template for the rest of the white race) had to choose tribal race-ism over rules-based-order or rules-based-order over race-ism. It wasn't a matter of either/or but one-over-the-other. Anglo-Americans could have both race-ism and rules-based-order, and it was really a matter of which one took precedence over the other. It's like one can be for both peace and war. The choice is not between pacifism(that rejects all wars) and warmongering(that itches for just about any war). Rather, the question is which should have precedence. Faced with conflict, should one opt for peaceful means before they are exhausted and war becomes inevitable OR should one go for immediate aggression on the belief that quick victory(if possible) is the best way for peace? At the crossroads of American History, Anglo-Americans had to choose between making the rules ultimately serve a proud White America or making White America serve the universality of rules, even if it may well endanger the future of White America.
Anglo-Americans opted for a rule-based-order, and again, this might have worked if the US had no Jews(and better yet also no blacks) and was made up only of Anglo-Americans and Ethno-goy-Americans. Anglo-Americans, with their power and success, could have served as the model for Ethno-Americans who would have adopted Anglo-American values and principles. And they all could have gotten along in a rule-based system. But there were Jews and blacks. Without race-ism to limit the cold logic of rules, blacks were bound to beat up whites in sports and gain dominance. Thus, black success in sports came to represent a new kind of racial supremacism. The message was 'blacks kick white ass, so whites should kiss black ass'. The rejection of white racial domination only led to black racial domination as national idols.
And of course, Jews weren't willing to surrender and submit to the rule-based-order but to exploit it for all it was worth to push their own tribal agenda. They could do this because they forged for themselves the Holocaust Moral Pass that gave them license of racial 'exceptionality' and unity that was denied to other white groups. So, if whites chose the rule-based-order and decided to operate as individuals in accordance to meritocracy and rule of law — 'may the best man win' — , Jews were hellbent on playing as a team, like the mafia.

Anglo-American elites became most interested in the role of referee. They were most committed to calling foul on those who didn't play by the rules. They became less interested in the game of winning than in making sure that all sides, including their own, played by the rules. And perhaps, such a strict rule-based-order might not have been so bad for whites who are generally among the most talented people in the world. But referees don't have the ultimate power. They can be fired. They can be pressured to favor one team over the other. They can be corrupted with bribes. They can be blackmailed. Also, there was no guarantee that Constitution-loving Anglo-Americans will always preside and dominate as referees. Certain Anglo-Americans, with the virtue-vanity of 'white guilt', felt it was only right to call foul on whites while letting blacks easy via programs like Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact. Later, more and more Jews took over as referees in media, courts, & law firms, and these verminous Jews were brazen in their bias and prejudice in favor of Jewish Power(and of course Israel). If Jews really care about the Constitution and Rule of Law, why are they so committed to using their firepower to shut down BDS and justice for Palestinians? Why don't they speak up against US foreign policy that rewards Israel with countless billions in aid even though Israel has hundreds of illegal nukes while punishing Iran with ruthless sanctions even though Iran has no nukes? Anglo-Americans came to think in terms of 'follow the rules' whereas Jews thought in terms of 'WE must rule'. Anglo-Americans came to prioritize conscience whereas Jews were all about conviction. But in the end, even conscience bends under the weight of conviction. Conscience reacts to abuse of power whereas conviction reaches for more power. In the end, those with more power decide who are to be chosen as politicians, appointed as judges, hired as lawyers, or promoted as academics & journalists who get to serve as our eyes and ears. It's like most true artists lose out to the often trashy and vulgar entertainment industry that makes most money and gets to decide what most people see and hear. True conscience loses out to Official Conscience that isn't real conscience but merely the pseudo-moralistic voice or megaphone of the Power. Take the New York Times that yammers endlessly about right-and-wrong but mostly offers moral cover to Jewish supremacist rulers of the US(and by extension the World). Would the NYT or institutions like Harvard hire truly independent minds that might speak truth to power? Whatever one thinks of Chris Hedges — I don't much like him — , he is more motivated by conscience than most journalists are, and guess what? When his reporting became too inconvenient to Jews who control MSM, he was fired in favor of malleable hacks who spout what the Power wants them to say. Thus, genuine conscience loses out to faux-conscience. In the end, when push comes to shove, those who obsess about the rules of the game lose to those who are win the game to rule.