How the Japan-Poland Thought-Project Demonstrates Race Is More Essential Than Culture

 

Race or Culture, what is more important to a people?

Many will answer ‘culture’ because race is about biology. Unlike animals that are entirely defined by biology, mankind is more than his biological content. A boy raised by wolves or apes in the wild without connection to human culture may appear even lower than an animal. He seems incomplete, whereas animals are complete in their biological composition. A wolf possesses wholeness as a predatory pack mammal. A chimpanzee is complete as a wild ape making funny sounds and humping anything that moves.

In contrast, man is incomplete with biology alone, as the film THE WILD CHILD(by Francois Truffaut) well illustrates. Hugh Hudson’s arty version of GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN also shows the deficiencies of the man of savagery without culture, albeit with the Romanticist twist that man of nature is, in some ways, truer than the man of civilization with his inhibitions, deceptions, and hypocrisies. (If Tarzan begins as a white boy raised in the jungle by apes in the proximity of savage black tribes, it seems modern Britain is committed to importing Jungle to Civilization in the hope that sunshiny fat-lipped black soul will kiss and thaw & liberate the frigid English sensibility.)

Culture is so important to mankind that even savages aren’t really savage in the cartoonish sense(though certain Negro behavior patterns indicate otherwise, ironically in the civilized setting, but then the modern cult of individual freedom has unmoored entire peoples not only from old repressions but simple obligations, a condition that has affected the black community especially negatively as blacks are more prone to act ‘crazy’).

Even among savage tribes in the Amazonian forests, Eskimos in the far north, American Indians hunting bison, and Congo jungle-dwellers, there was a complex culture of language, signs, symbols, stories, craft & expressions, and moral values(that, at the very least, applied to the members of the tribe). Savage folks don’t act like Caveman stereotypes in Hollywood movies where they grunt instead of talk and just shove live animals in their mouths. Even the Neanderthals had customs and rituals.

So, mankind, as we know it, simply isn’t conceivable without culture. Of course, culture has purpose only as an outgrowth of or an application onto life. While mankind, brutish and stupid, can exist without culture(albeit in an ugly way), culture cannot exist without mankind, the diversity of which has been manifested through the various races, or variant rivers of genetic flow.
Culture is always an addition to life, not life itself, though it has a profound impact on life and its future.

Also, culture is shaped by the nature of the organism. Different dog breeds can be taught the same lessons, but they learn and respond differently. Different races of mankind can be instructed with the same lessons, values, meanings, and modes, but they will process them differently in accordance to their racial natures. Teach Christianity to blacks, and it turns into a disco for Jesus. Democracy takes on different forms and characteristics among the various races, even ethnicities(though ethnic identity is largely molded by culture).

Naturally, a race with more stable emotions and higher intelligence tends to make more of democracy(or any other form of political organization) than the races with lower intelligence, especially if given to impulsiveness. Surveying the history of popular music, what blacks did with white music and what whites did with black music goes to show that, despite the cultural origin of the music, the racial processes alter the very character of the expression. A white person may act black but, instead of really becoming black, produces a synthesis of white nature and black style. And when blacks imitated white music, they couldn’t help jiggiting it up a little in tune with their own nature. This may account for white sensory fascination with blackness because blacks tend to add salt-and-pepper to white expression. And even though most blacks are loathe to admit any kind of indebtedness due to their Afrocentric megalomania and/or insecure touchiness(which are two sides of the same coin), the more honest among them do appreciate and admire the greater sophistication, complexity, and refinement that whites often added to black culture.

Anyway, instead of arguing race vs culture, the relevant question here is about Race and Which Culture. To put it simply, is it better to survive racially with the culture of another people than to vanish racially while the culture is preserved by another people. For example, would it be better for the Russian people to become Muslims speaking Arabic(while abandoning or forgetting about their Russian culture) OR for Russian culture, history, and language to be preserved by non-Russians(while real Russians fade into oblivion).

The question clarifies what is more important, race or culture. Now, we accept as given that mankind simply isn’t complete without culture, i.e. there is a need for culture, any culture, even not one’s own, in order for mankind to function as Man(contra the animal). So, even if a Russian knows nothing of Russian culture, history, and language, he can still function as a thinking, feeling, and imaginative being if imbued with some culture, any culture.

Indeed, there are countless examples of such phenomena in the US. Many, or even most, Americans know little or nothing of their cultural origins. Most Italian-Americans can’t speak Italian, have never been to the Old Country, and know little of Italian history and the arts. I’ve known Greek-Americans who know less about Greece, modern and ancient, than I do, and I’m no expert on the subject. So, to be functional as a rational and sociable person, a knowledge of one’s original culture isn’t necessary. When Europeans abandoned their indigenous pagan cultures in favor of Christianity that originated among the Semites, they still remained functional on most levels and even gained in certain areas of morality and spirituality. Over time, plenty of Slavs became citizens of non-Slavic lands and made perfectly fine Germans, Frenchmen, and even Englishmen.

So, it is agreed that there is a need for some culture, any culture, in order for man to be complete as a Man. The white boy abducted by some Amazonian forest tribe in John Boorman’s THE EMERALD FOREST(a kind of a twist on John Ford’s THE SEARCHERS) was also raised in a culture which provided him with meaning, purpose, and sense of place. Even at the primitive level, he was raised in a culture and cosmology.

The crucial question is what is more important, racial preservation or cultural longevity? Upon consideration, the preservation of the race seems of the utmost importance. For starters, whereas culture is something we made in a matter of decades or centuries — most ideas and expressions that have lasted for thousands of years were created within a rather short time frame — , we ourselves were made by the massive forces of nature — geography, geology, climate, fauna, flora — through the eons. In this sense, the difference between race and culture is the difference between a mountain and a man-made mound. While we can seek to understand the origins and meanings of culture, we still can’t wrap our minds around the processes that led to the evolution of mankind and the emergence of the various races through tens of thousands of years across the vastness of the Earth. Culture is what we create, but we are what nature created, and the latter is deeper in mystery and sheer awesomeness.

Whereas the oldest civilization is 6,000 yrs old, human races are at least 200,000 yrs old. European History is traced back to the Greeks around 2,500 yrs ago, but the European races have been around for at least 40,000 years. Of course, even prior to the rise of civilizations, the various primitive tribes had cultures(like the few remaining primitive folk do today), but the racial-biological development of man preceded culture. It is the egotism of the human intellect that tends to put ideology before biology, even at the expense of failing to secure the bio-ethnic survival and preservation of a people. So accustomed to prioritizing BELIEVING over BEING and to modern comforts & conveniences, it’s as if our survival and well-being are guaranteed by a set of values and systems of production; such an outlook totally overlooks the fact that NOTHING matters if a people failed to secure their own survival through reproduction and racial consciousness. So-called ‘reproductive rights’ are not about reproduction per se but about the right to end reproduction in favor of ideology and individual impulse, the promotion of which led to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

With so much emphasis on creativity(a cultural matter), there’s hardly any discussion of the importance of procreativity(except as a matter of self-fulfillment, i.e. “career isn’t enough to satisfy me, so I need some kids too”). It has degenerated into Extinction Rights and has nothing to do with real reproduction rights. There’s a lack of understanding of Our History, the very map of ethno-story, i.e. that illustrates the connective links from point A to B to C to D to etc. Without a map, one has no sense of place and direction.

A sense of Our History maps the existence, past-present-future, of a people, and one of the key reasons for Jewish Power is a profound sense of Our History. Jewish Consciousness, religious and secular, have a sense of where the Jews began, how they became what they are, what journeys they underwent, where they met the greatest dangers and found the greatest treasures.

Pathetically, whites allowed their sense of Our History to slip into the control of Jews who interpreted White History as an Evil Narrative; besides, White History is just a myth because ‘whiteness’ is really a modern ‘racist’ idea, and therefore European-ness may be claimed by ANY race. Of course, Jews control the entertainment complex that now fill up any movie or TV show about past European History with Negroes in key roles. According to Jewish media, Russians are not European but recently arrived black Africans most definitely are, indeed so much so that they must be put upon the pedestal as idols and icons above white Europeans, the meaning of whose existence according to globalism is to serve Jews, homos, and Negroes.

Because whites no longer own their own Map of Time, they have no deeper or broader sense of self. They only care about the self or individuality. And if they do feel a need for something bigger than themselves, it’s about the historical sanctity of Jews and Negroes mostly, with homos thrown in for good measure. It goes to show that your people must learn to map their own history because, if left up to others, the map will be manipulated to highlight directions and destinies at odds with those of your people. It’s like the notion of the New World is Eurocentric, as if the natives of the Americas lacked a past and culture of their own before the arrival of the Conquistadors, whose explorations made the Americas known to the rest of the world.

Now, let’s consider why Poland and Japan(or any such ethnically distinct nation) may be useful as a model as to why race matters more than culture. Of course, ideally both the ethnos and the culture of the people should remain intact and survive. Poland should be the land of ethnic Poles with their Polish culture, language, and history, just like Japan should be the land of ethnic Japanese with their Japanese culture, language, and history.

But, let’s do a simple mind experiment whereby Poland can exist as a white nation with a non-Polish culture or a non-white nation with a Polish culture. Imagine a Twilight Zone scenario where the people of Poland remain ethno-racially what they are but take on a different culture. Suppose they all turn Muslim and speak Arabic or turn Hindu and speak Hindi and worship cows. Racially, these hypothetical Polacks are just like real Poles by blood, but they no longer remember Polish history, belong to the Catholic Church, speak the Polish language, have a stupid hatred for Russians, and defer to the book of Dumb Polack jokes(written mostly by Jews) as a cultural manual on thought and behavior. They remain ethno-Poles but minus the Polish culture.

In the other Twilight Zone scenario, Polish language, culture, and history remain, but the Poles have been wholly replaced by ethno-Nigerians. Or ethno-Mongols. Or ethno-Hindus or whatever. For some reason, these people regard themselves as Polish and speak Polish and eat kielbasa, sauerkraut, and pierogis and listen to polka music and third-rate imitation jazz. Poland remains culturally but is racially gone, vanished, or replaced. For the extreme culture-centrists, Poland still remains because Polish culture is still ‘alive’.

Of course, both scenarios are visions of hell for the Poles, but which is worse? Loss of Polish culture or loss of Polish ethno-race? If Poles had to choose between Poland turning into a land of ethno-Poles without Polish culture or a land of non-Poles with Polish culture, which one would they choose? Surely, Polucks(or Polish Cucks) will opt for a Poland with Polish culture but no Polish ethnos, but I’ll bet the majority of Poles would rather choose a Poland with ethno-Poles but no Polish culture. It’s Race before Culture because race is deeper and more real than any culture. Nature(or God for the religiously inclined) created man, whereas man created culture, and nature’s work over eons far outweighs whatever mankind has created in his midst. (Of course, the brown-nosing Polucks care neither for Polish ethnos nor for Polish culture, much like the current Anglucks or Anglo-Cucks have relinquished the right of both race and culture. Polucks and Anglucks don’t care if their lands are remade by other peoples and other cultures. Anglucks are resigned to entire British cities being taken over by immi-vaders who not only racially replace whites but don’t even care to preserve Anglo-British culture, and there are plenty of Polucks who don’t care if Poland is replaced both ethno-racially and histo-culturally. All they care about is being smiled upon by globalist elites whom they regard as their superiors.)

What would be closer to your true self? Suppose you are to be exterminated and you’re offered two choices of continuance after your death. One way is to make a genetic clone of you but without the memory of what YOU were and valued. The other is to embed all your beliefs & memory in the head of another person whose DNA is entirely different from yours. Suppose Baptism matters a lot to you, but your clone is raised to be a Mormon. In contrast, the other person is indoctrinated with your exact take on Baptism. Who is more a continuation of what YOU are? What would be more of a continuation of Tom Cruise? A clone who isn’t into Scientology or a Seth Rogan whose mind is programmed with Cruise-isms?

Now, consider Japan. Which would be more like the real Japan? The continuance of the race but the loss of the culture or the continuance of the culture but loss of the race? In a way, modernization has already answered that question at least halfway. Westernization/Modernization has drastically remade Japan, East Asia, and indeed all of the non-Western World. In terms of ideas, values, methodology, habits, and practices, today’s Japanese have more in common with modern Western folks than with bygone Japanese folks prior to the coming of Commodore Perry’s Black Ships.
Indeed, much of Japanese culture has either been erased or simply forgotten, barely existing as museum exhibits or empty festival rituals. Of course, there are many continuities in language, sense of history, and etc. Still, much of the original culture has been lost, probably forever. Still, Japan remains Japan because the people are ethno-Japanese. In the modernization period, there was even some talk of replacing the Japanese language with a European one, and had such been realized, Japan would still have remained Japan because of the ethno-racial factor. After all, Hindu elites in India are well-versed in English(and some of them even speak it better than Hindi and other Indian languages), but they are still Indian above all due to the blood factor.

Saving culture instead of race is doomed to fail even in its stated goal. In time, the people will come to feel that the culture they’re preserving and practicing isn’t really theirs. Imagine you’re a Nigerian as the New Pole but you look at Polish historical paintings, and the images are of another people. I suppose the Nigerian as New Pole can blacken all the faces in the paintings and pretend Poles were always black, but that’s just a big lie and degrades the culture — it’d be like pretending that black slaves in the American South were white or Hindu OR that Jews in ghettos were a bunch of Hawaiians.

Now, certain cultural ideas and practices can be universalized, but much of the meaning of a culture is closely associated with a particular people, like Shintoism and Japanese customs. Furthermore, even something as universalist as Christianity takes on particularist significance and meaning for different peoples of the Faith. What Catholicism means for Poles is different from what it means to the Spanish or the mestizos of South America. Many Poles regard Catholic Church as the stalwart defender of the nation and culture against foreign oppression. In contrast, many Spanish came to regard the Catholic Church as a tool of Franco’s tyranny. Christianity meant different things to Southern Segregationists and the black(and white) followers of MLK, the nasty lout with the big shout.

So, if Nigerians were to become the New Poles in the cultural domain, the shtick couldn’t last for long. In time, the Nigerians would come to reject the culture as not really their own; or they will change it drastically to render it more palatable to black sensibility, resulting in something that bears little resemblance to the original thing. They will surely make use of the culture but as something to exploit than to protect. It’s the difference between butchering an animal for food and taking care of it as a valued specimen.

Indeed, the problems are obvious with blacks in the US(and EU as well). For centuries, whites tried to acculturate blacks to Western standards. Blacks were forbidden to beat on drums and dance like savages. They were given Western names and had to answer to ‘Toby’ than ‘Kunta Kinte’. They were brought to the Christian Faith. But over time with greater freedom and choice, blacks began to feel, “Dis be some honky-ass shit.” Sure, blacks take advantage of white ideas and values — ‘slavery is an absolute evil’ is a Western moral development — , but they don’t embrace them as their own culture.
Besides, even when a people dutifully try to preserve or recreate the culture of another, the result is far from the real thing. Initially, the Germanic Barbarians sacked Rome but, in time, shouldered the burden of imperial legacy. But it was never the same thing. There really never was a Third Rome despite the ambitions of Charlemagne, the Russian Tsars, and Adolf Hitler.

And for sure, the attempt to Anglo-Americanize or Europeanize the Jews failed miserably. Jews make poor standard-bearers of Americanism because, for all their Zeligish exploitation of American freedoms and opportunities, their main loyalty is to Zion and the Tribe. Thus, when push comes to shove, if having to choose between the Tribe and what’s-good-for-America, Jews will choose the Tribe. Jews may argue that their globalism is in allegiance to a higher calling, namely choosing what is good for the whole world than what is only good for America(or ‘America First’), but Jewish ‘internationalism’ is really about the interests of World Jewry. Just ask the Palestinians and countless Arabs/Muslims destroyed by Zion. Just ask the Eastern Ukro-Russians in the Donbass.

Even if the culture is lost, the survival of the race offers the possibility of cultural recovery or renaissance. In some cases, the culture can be recovered and reunited with the race. Modern/Western Archaeology has had a most profound impact on how peoples around the world regard their own sense of selfhood, history, and heritage. Consider the rediscovery of much of Ancient Egyptian culture that had been forgotten or lost under Muslim rule. Their once forgotten past is now an integral part of Egyptian-ness. Cambodians lost the Angkor Wat to the jungles, but French archaeology rediscovered it, and today’s Cambodians cannot conceive of their heritage and history without it. Christian ‘cultural genocide’ nearly wiped out all vestiges of indigenous paganism of Northern Europe, but some of it survived(mostly in distant Iceland) and later came to serve as inspiration and source of deeper identity to the German Romantics and nationalists. At one time, Hebrew was essentially a museum language, ignored by most Jews. But as long as the Jewish ethnos survived, Hebrew could be revived as the official language of Israel, the Jewish nation-state.

Furthermore, even if the entire culture of a certain race or ethnos is irretrievable, lost and gone forever, the racial nature can nevertheless produce future expressions in ‘mythic’ tune with the lost culture. Consider the American blacks who were cut off from Sub-Saharan Africa and only knew the cotton-picking fields of the South. They knew nothing of African folklore, dances, and music. They didn’t know their ancestors were named ‘Wagabunga’ and had names like ‘George Smith’. Their idea of music was imitating white folks’ songs and dance. Despite all that, their racial culture subconsciously reproduced something imbued with the spirit of Black Africa, which was written into their DNA. When the massuh and overseers weren’t watching, they couldn’t help wiggle their butts, pumping their groins, and hollering like James Brown. Even with church music, their racial nature couldn’t help but junglize it and turn hymns into humping noises. Of course, it wasn’t exactly black African culture(as the jungle tribes didn’t have blues and jazz and the like), but it had a similar blackity oogity-boogitiness. It’s sort of a Jungian thing, the seeds of culture within the racial psyche, whereby even if the culture is wholly lost, something of the same spirit is created from the racial nature. If we erased white minds and put a whole bunch of whites on a hypothetical island to produce a culture from scratch, there’s no guarantee that it will lead to what we know of as ‘Western Civilization’. However, the arising culture will be animated by the same kind of spirit and mythos that fueled the Old Europeans. Likewise, if we were to erase black minds and put black folks on a hypothetical island, the result would likely be something along the lines of Black Africa(or Detroit).

As glorious as the achievements of the West are, if one had to choose between losing all the culture and maintaining the race and losing the race but maintaining the culture(for other races to preserve), the former is always preferable. Because, for all the genius and inspiration, culture is the outward manifestation of what lies deep within the nature of man.

Of course, if whites had to create a new culture out of whole cloth without memory of their past, the results will be different from the achievements of the Greeks, Romans, and other Europeans. Nevertheless, so much of what is expressed will have been inspired and fueled by the same temperament, passion, and imagination.

Likewise, if blacks had to choose between preserving the race but forgetting all about blues, jazz, soul, & rap OR losing the race but having other races appreciate and practice black music, which would they choose? Even if they were to lose their current genres of music, they could create new ones grounded in the same soulfulness, and thus, the essence of blackness would be preserved. But if blacks are gone as a race while black culture is kept alive by other races, what the hell is that? Blacks made that shit but other races be enjoyin’ it while blacks be nowhere to be seen. (Granted, in purely civilizational terms, it might not be bad for the World if blackness vanished racially and lingered only culturally in a few musical genres. A Detroit with rap music but no black people would probably spring back to life as a thriving and mostly safe city.)

And what would Jews prefer? Keeping the race and losing the culture or losing the race and keeping the culture… alive in goy hands? Suppose some super-hitler had killed off every Jew in the world, BUT Jewish culture was still prized and preserved by various goyim. Would Jews prefer that over Jews surviving as a people but forgetting their culture? (Jews don’t seem too happy that goyim in the form of Christians and Muslims adopted much of Jewish culture in sacred text and cosmology.) In the end, cultocide is a lesser horror than genocide. If indeed culture means more than race, a super-Holocaust where all Jews are racially exterminated wouldn’t be so bad. It wouldn’t be the end of Jews because any bunch of goyim could culturally become Jews, and then, Jews are all around once again.

If a city faced the destruction of every building, museum, monument, garden, and institution but kept its population, it would be a great loss, but something similar could rise from the rubble. Paris is a city rich in arts and culture, and it would be an incalculable loss to witness their destruction. Still, as long as French people were around, French civilization could be rebuilt… much like German and Japanese cities were rebuilt after World War II. Same was true of Warsaw, of which 80% was destroyed in the war.

On the other hand, if all the arts and buildings remained intact but the population was replaced by another, it would be a wholly new civilization or a barbarism degenerating into savagery(if blacks were to take over). Warsaw suffered tremendous wreckage in World War II, but the Polish people still lived there, and it rose once again as a Polish city. But imagine if today’s nice and orderly Warsaw were kept intact brick by brick but taken over by the Chinese, Hindus, Arabs, or Africans. Chinese, Hindus, and Arabs could make use of Polish buildings and infrastructures, but their societies wouldn’t be Polish, which would survive only as an empty shell for other peoples to use and exploit. If blacks took over Warsaw, they would turn it into another Detroit. They will dismantle the city brick by brick if left to their own devices. So, race always matters more than culture. Hiroshima was smashed to bits in World War II, but the surviving Japanese rebuilt it. But imagine if today’s Hiroshima were left intact but its native population replaced by blacks. That would be another Detroit.

The Crisis of Power and Moral Authority in the West? What is to be done when Whites got the Power but No Moral Authority while Blacks got the Moral Authority but No Power?

The two kinds of power. Power-as-means-of-force. Power as moral authority. Ideally, the existing Power has both. It controls the apparatus of violence, which is 'inherent' in any system. After all, there has to be the threat of force, coercion, or violence in case people, especially criminals and radicals, get out of hand. Ideal power would also possess moral authority, and most people would look upon the Power as just, valid, and legitimate.

If there is only power-as-means-of-force, the system can be maintained but only by brutal repression and/or bread-and-circus mass-bribery(which is costly and effective only for the duration of good times). The right-wing militarist regimes that ruled with 'death squads' in Central America had the power of means(especially with the backing of the US), but they lacked moral authority. Same could be said of the Shah of Iran. He had the ruthless means of keeping power by brutality and mass torture. He also had the backing of the US, and there was economic growth that pacified a sector of the population. But most Iranians saw him as illegitimate, and he got no respect.

In contrast, the Castroite Regime of Cuba had, at least for a time(and perhaps even now to some degree), the combination of the means of force and moral authority. It not only set up a ruthless system of control but came to power with the mandate of the people who welcomed the revolution as national liberation from a puppet tyrant backed by the CIA and the Mafia. During the Cold War, massive Soviet support made life in Cuba better than in most Latin American nations. There was less freedom, but many Cubans accepted it as the cost for independence from Yanqui Imperialismo.

Now, from the perspective of moral reasoning, what may be deemed morally justified in a particular time and place may not pass muster. We may say communism is a bad idea and a dead end, and History has indeed passed such judgement on the ideology. And we may look upon the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as ultimately tragic because it led to theocratic tyranny. Still, even if a bad(or even evil) system comes to power, it may be regarded as morally legitimate to the people of the time and place. This was certainly true among many Germans who, at least before things began to go south during World War II, regarded Adolf Hitler's regime as justified, indeed the savior of the German volk, nation, and honor. And plenty of Chinese, despite the horrors of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, have continued to regard the CCP as the legitimate authority in China. And for all his brutality and violence, Stalin had plenty of admirers in the USSR when he was alive(and even after his death).
Moral authority can derive from various sources or reasons. It could be that the new power is a marked improvement over the earlier one. For many Germans, things were much better in National Socialist Germany than in Weimar Germany. Many Russians feel that things got much better under Vladimir Putin than when Russia was ruled by Jewish globalist oligarchs and their stooge Boris Yeltsin. (The Putin legitimacy cannot be understood apart from the hellish 1990s.) But moral authority could also be the product of mass propaganda. Mao Zedong remained legitimate in China despite the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution because CCP controlled all media and education. Even if Mao made things worse, the young ones were only taught one thing, and everyone got the news from a single source. So, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. In a system, the majority of people can support a cult of immorality as having moral authority while condemning true morality as the work of the Devil. We have that in the US, where so many people, even 'conservatives', now support 'gay marriage' and worship globo-homo-mania while howling with rage at defenders of true marriage and sanity on sexual reality.

If some systems have the power-as-means-of-force but lack moral authority, some groups have the power of moral authority but lack the means of force. In time, the latter can struggle to gain hard power and triumph. In Iran, the revolutionaries gained moral authority among the people, and mass unrest eventually led to Shah's dethronement and the rise of the Ayatollahs in government. In Vietnam, the national-communists who waved the Ho Chi Minh banner were legitimate in the eyes of many whereas the regime in the South was regarded as a puppet of US imperialism. Granted, plenty of Vietnamese didn't want to be ruled by the communists and would have preferred national independence/liberation minus the Leninism-Stalinism. But the southern regime was so lacking in authority and legitimacy that it failed to muster real support, the kind that might have led to a successful defense of the south. Eventually, the Vietnamese in the north, with more legitimacy and discipline, prevailed over the southern regime that could only maintain power with backing of US imperialism and bribery through bread-and-circuses(or rice-and-blackmarket) made possible by foreign cash infusions.

Speaking of the problems of power-as-means-of-force and power as moral authority, we are witnessing something surreal in the West. Even now in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe, the power-as-means-of-force is still controlled mostly by whites. Look at most of the upper echelons in the military, government, law firms & courts, police departments, intelligence services, and the like, and most of the members are white(or Jewish). There are prominent non-whites, usually blacks, but they are mostly tokens presented to the public as the FACE of the power that is still mostly white in actual operation.
But the problem is, due to endless PC and anti-white propaganda, whites no longer have much in the way of moral authority. In some ways, they have something close to NEGATIVE moral authority; they might as well be the Devil Incarnate. When the Evil Race controls most of the power-as-means-of-force, the moral implication is they must give it up OR use their power ONLY to redeem their evil white selves or rectify the evil conditions resulting from 'white supremacy' or 'white privilege', i.e. whites must use power to negate white power. We saw in the recent riots the result of such thinking. White people-of-power had the material means to shut down the violence and restore order, but many of them thought that they, as Evil People, had no moral authority to use the power in such manner. (To be sure, the 'paralysis' was also cynical and calculated, a means for the Deep State to make Donald Trump look either too weak, impotent, and incapable to rule OR too tyrannical in calling on the military to restore order.) Initially, it seemed New York would be spared the worst of the rioting because Jews are just too powerful there, but the 'moral logic' spread there as well. Mayor Bill DeBlasio's shtick has been as an Apologetic and Atoning white man, i.e. since whites lack the power of moral authority, DeBlasio felt compelled to use his political authority in support of blacks and against whites(or anyone disregarded by blacks).

If whites got power-as-means-of-force but hardly any moral authority left, blacks don't have much in the way of power-as-means-of-force but have come to dominate power as moral authority. While there are plenty of blacks in government, military, and even in some police departments, most of the upper command structure is still dominated by whites(and of course, most elite blacks are in the pocket of Jewish oligarchs, as has been so obvious with the likes of Barack Obama and Susan Rice). During the Civil Rights Era, blacks gained moral authority over whites because of the Struggle-against-Oppression Narrative. But it was far from total moral authority or moral apotheosis; MLK was a controversial figure in the eyes of many, most Americans opposed race-mixing, and George Wallace found much popularity. But since then, the MLK cult has become the new religion. Nelson Mandela has been lionized as the second greatest man ever. Most American kids think the story of Harriet Tubman is 50% of US history. Hollywood gave us the Magic Negro in stuff like GREEN MILE. And as blacks are into ego-tripping self-worship, they've promoted nothing but themselves. Ironically, the rise of black nihilism also fed into black moral authority. After all, while one aspect of Americanism is the preening moralism — the City on the Hill vision — , the other is the cult of the winner and disdain for losers. People dream of coming to the US to win as Tony Montanas, not to be losers. So, even though most blacks in sports and pop culture have been demented, stupid, lecherous, immoral, or imbecile, the successes made blacks seem ultra-badass-cool in the American(and global) imagination. As Americanist winner-takes-all nihilism has infected the world, the black rapper and black athlete idolatry have made people the world over especially reverential about blackness. Indeed, the reason why the American Indians, though theoretically of even greater moral authority as the Ultimate Victims of American History, are neglected by Americans and the World is because they score low in the game of winner-takes-all nihilism that defines Americanism. In an Americanized world that prizes idolatry over humanism, nihilist points adds to moral authority. Blacks-as-thugs get more hugs.

We are now at the crossroads in history where whites still got most of the power-as-means-of-force but don't know what to do with it during times of crisis as they lack moral authority to act, especially against blacks who commit the most violence. And blacks got the most moral authority, but they are frustrated because they don't control the power-as-means-of-force. Why not? Blacks will say it's due to the history of 'racism', but it's due to black ineptitude, criminality, laziness, stupidity, and irresponsibility. After all, whether one has moral authority or not, the proper way to rise up the ladder of power-as-means-of-force is to master skills, finish school, gain credentials, and demonstrate ability & accountability. Many blacks utterly fail in this. So, even though whites are more than eager to hand over their illegitimate power to blacks who now hog moral authority, the process of power-transference is undermined by the fact that too many blacks remain unqualified to gain and hold any lever of power. The problem isn't White Discrimination but Black Incrimination. Black performance or behavior too often incriminates them as foolish, stupid, violent, inept, irresponsible, demented, and/or jive-ass.
At this juncture in history, many whites are more than willing to hand over power-as-means-of-force to non-whites, especially blacks. But the people they favor most, blacks, are least adept at working in the current system to gain the credentials to take the power from whites. Whites, as redemptive devil incarnate, are telling blacks, "Look we are worthless, and you blacks are holy. We don't deserve what we have, and it should all go to you. So, if you just finish school, act half-way decent and responsible, you can have my job and my status. You can marry my daughter and even do my wife. I will cuck before you and wash your feet and kiss your ass. Just finish college and earn the credentials, and everything I have is YOURS. Look how we made Obama the president simply because he smiled and said nice things." So, whites are willing to hand over all power to blacks as the true master race because blacks are deemed superior in body and soul. But every time whites try to hand over the silver platter, blacks knock it down and mess it all up. (Look what blacks have made of Zimbabwe and South Africa, but let's just pretend blacks are natural saints.)

This is all very confusing. It's further confused because whites claim to be in atonement mode but feel zero moral guilt about what they did to Palestinians and Arabs in their mindless support of Zionist supremacism. And blacks seem to be of two minds as well. On the one hand, blacks pretend to be allies with all the oppressed of the world against white supremacism and white privilege. At the same time, blacks seem most eager to take over the Power created by whites and act as the new imperialist masters of the world. After all, if blacks are truly appalled by supremacism, why don't they denounce blacks in the military? Aren't black military men participating in the US imperialist domination over other parts of the world? Aren't blacks taking part in the Zionist Wars that have killed so many Arabs and Muslims? Didn't Obama wreck entire nations? But blacks don't seem to be bothered by any of that AS LONG AS they perceive the US military as an empowerment vehicle for blacks. So, do blacks really want to resist and end the Power System created by whites or do they just want to take over as New Masters of it? Is supremacism okay with blacks as long as THEY get to dominate the power-as-means-of-force? Is black consciousness like that of Jews? We know from the Jewish Experience that Jewish criticism of Wasp Power wasn't to destroy the power itself but to take it over so that the US empire would be controlled by Jews. The very Jews who'd once denounced US militarism and imperialism in the 60s were later the biggest cheerleaders of US global power once their tribe was at the helm.

Indeed, how do Jews fit into the current crisis? Are Jews also white and lacking in moral authority? Or, as Holocaust Whites, are they exempt from the label of Whites-as-Devil-Incarnate? But what of New York Jews having employed heavy-handed white police to cut down on black crime? And what of Jews having urged white police across the US to take pointers from Israel in controlling the black criminal elements? As yet, Jews still have a lot of moral authority as the Shoah Narrative has been baked into the Western Consciousness, but when so much of Jewish Privilege seems like ultra-white-privilege to blacks and non-whites, how long can Jews sustain this? In the recent riots, Jews publicly sided with black rioters who've been granted moral authority to 'protest against racism', but they seem very nervous and uncomfortable because Jewish Urban Well-being owes so much to white policemen controlling the unruly blacks. Jews are mixing oil & water and getting violent reactions from the melting pot turned frying pan.

Again, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. That blacks got so much moral authority is absolutely scandalous. True, blacks were enslaved and faced discrimination through much of American History, but history is never static. It's ridiculous to regard blacks NOW on the basis of blacks THEN. It's like it'd be stupid to regard Chinese NOW on basis of how Chinese were 100 yrs ago. Back then, China was the Sick Man of Asia. Today, it is a rising or even risen power. Germanic Barbarians were once victims of Roman conquerors. Later, they were rulers over the Romans. And sometimes, history changes fast. Jews were on the ropes in Europe during World War II, but they are now rulers of the West. Also, black behavior owes more to evolution over 100,000 yrs than 200 yrs of slavery. Besides, black conditions in America were hardly all that oppressive by world/historical standards as most of human history has been about oppression, wars, empires, slavery, and etc. The real problem with blacks is they evolved to be the thug-hunter-warrior race. Blame evolution in Africa where black traits were selected for mastery in chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums and shaking booty. That's why blacks succeed in sports and funky music while often failing with books and math.
So, black moral authority is really a joke(but then 'woke' is a joke, or joke that no one gets). It is more the product of Jewish propaganda, white gullibility, black megalomania, American nihilism, and Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. Jews pushed black holiness to bait whites with 'white guilt', thereby making them subservient to Jews(as 'fellow victim' allies of blacks). In the post-Christian world, white imagination hungered for a new god, and the Magic Negro filled the void(along with globo-homo, it seems). Blacks just can't get enough of themselves, and the American Obsession with sports and pop music turned blacks into demi-gods. So many Americans look to Jay-Z and Ice-Cube's twitter feed for 'moral instruction' and 'spiritual guidance'. This is why even a lowlife moron like George Floyd, who died more from bad drugs than a white knee, is now suddenly bigger than even Michael Jackson.
But then, moral authority can even be held by the Devil, as homos and trannies have so well illustrated. Most people are incapable of moral reasoning, and their sense of good-and-evil really derives from manipulation of idolatry, iconography, and mantras. Just chant 'black lives matter' a bunch of times while envisioning George Floyd as some angel, and that's Moral Authority in the Current Year. Donald Trump says St. George is looking down upon us from heaven. More likely, an angel has a knee on the ghastly Negro's neck and is about to cast his stupid black ass down to hell.

In the past, whites had both power-as-means-of-force and much moral authority. Look back 100 yrs ago to 1920, and it was a proud white nation. Look back 50 yrs to 1970, and it was still a nation where whites had material power and moral power, though slipping. But now, the US is a Jewish-controlled world. Jewish Power is real as both means-of-force and moral authority. Jews do control most of the top institutions and many top industries. Jews not only hog Deep State power but use Antifa as paramilitary goon force to terrorize white patriots. Antifa is their 'Luca Brasi'.
Jews also have moral power as the Shoah People. But because Jews are nervous about being perceived as powerful, their power-as-means-of-force is mostly hidden. If Jews said, "We rule America with material power backed by moral authority", things would be somewhat less confusing. But while Jews make a big deal of their moral authority, they try to hide their actual means of power. As a result, many people are confused as to who really rules America. Jews rule America, but Jews say "White Privilege Rules America"(which would suggest American Power is illegitimate). Jewish Power is the uppermost of White Privilege, but Jews position themselves as allies of Diversity against White Privilege.
Now, things might be clearer if white goyim spelled it all out and said, "No, Jewish-White Privilege rules America, and we white goyim are now just cuck-collaborators of Jews who hold the supreme power. We whites do as Jews tell us to, like waging Wars for Israel, hating on Russia & Iran, supporting Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians, and arresting more blacks to make cities safer for Jews and homos." But as whites who say such would be condemned of 'Antisemitism' and hounded out of their positions, whites just go on with the charade that THEY rule America while Jews are saintly allies of blacks and Diversity oppressed by White Privilege. But such a grand narrative means that the Existing Power System in the US is utterly lacking in moral legitimacy and undeserving of moral authority. If indeed US is ruled by White Privilege, then it is ruled by Evil because White Privilege is, as we've all been told over and over, an ill-gotten product of history of white supremacy.
Current Power would seem legitimate if Jews said they got the power since they do have moral authority(as the noble and tragic Shoah People). But Jews are too nervous about being blamed for all the problems IF they were to openly admit their dominant position in the US. After all, admission of power has a way of eroding moral authority as most people tend to blame those in power for whatever goes wrong. (Wasps admitted they ruled America, and guess what happened? They got blamed for everything and lost legitimacy.) It's like the Castroite regime in Cuba and the Ayatollahs in Iran began with lots of moral authority but much of the respect has eroded away over the years. So, if Jews want to maintain their identity as Holy Holocaust People in pristine condition, it's not wise to admit that they now have the power and, as such, are responsible for all that go wrong in the US and the world. (Netanyahu's arrogant style of "I rule the goyim" has undermined the moral authority of Zion in the eyes of the world.)

Anyway, whites are cucks of Jews, but the Jewish Narrative says White Privilege(of the goy kind mostly) rules America. The notion of 'white privilege' implies that the power held by whites is illegitimate. Then, the ONLY way to make the power legitimate is by handing it over to those with moral authority. Jews got the moral authority but don't want to admit they got the power. How about to homos? Jewish Media and Academia imbued homos with great deal of moral and 'spiritual' capital, and so many Americans now eagerly vote for any 'gay' candidate on grounds that homos got moral authority. And for awhile, it seemed homos would spearhead gentrification and make big cities safe of the Negro Criminal Menace. Also, as Obama belonged to Jews and homos, he spent most of his presidency pushing the Section 8 line, or More Gentrification. But then, Obama had to prove his street cred with blacks and dabbled with BLM, not knowing it would blow up big time. And then Donald Trump happened, and Jews got desperate with various means to unseat him. They tried the Russia Collusion hoax, the Ukraine Impeachment, the Covid Crisis, and then black riots. Riling up black rage was deemed especially necessary as Jews began to fear that Trumpism might make blacks think twice about supporting the Democratic Party that seemed more about globo-homo and immigration than conditions for blacks. If Trump offered more jobs to blacks, the Democrats could at least offer them free loot in the form of riots. But the riots are also blowing up in Jewish faces as blacks tend to be rather unruly and strike out in every direction, especially in blue cities. While Jews could handle homos like well-trained dogs, unleashing black rage is like letting pit-bulls run loose. You never quite know whom they will maul next. Homos march in parades, blacks loot in riots. Homos raise property values for yuppies, blacks drive down values and drive out businesses. (Another reason why the Democrats may be pandering more to blacks is that immigration decreased under Trump. Perhaps, Democrats hoped that MORE IMMIGRATION would eventually make black votes less essential to the Party. After all, California would be comfortably Democratic even without the black vote as all those yellows and browns vote Democratic. But if immigration continues to ebb, Democrats will have to shore up black votes.)

Still, we all got the memo: (1) Blacks got supreme moral authority and have the right to rule but don't rule. (2) Whites got no moral authority and don't deserve to rule but rule with all their ill-gotten white privilege. Then, what is to be done? Hand over power to blacks? But how many blacks are well-schooled and ready for such task? The Current West says the unruly blacks should rule over whites who have no right to rule but rule anyway due to legacy of 'racism', the greatest evil of all time in the whole universe, but it has no means of bringing about the necessary transference of power because whites continue to be better-credentialed while blacks continue to fail.
Besides, the Jews who really do rule choose to remain in the shadows while blaming White Privilege, thus spreading the impression that the West is ruled illegitimately by whites who are utterly lacking in moral authority. White apologetics makes for poor authority of power. Then, it's no wonder that Jews and whites were, for a time, so happy with globo-homo as the face of US power. For Jews, homos were useful and loyal proxies of Jewish Supremacist Power, and for deracinated and cucked whites, homo power seemed white-friendly and imbued with moral authority(in a world where decadence was the New Normal in righteousness). But there was something so shallow and hollow about homos(and then trannies) as the stalwart face of moral authority in the West, especially as so many homos were affluent and working so chummily with the Deep State, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Wall Street. In time, it just seemed like a deviant form of White Privilege. It's so much more compelling to run with a narrative that involves slavery, whipping, lynchings, police brutality, and 'innocent' black men being killed in the streets by 'racism'. But how long will it take for blacks to earn the credentials and gain the skills to receive the power that is being handed to them on a silver platter by cucky-wuck whites?

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

Meritocratic Individualist Competition among Greyhounds

Greyhound and Bulldog. Two breeds with obvious group differences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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