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

Charles Murray's FACING REALITY ignores how an Invisible Affirmative Action for Jewish Supremacism boosts Jewish wealth & power way beyond Merit — Black Power is downstream from Jewish Power, or Jews use the Black Bullwhip to reduce Whites into a Race of Cuck-Maggots

Cry, the Beloved Country JAMES THOMPSON - Review of FACING REALITY by Charles Murray - https://www.unz.com/jthompson/cry-the-beloved-country/

This matters deeply, because he has a strong case, and at a personal level has earned his status as the American de Tocqueville. He might smile wryly at this, remembering that aristocrat’s cutting observation about American majority thinking: "The majority has enclosed thought within a formidable fence. A writer is free inside that area, but woe to the man who goes beyond it... he must face all kinds of unpleasantness in every day persecution."

How about Cucqueville? The bald-headed Mr. Magoo fool is one of the biggest ass-smoochers of Jewish Power. Ever notice he NEVER mentions the Jewish role in the Anti-White Agenda? What kind of a genuine social scientist has a blind spot that big? Which group has controlled the media and academia? Which group has bought off most of the whore-politicians? Which group did most to marginalize him after THE BELL CURVE? And all this despite his having sucked up to Jewish Neocons all his life. So-called 'liberal' Jews(who privately know all about racial differences) attacked him viciously, and his Neocon friends mostly stood by.

Also, the problem didn't begin as a Majority Thought. The majority-thought of the US used to be pretty awesomely race-ist. Even up to the 1970s, the majority of white Americans didn't like interracism. The New Majority Thought began as a Minority Thought, mostly of Jews who, with their control of academia and media, spread anti-white propaganda far and wide, indeed to the point where most whites came to internalize 'white guilt'. But notice Murray doesn't address the factors that led to a fundamental change in Majority Thought. There was once a time when Murray's book would have been greeted as welcome debate and the ideas of Kendi X would have been laughed at, along with the likes of Robin DiAngelo of 'white fragility' nuttery. But just how did the New Majority Thought take morons like Kendi X seriously? Because Jews control the electronic media(that permeates into every home and consumer) and the academia(that has formative influence over Americans, most of whom hardly read anything after graduation). The Corleones in THE GODFATHER films won because they recognized the source of the moves against them. Vito Corleone figured out it was Barzini all along. Michael suspected correctly that Hyman Roth gave the go-ahead to the Rosato Brothers(and used Fredo against him). But Murray, for all his reputation for independent thinking, goes totally blank when it comes to Naming the Jewish Power. He can't hit the bull's eye, so he goes about aiming for the outer circles. Murray is like a doctor who is terrific at finding the symptoms but never dares to mention the CANCER as the source. Thus, Murray-ism is palliative than curative.

Murray should get a respectful hearing. His sympathies are with small town America, and with the average guy in an average job... Like any true Scot, he would rather be respected by his clan than to suck up to the lairds.

No, he's not. All said and done, Dr. Magoo is a status-conscious sucker-upper to the 'better kind of people'. For example, why did he change his views on 'gay marriage'? Get this. He has these fancy-pants highly educated 'gay' friends. And they got 'married' and adopted some child. Rich successful homos using big bucks to raise a kid, of course with the blessings of the 'right kind of people' who themselves, being soulless, look to prevailing elite fads and fashions to keep up with the Jonesewitzes.
If Murray had real spine and guts, he would have stood with truth and principle. It is foul to associate marriage with what homo-fecal-penetration and tranny-penis-cutting. And even if two homos are nice & caring and spend big money on some orphan, the arrangement is whacky. Family isn't just about affection and privilege. It's about moral meaning and mental health. The idea of 'two daddies' is sick. An orphan needs to be placed with a substitute dad and substitute mom(as all children are the products of father and mother), not two 'parents' who bugger each other. But such meanings have no place in Murray's 'cosmopology'. He's all about class and privilege. He looked at two rich homos raising a kid, and his statistical mind figured, "Hey, that will work." You see, it's all nickels & dimes and test scores with Dr. Magoo. Besides, he might be disinvited to cocktail parties when the Neocons themselves decided that 'gay marriage is a conservative value'. Murray is a vile piece of scum. He is what's on the bottom of your shoe after you step on dog shit. Murray gave his roots the boot and lays down for the lairds. He also married some Asian chick. So much for sticking with his roots. He's just some globo-cosmo tard.

The book is crystal clear: aggressive affirmative action is poisoning American society. Standards have been corrupted, and trust has been lost. Admitting those facts, and ceasing to reward one race over another, is the minimal step which needs to be taken to get out of the quagmire.

But Murray doesn't mention that the poison didn't begin with favors for blacks but with favors for Jews. There are two kinds of 'affirmative action' or special favors. With blacks, the role of AA is obvious because they lag behind in academics and job performance; therefore, they get special treatment in many areas.
In one way, especially in regard to blacks, AA can be defined as MORE for those who can't make the cut. But another facet of AA can be defined as MORE for those who CAN make the cut. In terms of meritocracy, Jews make the cut in brainy areas more than most groups. But Jews are also massive beneficiaries of AA because they get much more, indeed way beyond what they are warranted due to meritocracy.

Consider. Suppose two guys toss free throws with basketballs. One guy hits only 20 out of 100 while the other guy hits 80 out of 100. Suppose 20 pts are added to the first guy to make it more 'fair'. So, even though he hit only 20, he's given a score of 40. The effect of AA would be obvious. Now, the guy who hit 80 did very well. But suppose 20 pts are also added to his score to make it 100. Because he did so well meritocratically, people may fail to notice that his score has also been boosted.
In the US, both blacks and Jews get MORE than what they deserve in terms of merit. Take a lowlife second-rater like Ben Shapiro. Or all those Neocons who've become so prominent in the GOP(and the Democratic Party). Are these really geniuses, brilliant thinkers or statesman-like personalities? No, they are lowlife weasels, but their being Jewish is a big boost. Look how all the Jewish creeps responsible for the debacle of the Iraq War never faced negative consequences where their careers were concerned. If anything, they were favored to become editors of journals or leaders of think tanks.

By merit alone, Wall Street Jews should have taken a huge hit in 2008, but they got richer with Obama's bailouts while Middle America sunk. The US imposes sanctions on many nations for 'human rights violations', but Israel not only gets pass-over protection but is showered with gazillions in cash. Given that Israel is the economic powerhouse of the Middle East and that Jews in the US have more than enough to support Israel on their own, you'd think the American taxpayer would be spared. But nope, Jews make sure that all US tax-payers contribute to Israel. And Jewish crooks get pardoned by Democratic and Republican politicians. Jonathan Pollard stands next to Netanyahu and gives the US a middle finger, and all we hear from both parties is "We stand with Israel." Jews can rig elections and cook up Russian Collusion Hoax. No one pays a price. This is all part of AA culture. Jews have license to lie, cheat, steal, and kill. What applies to us doesn't apply to them. If a white person says, "It's Okay to be White", the FBI is hunting him down. If Jews hold AIPAC rallies where Jewishness and Zionism are hailed more loudly than Der Fuhrer in the Germany of the 1930s, that's all so wonderful.

So, Murray is a dumbass cuck to focus only on the AA for the bottom. The real problem began with AA for the top. When Jews were allowed to steal more, lie more, cheat more, and corrupt more without repercussions, it was AA for the top and had profoundly corrosive effect on the American System. Everything came to be geared more and more in terms of "Is it good for Jews?" It fueled Jewish arrogance and megalomania.
Now, initially whites may have been sympathetic toward Jews due to historical tragedy, especially in World War II. Or maybe it was genuine admiration for Jewish talent and skills. Or out of sentimentality of Jews as the Chosen. Or, in the hope that Jews will one day become normal and well-adjusted Good Decent Americans if accepted into the bosom of America. But Jews regarded all such overtures as signs of weakness, much like Adolf Hitler grew bolder with the conciliatory gestures of the so-called liberal democracies. Jews came to regard white earnestness as either naively childlike or a put-on to fool the Jews. Jews also sensed fear among white goyim, i.e. whites, cognizant of the rapid ascendancy of Jews, wanted to be on their good side. One thing for sure, Jews could not be satiated with enough. The fruits of meritocracy wasn't enough for them. They wanted more and more until they had everything. Notice how Jews got so much in Russia but aren't satisfied because they don't control everything. Ronald Reagan said of the Cold War, "We win, they lose." That's how Jews see the goy world. Jews rule, goyim obey, and nothing else is tolerable to the Tribe.

White attitude toward Jews went from sympathy to anxiety to fear to worship(to hide the fear). If Jews want it, they get it. Why can't American Conservatives stand up to craziness like the tranny-lunacy? The main reason is they know Jews are behind it. Without Jewish backing, the tranny-business would be mocked and dismissed, reduced to mince-meat. Indeed, globo-homo and 'gay marriage', not to mention the pronoun-proliferation, couldn't have gotten far. But because it was understood that Jews were behind it and would be very displeased at those who said NO to the Agenda, even so-called conservatives backed down. In contrast, everyone piles on BDS because the Jewish Message is, "We want it crushed." So, whether it's Democratic NY or Republican Texas or Democratic California or Republican Florida, it's "You can't make it in business if you express any sympathy for BDS."

Black AA is duper-AA. It's AA for those who can't make the cut. Jewish AA is super-AA. It's AA for those who can make the cut, and this makes it far more perverse. Giving a poor person a bit more is far more excusable than giving a rich man a lot more. And yet, cucks like Murray who bitch about duper-AA for blacks are totally silent about super-AA for Jews. Due to his cuckish and mindless worship of all things Jewish, Murray and his ilk have convinced themselves that Jews are so smart, so special, and so awesome that they earned every cent of what they have. Never mind all the deep state monopolist machinations between Jewish Wall Street, Jewish Big Tech, whore politicians, and rigged courts. Of course, whereas blacks officially benefit from a program called Affirmative Action(which makes it all very visible), the super-AA for Jews is invisible because Jews get their special favors through their behind-the-scenes manipulations of institutions and industries. Besides, who's going to say NO to Jewish demands given the political, social, and/or economic consequences of displeasing Jews who act like gangsters?

Martin Scorsese's GOODFELLAS as sociology is a nostalgic look at organized crime before the Feds finally clamped down hard. But as metaphor, it's about the Deep State today. Jews and their cuck-crook collaborators laugh at the Constitution and get their jollies from knowing that they are 'made men' and have license to do anything and get away with it. The mafia was vulgar-AA for Italians via muscle and crime. They got a little more that way. And the super-AA for Jews works the same way. Who cares about the rules when you got the power? Also, those with the power get to rewrite the rules. Lawyers become judges, and they set the new laws. Notice how 'libertarians' and 'conservatives' say monopoly social platforms and banks can deny you service because they're 'private companies' but then are totally silent about the Jewish use of the STATE to shut down BDS. All super-AA for Jews.

Blacks didn't become powerful on their own. Black power owes to Jewish Power. Jews keep lit the flame of Emmet Till and milk 'white guilt'(for 'cool' and 'badass' blacks) to maintain control over whites, without whom Jewish Power would crumble overnight. The real problem isn't the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement and what it did for blacks. It was what happened BEFORE the 60s when whites conceded too much to Jews, paving the way for super-AA for Jews and their supremacist-nihilistic behavior. Just how did Jews get away with USS Liberty? Just how did Jews get away with pushing 'anti-racism' and anti-imperialism on the West while demanding that the West defend Zionism's tyranny over Palestinians? (And today, whites in the West are treated no better than Palestinians in West Bank. White patriots, millions of them, are called 'domestic terrorists' by Jewish gangsters who use Joe Biden as puppet-dog.) Just how did Jews manage to get a Holocaust Museum built in D.C. when the only 'genocide' that happened in the US was the destruction of the native American Indians?

Black power has ebbed and flowed in accordance to Jewish wishes. When Jews had had enough of black crime in NY, they got tough on crime and made the city a lot safer. But just like the perfect plan fails in Stanley Kubrick movies, what couldn't happen happened in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump. To discredit Trump, stir up 'white guilt', and embolden the blacks, Jews unleashed the George Floyd riots and funded BLM to the max. Jewish-controlled legal system allowed Antifa and BLM scum to rampage, riot, and loot. Jews were the Hyman Roths behind the BLM-Antifa Rosato Brothers. People like Ta-Hinesi Coates and Kendi X would be NOTHING without the support of Jewish Publishing. (Jews also exert power to force Amazon to ban certain books and ideas.)
Murray, the Dr. Magoo cuck, will mention the Rosatos but will not the Roth. He will rag on the visible duper-AA for blacks but will remain silent about the far more insidious invisible super-AA for Jews, which has pretty much ended US as a democracy. It is an ethno-oligarchy gangster state of the Empire of Judea. Just look at Joe Biden's administration. It is Jewish Supremacism Galore. Are all those Jews(especially mental health expert Rachel Levine) really so deserving? No, they are beneficiaries of super-AA. There was a time when one had to be a Jew of some talent, like Henry Kissinger, to make it to the top. Nowadays, lowlife scum like Victoria Nuland get to shape key foreign policy abroad. Look at Congressional Hearings, and it's always a game of white cucks deferring to Jews who look upon them with smiling contempt. It's all so disgusting. Here's something funny. Though Charles Murray and Jared Taylor disagree profoundly on lots of things, they are totally agreed in shoving their faces into the unwiped ass of Jewish Power and licking.

If you look at ability differences within professions, a rational rule of thumb for people of all races, entirely based on documented ability levels would be, if possible, to avoid black doctors and nurses, because they will probably be less able to care for you at European levels.

Hey, how about a rule whereby all white progs must see black doctors, especially if they need brain surgeries. If they say NO, we should demand, "Why not? What are you, racist or something?" LOL.

K-12 teachers are a full standard deviation below European ones, so all parents, black and white, should avoid those for their children.

That doesn't seem to be the real problem. When it comes to K through 10, you don't need much intellect on the part of teachers. Also, the real problem is politicization of curricula. For example, why are they pushing globo-homo on kids? What is that a part of? Math? Science? History? Home Economics? English? Foreign Language? Why would 'gay' stuff be part of any schooling? Thinking back on my years in grade school, I can't think of a class that would have included globo-homo stuff. We were just learning basic stuff, not being fed degenerate propaganda. What does the fact that some weirdo guys wear dresses and want a surgery to have their dongs removed have to do with learning? As for Critical Race Theory or CRT, the stupid thing isn't even critical. It's dogma pushed as truth, and if anyone critically ask the wrong questions, he or she is ostracized and reviled.

General Milley said the military should look into CRT because he himself has studied all sorts of ideologies, such as Maoism. But he's missing the point(and rather willfully). I got nothing against military schools looking into CRT and trying to understand what it's about. But CRT isn't being offered as a topic of study but as official dogma. If CRT were brought up in a social science class for consideration and debate, it might lead to interesting discussion. But the agenda isn't to discuss and debate CRT but to use it as the guiding principle of the American Ideology. It's one thing to read Marx, Lenin, and Mao in schools, military or otherwise. It'd be another thing altogether to push Marxism, Leninism, or Maoism as the official ideology of the school. Such is the objective of CRT, and Milley is either a liar or a fat stupid cuck.

AMERICA'S WAR ON WHITE CHRISTIANS - Brother Nathanael

Based on what he saw in America in 1831 de Toqueville believed that the assimilation of black people would be almost impossible.

The policy of both EU and US is now ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, or 'Asseximilation'. Social assimilation between whites and blacks as equal citizens is impossible. What is possible(and happening at ever greater scale with sure-to-be dire results) is the jungle-feverization and cuckization of the White World. It's happening in Japan as well as yellows imitate whites who take their cues from Jews. Japanese women reject timid dorky Japanese men as inferior and have kids with Negro men, and their kids dominate Japanese sports, and Japan's corporacracy hails it the face of New Japan, thus emboldening even more Japanese women to have have kids with Negroes who will take over Japanese sports and be revered as national heroes. Though only a small number of Japanese are half-black, the cancer is bound to grow rapidly in that soulless deracinated nation. If you destroy the native idols of a nation(that serve as its official face) and replace it with foreign ones, the nation is doomed. If it's happening to Japan, a distant nation, imagine what is happening in UK, France, Netherlands, and of course the US.
Look how Confederate monuments are defaced and then removed in the South, and whites don't even stand up for their heritage. They hunker down and wait for college football season so they can cheer for black athletes who hump white cheerleaders. White guys are total cuck-maggots. So, who needs assimilation when more white wombs will be sexually colonized by blacks and produce black babies? In the Current Year, everything white is either up for sale, confiscation, or conquest by others. White women? Go to black men. White lands? Go to non-white immigrants. White institutions? They belong to Jews. White Churches? They belong to globo-homo. White History? To be re-narrated with 'Diversity'. Whiteness has become a welcome mat for the muddy boots of non-white masses led by the Jewish Mob.
Meanwhile, white guy cuck-maggots hail jungle fever and interracism as 'anti-racist' and 'progress'. Of course, the Afro-junglization of the White World will turn the West into something like one big North Africa, but whites worship blacks, along with homos and Jews, and most whites seem to welcome it as their minds are putty in Jewish hands. Could this trend be reversed? Sure, if awesome race-ists gained control of institutions and industries, but Jews have control over them and shower white cucks with carrots while using the full force of stick on those who say NO. But then, almost no white says NO. Even Trump and his supporters are pretty cucked on race. They applaud interracism of ACOWW and worship Jews & Israel. They will bitch about Cuba, Iran, China, or Ben & Jerry Ice Cream but, just like lowlife Charles Murray, will not name the Hyman Roth power that has them in its cross-hairs.

INVASION OF THE NATION SNATCHERS - Brother Nathanael

White Liberation must be based on Man-Mentality, NOT Dog-Mentality — Charles Murray is Worthless because, even as he speaks for White Welfare, his Innermost Emotion is Dog-like Servility to the Jewish Master

https://www.amren.com/features/2021/06/two-cheers-for-charles-murray/

It all comes down to whether one has man-mentality or dog-mentality. When a man believes something is right and wants it, he feels it in his bones. He tries to get it, and it's not matter of what others think. He prioritizes what HE feels to be right and righteous. He has autonomy, agency, and independence.
In contrast, no matter how much a dog wants something, the desire takes backseat to the dog's need for the master's approval. This need for approval stands between the dog and what it really wants. No matter how much the dog wants something, it won't run after it IF the master will be displeased.

This is why Charles Murray is ultimately worthless. He has a dog mentality. He may want good things for white folks in a country defined by liberty and civic nationalism, but when push comes to shove, this Biden-voting lowlife scumbag's innermost emotion is abject servility to the Jewish Master. (I can understand Murray despising Donald Trump and not voting for him, but how can anyone who cares for America vote for Joe Biden? Only a status-starved craven scumbag who wants to be invited to cocktail parties.)
Because of Murray's dog-mentality, even what he wants very dearly — decent treatment of white folks like himself — must take backseat to sappy servility to Jews and eagerness to win their approval. So, even as he lays out the argument for innate racial differences, it all comes down to, "I'm doing this for YOU, my Jewish Master. It's to prevent the rise of white consciousness lest it challenge your deserved Chosen-People supremacy over us inferior goyim." What a worthless cuck pile of dung. We can't have such dogs to speak for the white race. A true patriot must be pro-white because he feels it in his bones. Because it is his innermost desire and passion. All his thoughts and actions must flow from his pride of whiteness. Anxiety about Jewish Approval must not stand in the way between him and his desire.

When a man wants to hunt rabbit, he does so because he wants to. He doesn't look over his shoulder for approval. In contrast, even when a dog is most eager to hunt rabbit, it first looks over its shoulder for the master's approval. If the master signals NO, the dog refrains from its biggest desire because its innermost emotion comes down to servility to master's approval and abject fear of his disapproval. Murray is just a white dog, a pathetic hound.

But then, Jared Taylor isn't much better. Unlike Murray, Taylor will express pride of whiteness and need for white interests. But when push comes to shove, he is ever so fearful of spelling out that the main enemy of white consciousness and white liberation is Jewish Supremacist Power. He's not full-dog like Murray but is nevertheless half-dog.
One of the unfortunate aspects of HBD is IQ-centrism. As Jews both count as white and possess the highest IQ, there's this ridiculous awe laced with sentimentality that dreams of a magical Jewish-White Alliance, especially useful to whites as Jews come with moral shield as the Holy Holocaust people: "How can we HBD people be 'racist' or 'antisemitic' when Jews are on our side?" Keep dreaming! But philosemitic HBD clowns do keep dreaming and hoping that their position may gain the seal of approval of the Jews with higher intelligence and holier morality points. It's dog-think.

White Consciousness and Liberation must be based on man-think. White people must want what they want regardless of what Jews think, feel, or demand. If Jews want to join the White Liberation and Empowerment Movement, fine, but if not, the hell with them. If whites want to hunt rabbit, they should just do it. Don't look over the shoulder for approval from the Jewish Master. That is White Liberation, the only real path to freedom and power. Especially when Jews are calling on black thugs to hunt whites, whites shouldn't need permission from Jews to go hunting and choosing their own targets.

By the way, it's not enough to mention higher crime rates among blacks. The real problem is BAMMAMA or Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive. Reality is race-ist, and evolution produced different races. Blacks evolved to be more muscular, more aggressive, wilder, and less inhibited. THAT is why they act the way they do, and that has been the cause of White Flight and Jew Flew from blackening areas.
But because Jewish Supremacists need to keep whites in submissive mode in servility to Zion, Jews concoct horror stories about 'systemic racism' to paralyze white folks with 'white guilt'. This is all very amusing since Jewish bankers funded much of Western Imperialism and Jewish merchants played a role in the 'genocide' of the American Indians. Jews were also the biggest sellers of opium to the Chinese, destroying millions of lives(and recently Jews peddled opioids to the white working class, leading to the deaths of 100,000s of whites). Jewish Bolsheviks worked with Josef Stalin to kill millions of people. And of course, Jewish Power ethnically erased the Palestinians in the tragic Nakba, and the Jewish-led Wars for Israel effectively led to the ongoing Arabocaust in which over a million Arabs and/or Muslims have died. So, where is Jewish Guilt in all this? Jews feel NONE. What a vile bunch of people, and yet, sucking up to Jews is the highest value in currently sicko America.

JEWS AND AMERICA - MOST FACTUAL 40 SECOND CLIP YOU WILL FIND

Charles Murray's latest book FACING REALITY refuses to Face the Reality of Jewish Supremacist Power behind Political Correct Woke-Lunacy — It's Not just a Matter of Facts but of Power — Jews have the Power to willfully Warp our view of Reality

https://vdare.com/articles/charles-murray-s-facing-reality-ruling-class-must-accept-race-differences-or-provoke-the-disaster-of-white-identity-politics

Charles Murray's FACING REALITY: Ruling Class Must Accept Race Differences or Provoke the 'Disaster' of White Identity Politics

So, Murray's First Emotion is to shield Jewish Supremacism from White Liberation.

"Oh master, please don't treat whites so badly. They might rise up to be free and depose you. That would be a disaster."

Never mind the real disaster has been white submission to Jewish Identity Politics. But oh no, Jewish Identity is holy to Murray. Jews are deserving of identity... unlike inferior whites.

His main worry is Jews may lose the servile loyalty of whites if they mistreat whites too much.

Whites awakening and having pride is a 'disaster' for Murray.

It's like someone admonishing a slave-master not to end slavery but to perpetuate it. Gee, the slaves might revolt if they're whipped too hard.

Go easy with the whip if Jews want whites to be happy slaves ho-de-doing and shuffling before the Jewish Massuh. That's Murray's main worry. A cuck to the very end.

Charles Murray is a a real turd. Instead of asking why the elites don't believe the truth, he should ask why the elites are spreading the lie. The ELITES know the truth. Sure, there are plenty of educated dammies, the dogma-driven dogs who have the intelligence but no sense of agency. But many of the elites do know the truth but lie anyway.

But first, who are the ruling elites? Are they colorless and merely based on meritocracy and commitment to 'liberal values'? No, the current elites have a very powerful identity seething with arrogance and contempt. To understand why the LIE is favored by these elites, we need to ask WHO these elites are. Are they merely about riches, privilege, credentials, and power? Or are they about concentrating wealth, power, and influence within a certain group? And that group is what? Take a wild guess. The Eskimos or the Jews?

If all races and groups were equal, meritocracy would produce a colorless ruling class as each group would be proportionately represented at the top. But precisely because of IQ differences among races and groups, even colorless meritocracy leads to domination by a certain group. It's like pure meritocracy in sports has led to black domination and black pride/arrogance in athletics. The end-result has been relative racial homogeneity than diversity in outfits like the NFL and especially the NBA.

Because Jews are smarter, many of them rose to the top and gained more wealth and power. So, there is a concentration of Jews among the elites. But the current elites aren't merely about pride in Jewish achievement. After all, a people could be proud of their disproportionate achievement but still be committed to the principle of colorless meritocracy. Jews don't play that way. Though many Jews did make it to the top by ability, they use their power to rig the system in their favor. Insider knowledge goes a long way to explain why Jews in finance reap such profits. And guess why BDS is suppressed across the nation. And of course, the Tribal control of the legal system ensures that many Jewish crooks get off easy(or get huge bailouts). And even if they're convicted, they are favored for pardons under total shits like Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and etc. Just ask Jonathan Pollard.
There's also the matter of chutzpahistic personality among Jews. (Personality matters. The reason why generic, mild-mannered, golden-retriever-type goyim suck up to Jews is that blandness always loses to salt. Murray is a mild-mannered fuddy-dud, and he gets thrills up his leg by sucking up to Jews with strong personality.) Such personality makes Jews more pushy and arrogant with their power. Anglo Episcopalians are equally smart as Jews, but their blander personality prefers to walk away than get dirty in a fight. (Yellows are also well-represented among higher IQ folks but are even blander than the whites. Thus, they study and follow than think and lead, which is why most of them are cuck-dogs of Jews.) In the past, Anglos had awesome race-ism on their side and used it to great effect. But as 'racism' is now deemed the worst of all possible sins, whites daren't do anything for identity sake or group interest. Not only are Jews stronger in personality but they get pass-over privilege when it comes to 'racism'. What is 'racist' and wrong for whites is noble and wise among Jews. Jews demand that we all support Israel and praise Jews, and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS, even if it has led to the victimization of countless Arabs and Muslims, as well as countless whites. It goes to show ideology loses to idolatry. Even though Jews push 'equity' on the ideological level, it never applies to them because of their idolatrous status as a holy people(and also because they control the media and shape the narrative and its heroes & villains). So, even as whites are to be bashed for not being equitable enough, we must never say Jews are the richest and most privileged people on the planet. Why, that would be 'anti-semitic', insufficiently reverential to the great, super-duper, sacred Jews who not only deserve all that power and wealth but out total devotion(even when they kick out teeth out). The relation between Jews and whites is like a Jew trying to push a white guy off a cliff while the white guy goes out of his way to prevent the Jew from falling.

Privately, Jews know the truth about race and racial differences. True, there are still some idealistic Jews committed to the dogma of 'race is just a social construct', but the really powerful and/or consequential Jews at the top know the truth. They know they are smarter. They know blacks are tougher and more aggressive. They know all about racial and ethnic differences. So, why do they push the LIE? It is not out of some do-goody naive dream for social justice or equality but out of their commitment to Jewish Supremacism.
Paradoxically, Jews need to push 'equality' or 'equity'(or whatever it's called in the Current Year) to maintain Jewish supremacy. As Jews control the dogma and narrative, the issue of 'equality' or 'equity' comes down to blacks and whites(than about Jews and goyim). The Main Gripe is 'why do whites have more than blacks?' It's never about 'why do Jews have more than goyim?' or 'how come 70% of the Biden administration is Jewish?' or 'Why are Hollywood, Wall Street, Big Tech, and etc. controlled by Jews?' Indeed, Murray himself speaks of whites, blacks, Asians, and 'Latins' but doesn't mention Jews. (Why is 'latin' still used for brown people from South America and Mexico when they aren't Latin in race or heritage?) Because Murray won't mention Jews, he creates the false impression that naive white people are behind the 'woke' lunacy about race relations, i.e. hopefully Political Correctness will end IF white elites come to their senses. But, that's just wishful thinking.
In truth, Jews control America and planted those lunatic ideas in the minds of deracinated soulless/rootless whites who are now so gullible because they no longer have a real heritage, history, religion, culture, and/or noble race-ism. Hungry for meaning, they readily absorb whatever BS is pushed by prestigious Jews from the top.
'Woke' lunacy and Political Correctness are not the product of do-goody zealotry and misguided naivete though propped up by them. They are the product of willfully malicious agendas of Jewish Supremacists. Of course, many who believe in the nonsense are sincere in their beliefs. No doubt many white idiots who weep to GREEN MILE or prostrate themselves before George Floyd murals are earnestly dumb or honestly stupid. But these are powerless boobs, the suckers. They are like useful idiots during the Cold War, the anti-war types who were unwittingly used as stooges by Moscow. If not for Jewish concentration of power, the current PC idiocy would not exist, at least not to the extent it does.

Besides, the powerful gets to decide the targets of any ideological ire. Thus, 'equity' fixates on whites having more than blacks but not on Jews having more than whites. It fixates on rare instances of blacks being mistreated by white cops but says nothing about countless whites brutalized by tougher and stronger blacks. It says nothing about the lack of equal protection for many individuals(of all races) who were attacked by BLM and Antifa mobs. It's like in the Cultural Revolution, the slogan 'To Rebel is Justified' didn't mean one could rebel against Mao and the Gang of Four. No, you could rebel only against targets approved by Mao and the Gang of Four. It's no different today in the current West. 'Equity' means kvetching about blacks having less than whites, not blacks or goyim having less than Jews. Even though Jews have the most by far, they hog moral credit by berating whites for having more than blacks. This way, Jews get to own more and morality at the same time. Even though they have more than whites, as spokesmen for the blacks they hog the limelight as champions of 'equity' by bashing 'white privilege'. Rather pathetically, rich white-cuck elites ape the Jews and play the same game. Bidens and Clintons raking it in and living like new royalty but always berating far less fortunate whites for 'exclusion' and 'social injustice'.

But Murray won't mention any of this because he has a giant kosher dildo up his pitiful arse. He is truly one of the most despicable turds that ever lived. In some ways, he's worse than full-blown cucks who are at least consistent in their cravenness; they never deviate from the official line and are rewarded accordingly. In contrast, Murray has taken lots of lumps from Jews in the media and academia, but he sucks up to them all the same. But then, Jared Taylor is even more despicable. At the very least, Murray is somewhat tolerated by the Establishment(because he rarely mentions Jews in a critical way) and promotes libertarianism while denigrating any notion of white identity or consciousness.
Indeed, Murray is sometimes useful to Jews because he will say what's on their minds in a genteel watered-down way. This way, Jews can outsource it to Murray and don't have to dirty their own hands. After all, even as Jews push the nuttery of PC and blackness, they are anxious it may get out of hand, as indeed it did in 2020 with Antifa and BLM getting overzealous and hurting some Jews in the bargain as well. It is then that Jews pull out Murray and publish his views. This way, Jews get to temper the extremism of PC by using Murray as proxy, all the while feigning moral outrage that someone could hold such views. A sneaky way of playing both sides. This means Murray has some value to the Jews. They keep him around as mild and moderate Mr. Crime-Think when things get too out of control(and a bit of counter-narrative is necessary), and on some level, Murray seems to know of and value his little niche in the system. So, if Murray were to speak the total truth, he would have something to lose. His shtick is walking the fine line between the Correct-Think and Crime-Think. In contrast, Taylor is utterly vilified and hated by Jews and has nothing more to lose but carries on with a ridiculous fantasy of smart Jews finally seeing the light and joining with the likes of him.

The current lunacy is the result of Jewish Power. Jews push 'equity-wokery' to blame and shame whites into moral obeisance in order to secure Jewish Supremacism. Critical Race Theory is essentially Jewish reworking of antisemitism whereby Jews-as-villains are replaced with whites-as-villains. There is an element of revenge in all this, but even that isn't the main driving force, which is Jewish Supremacism. Jews are no dummies, and they know they got numeracy but not the numbers. Whites got the numbers. So, if Jews are to maintain their supreme position, they need white cuckery, white submission, white obedience, and etc. before the Jewish Master. Jews use tons of bribes/carrots, but that only goes so far. Japan spread money around in the 1980s, but loyalty based on cash only goes so far. Also, allegiance based purely on money can easily be reviled(as China is finding out these days, especially with Australia). China spent a lot of money to buy influence and ended up being accused of corrupting the world, and people who took the money are shamefacedly cutting ties.
If Jewish Power was solely based on money, it would be vulnerable to exposure and condemnation, much like the money power of Chinese and the Saudis. Jewish Money Power exceeds that of any other in the world, but how come so little is talked about it, especially among whites, the key demographics for Jewish supremacist power? In the past, Jews spent a lot of money and bought a lot of 'friends', but they also faced the danger of being called out for their nefarious influence.
Jews know this and decided to control whites not only through gold but guilt. Give some pieces of gold to the 'good whites' who do as Jews tell them but also instill white hearts with massive 'guilt' so that whites won't dare Name the Jew. So, Jews endlessly bring up the Holocaust and say whites are responsible for all eternity and must atone and make amends. Or any white criticism of Jewish Power is deemed 'antisemitic', thus related to 'nazism'.
But emphasizing Jewish tragedy isn't sufficient to control white hearts forever. After all, Holocaust is receding into history. Whatever might have happened in World War II, the fact is Jews have become the richest and most powerful people in the world, which is becoming impossible not to notice. Also, Jewish Power has become Nazi-like and murderous, which is why criticism of Zionism is growing on the Left. If it were merely between whites and Jews, 'white guilt' may well grow weaker because whites would realize that the Jews who are always berating whites are the richest and most privileged people on Earth. Whatever Jews may have suffered in history, it's not a good look for a rich and powerful people to always play victim.
Unlike Jews however, many blacks will always remain on the bottom. Therefore, they are good material with which to bait long-term 'white guilt'. Unlike Jews who made it out of the ghetto and live in penthouses, many blacks are still stuck in the ghetto. So, while it'd be absurd for Jews to complain about their socio-economic conditions and blame it on whites, this can be done indefinitely with blacks. Jews can always point to blacks and say, "They are mired in poverty because of YOU WHITES", and enough whites will fall sucker for this. And even those whites who see through the LIE will pretend to go along because they won't be hired or promoted unless they are ostensibly with the program. This way, Jewish control of whites isn't just through money/gold but through soul and guilt. Thus browbeaten and sullen with shame, whites seek redemption for their 'racism', and Jews suggest the way: Endless sucking and cucking up to Jews and their two favored allies, blacks and homos. Notice there is nothing about how whites should care more about Palestinians, investigate Jewish power/privilege, or condemn supremacist Wars for Israel that killed countless Arabs/Muslims. If anything, Jews use BLM to whitewash their own racial supremacism in the Middle East. With blacks as bought-off allies, Jews strut around as champions of 'anti-racism' — after all, they are allied with Noble Negroes — , which gives moral cover for what they do to Palestinians. As long as Jews paint the bombs 'gay' or 'BLM', so many educated whites(the key support-demographics for Jewish Supremacism) will turn a blind eye to the evils of US foreign policy. How can the US military be bad when it spreads the gospel of BLM and globo-homo around the world? Jews favor ni**ers to get a free pass for killing san-ni**ers. And US military's globo-homo policy means it has the moral right to fuc* the world in the ass. For many brainwashed woke-cucks or wucks, just about ANYTHING is justified if wrapped in the symbol of BLM or Globo-Homo, in a manner similar to the dumb mantra of 'Support the Troops' justifying wars for idiot conzos.

That's what this is really about. And Jews have gotten even more extreme in pushing PC lunacy because of the internet and Trumpian populism. Jews are trying to put the genie back in the bottle. They know that White Liberation may well mean the end of Jewish Supremacism.

Now, Murray knows all this. He knows it but pretends otherwise because, all said and done, he is a worthless bald-headed cuck maggot whose First Emotion is mindless reverence for Jews whom he deems the Chosen Race due to their higher IQ. If some white women got jungle fever for black dongs, some white men(not least in HBD circles) have Juggle Fever for acrobatic Jewish brains. Murray is so awed by Jewish Genius, the summit of 'human achievement', that he grovels before it as the greatest thing in the universe. It's like master and dog. No matter how much Jews kick him like a dog, his sappy dream is, "I hope they realize I'm a good dog with everlasting loyalty, because my main duty as a goy is to serve the superior race, the one with Jewish Genius." So, just like a dog is loyal even when its master does wrong, Murray is loyal to Jews on a similar basis. While Murray knows full well that Jews sometimes act badly, he has internalized their superiority vis-a-vis goyim, and that means, all said and done, Jews must rule and goyim must serve. The main meaning of his life comes not from libertarian ideology but an idolatrous devotion to Jews as the Superior Race(just like some whites have similar feelings about blacks as the superior race of song-dong-strong.) What a worthless cuck. This lowlife even changed his view on 'gay marriage' because some of his RICH FRIENDS happen to be homo. You see, the status-minded Murray won't dare offend the 'better kind of people', especially Jews. And if Jews say 'homo is holy too', Murray bends over to the homos and gladly takes it up the arse.

He pretends in the latest book that these 'better kind of people' are just misguided and misinformed when, in fact, they know the truth but maliciously spread the lie to guilt-bait whites into obeisance. Imagine there's a master and a dog. But suppose the master, a nasty son-of-a-bitch, gets another dog, a bigger and tougher one, and uses it to attack and humiliate the original dog. The master knows full well what he is doing and sadistically enjoys the cruelty, but suppose the original dog prefers the fantasy that the master is acting this way out of ignorance and in total innocence of the fact that the new dog is bigger and more vicious. Stupid dog.

Murray, who won't FACE THE REALITY of Jewish Power and its abuses, recommends that we face the reality of race. Pot calling kettle black.

This isn't just a matter of facts but of power. Certain facts are suppressed and certain fictions are pushed because of who has the power.

Truth is power-neutral. Facts are independent of any ideology, any agenda, any side. Of course, every power tries to selectively use facts to favor its own agenda. Like with the question, is the cup half full or half empty. Still, the fact is the water fills half the cup, something that can't be denied by both sides... that is if they have any respect for facts. On the matter of race, Jews don't go with cup-half-full or cup-half-empty argument, because, no matter how one slices or dices it, it is threatening to the Narrative. So, they push the NO-WATER-IN-CUP argument when, clearly, water fills half the cup(suggesting both nature and nurture).

Facts don't assert themselves. It doesn't matter how true something is. It doesn't on its own express its truth, just like a gun, no matter how powerful, doesn't shoot on its own. Gun has to be shot by a person. And people communicate and spread messages. People love power-and-control above all, even above facts and truth. It's why we have so many lawyers. People don't hire lawyers to speak the truth but to twist facts and weave fiction to win cases. If politicians must lie to win and face losing with the truth, they will favor the lie over the truth.
Of course, facts are often crucial to power. Those with better understanding of chemistry make better medicine. Those with better understanding of ballistics make better guns. Those with better understanding of soil produce more food. So, better mastery of facts leads to more wealth and power. The West beat out the Rest because its methodology became more attuned to facts of reality.
But just because people use facts to gain wealth/power doesn't mean they prefer facts over wealth/power or hold them in equal regard. No, people love power more, and if suppressing facts will favor their power, they will do just that. Thus, when power favors facts, it's more opportunism than a matter of principle. Why are referees necessary in sports? All the owners, all the coaches, all the players, and all the fans know the rules that must be abided by. And yet, referees are necessary to call foul because the priority in sports is to win. If a foul is committed to the advantage of one's team, it's almost always overlooked(by owners, coaches, players, and fans) even though everyone knows it's a foul. In the 2020 election, even many Democrats must know that there was massive fraud. But those facts are secondary to their winning, their power. It's just human nature. Power has its own logic, and this is where fascism is most useful unlocking the true nature of power.

Truth is Jews control the US, not least its academia and media. And for over a generation, Jews have been using news, education, and entertainment mainly to increase their own power and to weaken rival goyim, especially the whites. THAT is the main driving force behind Jewish media and academia. While Jews will favor facts that favor them, they will almost always favor fiction over facts when it's to their advantage. We saw this with Russia Collusion Hoax, BLM lunacy, lies about Syria & Assad, Covid hysteria, and etc.

Now, why would this be any different with the subject of race? As long as Jews regard the facts of racial differences(being the real factors behind America's problems) as a threat to their control over whites(which ensures their control over America), they will do anything to bury those facts. Jewish Supremacism needs White Submission, and Jews decided long ago that White Guilt is the best way to guarantee white moral paralysis and lack of agency, thus putting them at the mercy of Jews and their allies, blacks and homos. If Murray hasn't the guts to FACE THIS REALITY, he shouldn't be lecturing about how we need to face up to the reality of race. He needs to dwell less on facts and more on WHICH power is suppressing those facts and WHY.

NICK FUENTES: YOU CANNOT BE PART OF THE SYSTEM AND AMERICA FIRST