Elitarianism, not Egalitarianism, is behind the Current Craze for 'Equity' — Cool/Fool Complex regarding Blacks as 'Godpets' of White Afromaniacs

It's not Egalitarianism that energizes the Glob(the mob of globalism). In a way, Populism is far more egalitarian. Why? Because your average Populist is content with his or her station in life. Whether middle class, lower-middle class, or working class, he accepts life for what it is. Populists don't mind working as waitresses, factory workers, construction workers, or truck drivers. They are not obsessed with being among the cream of the crop. Of course, they are not egalitarian in the communist sense as they don't want the state to dispossess rich people or herd the 'bourgeoisie' or class enemies into gulags. But they are egalitarian in outlook in that they don't believe you must be among the elites or have special privileges to have worth as a human being or an American. Populism says, whatever class you belong to, you're a Good American if you're patriotic. When it comes to being a good American, it's not about money or class. A country boy is equal to a Wall Street banker when it comes to being a Good American. HANK WILLIAMS JR- "A COUNTRY GOY CAN SURVIVE" In contrast, all those who clamor for 'equity', especially for blacks, should really be called Elite-tarians or 'Elitarians'. They are not arguing that regular black folks with 'lowly' jobs have value. Their worldview is premised on the prideful conceit that only elitist, rich, special, cool, famous/glamorous positions have value in life. It is utterly different from communism and true socialism. Communism was radical egalitarian in crediting the Worker as the backbone of society. So, if you labored in a factory, you were special. If you worked with your hands, you were noble. You actually did things and made useful stuff. Karl Marx's point was that the Workers create worth BUT the bourgeoisie take this surplus value from them. Communism was also about making the privileged folks do real work. Turn them into workers and farmers, people who create actual thing of value. 

But, that is NOT what the current 'equity' craze is about. It's not about pressuring the elites to recognize the worth of workers. It's not about persuading children of the privileged classes to forsake their conceited status and work with their hands. Rather, it's about the dream that all people, especially magical Negroes, should reach the top and have 'cool', 'creative', 'colorful', 'meaningful', 'glamorous', or 'special' jobs. Supposedly, everyone has the 'right' and 'potential' to become a rich lawyer, successful doctor, high-tech engineer, famous artist/entertainer, respected bureaucrat, wealthy entrepreneur, financial analyst, innovator, or etc. Egalitarianism, radical or populist, prizes the masses engaged in 'honest' labor. That is not what all this talk of 'equity' is about. 'Elitarianism' is the illusion that, somehow, everyone has a 'right'(and innate ability, all too often thwarted) to succeed and have a 'cool' position in life. It doesn't say, "Those without college degrees have equal value as citizens and workers" but says "everyone should go to college and be guaranteed a fabulous career." But how many 'fabulous careers' are there to go around, especially when immigrants snatch up so many of them from Americans with deep roots in the nation? 'Elitarianism' is the ludicrous but appealing dream that the pyramid could be turned upside down, i.e. most people would make it to the top with a college degree. It is a total pipe dream. 

Now, many people have enough sense not to fall for the hype. The real problem is, of course, blacks. Why? They under-perform at elite levels of most endeavors. This is why companies need stuff like 'Diversity Management' offices to hire more blacks. As not enough blacks are worthy material for brainy work, they are hired as symbols. It's like Michelle Obama held some 'diversity manager' position raking in a quarter million dollars a year. (The office disappeared with her when she took off to D.C.). Barack Obama was sold as an 'elitarian' model. You see, if you're a clean-cut black guy who goes to college and smiles at white folks, you can be successful too and become president and rake in tons of money. But how many people get to be president? How many people, even with affirmative action, get admitted to Ivy League Schools? It was a false dream to sell to blacks, most of whom remained as they are. The fact is, even if most young blacks try to follow in Obama's footsteps, they won't get very far because they aren't smart enough. Obama's no genius but smart enough. Also, even if all blacks were smart enough and applied themselves, there are only so many slots for 'cool' jobs. Even if everyone had Einstein's IQ, someone would still have to do 'lowly' labor because not everyone can work at high-end jobs, which are relatively fewer. Traditional socialism and National Socialism said everyone who works has value. Traditional socialism regarded such a person as an honest laborer, and National Socialism regarded him as part of the larger ethno-family. But such views have faded from the discourse. In the Current Year, there are the Cool People, the 'winners', and the 'losers'. Most people with regular jobs are 'losers', and only the 'winners' matter. The problem is not enough blacks are 'winners'.

Now, it's true that most people of any race or ethnic group don't reach very high. Whites and Asians are more successful than blacks(and browns), but most whites and Asians(yellows and Hindus mostly) aren't anything special. They are middle class folks, small businessmen, government workers, or working class. Some are poor. And yet, why isn't it a problem that MOST whites, yellows, and Hindus aren't all that special? Because enough of them are successful, and political psychology is generally 'identifist', or people identify with the successful among their own kind; thus, they feel psycho-empowered by the sense their own kind is well-represented among the successful. So, even if most white people aren't rich and most rich whites don't do anything for the white masses, white people as a whole still feel that their kind is generally successful because there are so many white doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, and etc. Same with Asians. Most Asians aren't special, and most successful Asians do nothing to help less successful Asians. Still, most Asians feel psycho-empowered by the fact that their own kind have done well. It's like the psychology of sports. Even if you yourself don't play the game and get no financial reward(that only benefits owners, media moguls, and athletes), you feel psycho-empowered by the fact that 'your team' won. 

The problem with black political psychology is that not enough blacks make it to elite domains of science, finance, law, medicine, technology, and other prestigious fields. This leads to resentment among blacks and frustration among non-black progs & Afro-maniacs. Indeed, black failure in most elite fields is made worse by the spectacular black success in sports, pop music, and sexual expression. In a nation obsessed with celebrity and sensationalism, blacks have become demigods to many Americans whose top heroes are athletes, rappers, and big-donged studs & bouncy-bootied skanks. That is why it seems ESPECIALLY unfair and unjust that blacks don't do so well in all areas. How can such a super-cool and badass folks not be great at EVERYTHING? I mean, MLK had a boombox godlike voice, so surely, he could have been da best at everything, right? Oprah is so wise, whimsical, and wonderful, so she'd be outstanding at everything, right? Obama's so 'cool' and 'slick', he must be the greatest prez of all time, right? And with Neil deGrasse Tyson, an illusion has been created that blacks are the greatest geniuses. Black Einstein. All you need to do is give them a chance, and they be badass in everything, sheeeeeeeiiiiit. (Yeah, and every Chinese kid has a Michael Jordan in him just dying to come out.) 

Such a mindset has led to the Cool/Fool Complex among blacks and Afromaniacs. "How can a people so 'cool' be a 'fool'?" The real basis of the gripe is not about racial equality. I guarantee, if black IQ were higher and if blacks were way over-represented in elite institutions and industries, NO ONE would complain. Blacks certainly wouldn't, and Afromaniacs would believe all is well with the world: A in Cool = A in School. 

Of course, there is also the 'white guilt' thing about past discrimination, so there is historical precedent for special sympathy for blacks. (But the fact that such sympathies aren't comparable for American Indians and browns, who were also conquered and oppressed by white imperialists, suggest that Afromania is the product of idolatry for blacks success in sports, pop music, and sexual expression than historical oppression.) No one complains there are too many blacks in sports, too many blacks in pop music, or too many blacks in whatever. Too Many Blacks is never a problem. If racial equality were truly what this is all about, people should be clamoring for more Diversity in Sports as expression of national multi-color identity. But, it seems Too Many Blacks is never a problem but Too Few Blacks is.

Another problem is the Negro is like a 'godpet' among whites. Many whites see jesus in the Negro. Why? Jesus was an eloquent nobody who got killed but turned out to be the Son of God. Negroes were brought to the New World as stupid savages only good for picking cotton and saying 'Yessuh Massuh'. But, as US was founded as a profoundly idealistic and Christian nation, blacks eventually came to be seen as pitiable folks of meekness who must be emancipated from bondage. Back then, naive whites were blind to the innate savage nature of blacks because the South had been pretty successful in taming the Negro into a slave/servant. (Whites were more aware of the danger from American Indian savagery because 'Injuns' ran wild and scalped pale-face. Indians, prior to being quelled, were fearsome warriors. In contrast, blacks set foot on in the New World as slaves, and so, many whites were never fully aware of the savage nature of blacks.) Black subservience was taken as a given as it had been drummed into them by white dominance. So, there was great sympathy for Southern Negroes among the naive Northern Abolitionists. UNCLE TOM'S CABIN imagined a noble-hearted suffering and dying Negro for the sins of white folks. And this eventually led to the Civil War. 

UNCLE TOM'S CABIN laid the first foundation of the black-christ or blachrist myth. Just like Jesus died helplessly, so did Uncle Tom. But compassion and sorrow alone don't complete a myth. There had to be something extra. After all, plenty of noble-hearted souls died in history. Sainthood isn't enough to uphold a myth. What is necessary is godhood. And blacks achieved godhood with predominance in sports, pop music, and later sexuality, the stuff that Modern America is most obsessed about, and of course, sports, music, and sex are interrelated. Once blacks began to dominate all three, they weren't seen only as victims of history but victors in what matters most in the modern era that elevates celebrity to godhood. So, it turned out that Uncle Tom wasn't just some Scatman-Crothers-like-dude in THE SHINING but badass King Kong mofo who done whup the white man into white boyhood, create music that make white asses wiggle in pathetic imitation, have boombox voices that sends chills up white folks' spines, and have big dongs that turn white women to jungle fever & white boys into benchwarming dork-boys. 

That's how blacks became the godpets of whites. On the one hand, there is a long progressive history of looking upon blacks with great sympathy like one would a homeless dog or cat. Blacks are figures worthy of condescension, people to patronize with good will. They be Noble Negroes with hearts of gold, and they deserve white compassion and help after slavery and being called 'dumb lazy ni**er'. This mentality is still alive, the view of blacks as pets of whites. Blacks-as-pets must be taken care of. 'Black Lives Matter' for some white folks is akin to 'Anti-Cruelty Society'. Save the stray dogs and cats. Or something like GORILLAS IN THE MIST. Save the poor gorillas from evil humanity. Or consider SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, where a clever black guy exploits this very aspect of White 'Liberals'. But as black got oratorical power, sports supremacy, rap stardom, and dong-bun dynamism, whites have come around to looking upon blacks as some kind of a god-race. And this completes the myth of the 'blachrist'. In Christianity, Jesus, the pitiable figure of sympathy, turned out to be the mighty Son of God. In blachristianity, Uncle Tom, the pitiable figure of compassion, turned out to be Mighty Joe Young and King Kong who be hollering up a storm, beating drums, punching out white boys in the ring, and rapping about 'my ding-a-ling'. 

Where will this 'godpet' lunacy lead us? To a bad place, I imagine. It's the big myth of the Current Year, and it's just as powerful in Europe that looks upon blacks as both pitiable pets of impoverished Africa — "oh, look at all those poor blacks without enough food and clean water in the Dark Continent" — and awesome demigods of sports, rap, and sex who deserve to conquer Europe full of lame white people whose women need to be Afro-colonized and whose men deserve to be dorky cucky-wucks to blackness. 

Blacks and Jews share one thing in common. They are figures of both pity and awe. That means, no matter what Jews and blacks do, they are seen sympathetically. Thus, their power/prowess goes un-criticized, and that means whatever they do is awesome. It's like colleges hardly do anything about black athletes who rob and rape. They are sports 'heroes' after all. And the West hardly does anything about tremendous amounts of Jewish abuse of power and privilege. As Jews are objects of pity(premised on Holocaustianity), their power can only be good, and if you disagree, you are an 'anti-Semite'. And since Jewish Power goes unchecked, it grows and is regarded as awesome. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES - DR. MATTHEW RAFAEL JOHNSON (MYTH20C - EP148)

The Paradox of Equality’s Origin in Oppression — George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM as HBD Tale — Jewish Supremacism and Jewish Resentment of Aesthetic Injustice

We are accustomed to thinking in terms of oppression versus equality. We resist oppression to be free, and freedom allows for equality. Thus, oppression is the enemy of equality. People throughout history have rebelled against oppression for equality. Overthrow of oppression means freedom, and freedom must mean equality, right? There is much truth in this in that an oppressive order is obviously unequal. Those with the Power use the means at their disposal to perpetuate a system whereby some are on the top and keep the rest on the bottom. So, naturally, an oppressive order is unequal. What could be gained by opposing and challenging oppression? Is it the hope that the oppressed will be equal with the oppressors? But this is impossible because resistance and overthrow means that the oppressors will be destroyed or expelled. What if the goal of the rebellion was for ALL people to become equal with the oppressors? But how could this be possible? If peasants rise up against the noblemen, could both sides arrive at a compromise where EVERYONE will be equal as a nobleman? But how can a society be made up entirely of noblemen? Who will do the hard work out in the fields? Who will do the heavy-lifting and the drudgery necessary to keep society going? If everyone cannot become like the privileged oppressors, should the goal be to get rid of the oppressive element altogether? Without oppressors, will all the people, in their newfound freedom, become equal with one another? But without oppressors to hold down the people, won’t some use their freedom and smarts to rise above others? And in time, won’t they become the New Oppressors?

Paradoxically, it appears that the concept of equality couldn’t have been possible without oppression. Even though an oppressive order throughout history has been inherently unequal, it forced a kind of collective equality for most people. For most of history, only a few people were part of the royalty, nobility, and elite clergy. Just about everyone else was more or less equal as slaves, serfs, servants, toilers, peons, peasants, soldiers(whose lives were all-too-expendable), or worse. Even though various classes or castes existed that perpetuated a complex hierarchy, it wasn’t much of an exaggeration to say most societies were divided between the 1% and the 99%. For most of history for most human communities, there was hardly anything that could be called a ‘middle class’. Rather, it was the elite oppressors and the unwashed rabble. And because the elite oppressors had most of the power & wealth and threatened & terrorized the rest of the population into compliance and obedience, there was a coercive kind of mass equality. It wasn’t an equality of freedom but of tyranny. But the perverse truth has been that NOTHING is more effective in enforcing equality than tyranny. While the tyrants are far more powerful and privileged than the rabble, they use their power to force the masses to hunker down, bow their heads, and just accept life as it is. One of the most egalitarian orders is the prison, and why? It is essentially tyrannical. The prisoners, regardless of their ability or background, are given the same clothes, fed the same meals, and must deal with the same conditions. It is one place where a lawyer with high IQ convicted of murder must share the same cell with a derelict with low IQ convicted of murder. It is in prison that people who’d known privilege and power all their lives come face-to-face with brute equality. And they realize that equality is essentially the product of repression and coercion.

Imagine an order made up of high-IQ Jewish geeks, low-IQ black thugs, capable Germans, mediocre Mexicans, unimaginative & earnest Chinese, thieving Gypsies, stilted American Indians, haggly Arabs, boorish Russians, and etc. Suppose they are all placed on a giant tanker in the middle of the ocean. The ship is closely guarded by a ultra-repressive force that metes out ruthless violence to anyone who messes around. All people on the ship, regardless of identity or background, are made to eat the same food, do the same kind of work, and own the same minimum property. They are all prisoners, and they must all comply with the rules. There is no opportunity to rise higher or do much of anything. They must all toil and perform similar basic tasks regardless of their innate ability. So, it doesn’t matter if someone has the brains of Albert Einstein or the physical might of Mike Tyson. They must all mop floors and do their share of daily drudgery. While this order is clearly oppressive and even though there is great inequality between the oppressors on ship and the oppressed prisoners, the fact is most people on the ship, being prisoners, find themselves to be equal with the others. Shared oppression and the suppression of their innate abilities are the great equalizers in terms of status and condition. Now, would such sense of equality and shared experience have been possible IF NOT for the oppression? Suppose all these various groups had encountered one another without coming under the equalizing force of the oppressors. Would the concept of equality ever have passed through their minds? Did humanity discover the meaning of equality only under shared oppression? Was equality the product of oppression? Then, how ironic that mankind came up with the idea of overthrowing oppression in the name of equality. After all, if oppressors are overthrown, there will no longer be a power that forces people to be equal. Some will rise higher and come to rule over others. This is why communism could only exist as Theory of Tyrannical Justice. If the oppressors are overthrown and if the people are allowed to do as they please, their freedom will lead to the rise of all kinds of hierarchies where some will be on the top, some in the middle, some on the bottom. Equality must be maintained by force by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The difference between the Old Order and New Order would be that while the masses were forced to be equal as exploited peons under the Old Order, they would be equal as protected workers in the New Order. If people in the Old Order were equal in having been used as human cattle, the people of the New Order would be equal in being forced NOT to exploit one's fellow man. But if the New Order has anything in common with the Old Order, it'd be that the people would be forced to be equal as members of the Working Class.

Take George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM. Under human oppression, all animals are more-or-less equal. Even though some animals are much smarter and far more capable than others, they are all equal in the sense that their main value to the farmer is as livestock and cattle. Humans are not interested in their intelligence or ability. Pigs may be much smarter than ducks, chicken, and sheep, but as far as humans are concerned, pigs exist to be slaughtered to make bacon, ham, and other stuff. So, if animals come to value equality as any kind of virtue, it’s only because human oppression forced all animals to be more-or-less equal. Even the magnificent horse is raised mainly to serve human needs, and when the time comes, it too will be slaughtered for profit. Humans think of animals in terms of profit-or-pleasure value. So, what does it matter if pigs are far more intelligent than sheep. If people want bacon, they will kill the pigs just like they kill the sheep... or chicken or ducks or whatever. There is a huge difference in intelligence and ability between the smart pig and the dumb hens, but they’ve all been equalized by human oppression. Pigs have been forced to be equal with all the other animals that are far dumber and far less capable. And even though the horse is a more impressive creature than other animals, its worth is assessed in the same manner: "What value does it have for humans?" So, the horse has no intrinsic, individual, or independent value as far as humans are concerned. Its only value is to be assessed in terms of its usefulness or profitability to humans. It's like Jews believe that goyim have no value other than to serve Jews. (This means that Jews would have innate value even if not a single goy existed in the world. But if Jews were to vanish from the world, goyim would have no reason to exist because the only value for their existence is to serve Jews. Without Jews to serve, they might as well just die.)
All animals are equal as peripheral planets that must revolve around human need and ‘greed’. If the animals come to value equality, it is only because they share the equality of oppression under humans. It’s like the scene in THE FUGITIVE. Harrison Ford plays this rich doctor with a nice house and beautiful wife. But when he is falsely convicted of murdering his own wife, he is made equal with all the losers, derelicts, and lunatics on death row. And if Gandhi truly tasted equality for the first time in his life, it was when the whites called him a ‘coolie’ and forced him off the train in South Africa. It was oppression that made Gandhi look around and feel equal with the rest of the downtrodden colored folks. When Gandhi had experienced freedom and privilege as a law student, he wasn’t looking to be equal with anyone. He wanted to rise high and be with the privileged folks, white or colored. It was only through oppression that he tasted equality with the masses he never really thought about until then.


In ANIMAL FARM, what happens to equality when the humans are overthrown? Initially, the idea is that equality will go from a condition to an ideal. As properties of humans, most of the animals were more-or-less equal under condition of human oppression. Equality had been imposed on them. In their shared misery under human ‘greed’, they came to value equality as a kind of camaraderie. It went from a condition to an ideal. And the dream was that once the humans were overthrown, animal equality would be sustained and strengthened through mutual respect. But without the flattening effect of human oppression, pigs realize that they are much smarter than other animals. Being so smart, they figure they should lead and take charge. Initially, they say they deserve the power because they will use their smarts for the good of all animal-kind. But as time passes, pigs begin to feel contempt for the lesser and dumber animals. They find it insulting to pig-hood that they must remain equal with animals such as chicken, ducks, horse, and the like. Even as they invoke equality as an ideal, they feel that equality was something that had been forced on them by humans who, in their narrow-minded greed, regarded pigs as no more valuable than the dumber animals. As far as humans were concerned, chickens existed to provide eggs and pigs existed to provide bacon and ham. Deep down inside, pigs resented having been forced to be equal with the rest of the dumb animals. They were actually special. Because they couldn’t prevail over humans all on their own, they forged an alliance with the other animals. The full force of the beast rebellion ousted the human oppressor, the farmer. Because pigs gained power with the help of other animals, they had to keep the grand bargain. Despite their higher intelligence, they pledged to devote their ability toward serving the common good of all animals. But due to their gluttonous porcine instincts and the natural contempt of intelligence for dumbness, pigs weave an elaborate web of lies whereby they become more and more powerful and less equal but in the Name of Equality.

Though George Orwell was a socialist and ANIMAL FARM is a satire on Stalinism, it can now be read more as a tale of HBD(human bio-diversity) than ideology. It’s essentially about how biology reasserts itself in a state of freedom and creates a natural hierarchy that favors the clever and devious over the earnest, naive, and dumb. Once humans are gone from the farm, ideology bends to biology. Despite the collective ideal of equality, the fact is biology comes to determine who gains the power. Smart win over the dumb. The ruthless and devious win out over the naive and childlike. Higher intelligence and personality-of-cunning win out.
While 1984 is the greater work, indeed Orwell’s masterpiece, it is more particular to a certain time and place. Though many observations of 1984 are still applicable today, it is very much a satirical indictment of Stalinism. Though ANIMAL FARM was intended as an allegory of what happened to the Soviet Revolution, its larger implications are more relevant than ever. Indeed, it now says more about what happened to Russia AFTER the fall of communism than under Stalinism. For starters, even though it could be said that the Bolsheviks, especially Stalin and his henchmen, betrayed the ideals of Marx(and perhaps Lenin), they were genuine ideologues. Stalin was a serious communist, as were those around him. And even though they gained great power and privilege, they were still committed to the Revolution and weren’t mainly focused on material wealth. Even though they lived better than most people in the USSR, they were not obsessed with riches and good times. They were committed to creating a new kind of society. If Stalin really wanted to live lavishly like Gaddafi, Kim Il Sung, Shah of Iran, and etc., he certainly could have. But in fact, he didn’t wallow in luxury and essentially led the life of a bureaucrat. Also, even though smart and cunning people took power under Bolshevism, Stalinism was not about the triumph of HBD. Indeed, unlike most of the smart Bolsheviks, Stalin was not Jewish. He was a Georgian, and he surrounded himself with mostly non-Jews at the highest levels of power. In ANIMAL FARM, Napoleon(Stalin) the pig wins out over Snowball(Trotsky) the pig. Napoleon wins mainly by raising puppies to grow up to be his attack force. He doesn’t have to go through the trouble of outwitting the other pigs or win arguments because the dogs around him have been raised to be loyal to him and to obey him. He has power beyond mind and wit. He has the power of blind loyalty. The dogs will maul anyone who disagrees with him, and Terror and Fear Factor become the ultimate arbiters of policy. Napoleon wields the dogs like Jews in the US use Antifa to attack and silence any opposition. Orwell was right to illustrate how Stalin prevailed over Trotsky by the use of Blind Loyalty and Terror, but I wonder if it was accurate to portray Stalin and his henchmen also as pigs. Though Stalin was pretty bright and recruited some men of considerable intelligence like cretinous Beria, triumph of Stalinism was ultimately not the victory of intelligence and ability but of mediocrity based on loyalty, fear, and discipline. Perhaps Stalin in ANIMAL FARM should have been portrayed as a wolf pretending to be farm animal that surrounds itself with loyal dogs.

If any period in Russian history truly resembled what happens in ANIMAL FARM, it was the post-communist heyday of the 1990s when Jews gained control of Russia and could do pretty much as they pleased. That truly was a Time of the Pigs. Whatever may be said of Stalin faction vs Trotsky faction, both sides were genuinely committed to the Revolution and Communism. Trotsky could be cunning and headstrong, and Stalin could be ruthless and manipulative, but there was no doubt that they were committed to the Revolution. So, what happens at the end of ANIMAL FARM doesn’t really apply to Stalinism. Stalin’s USSR was a brutal place of terror and fright, but it remained, from top to bottom, a system committed to Marxism-Leninism. It was after the death of Stalin that the elites of the USSR grew more cynical and apathetic. But these elites were more like mules than pigs. Men like Brezhnev took the helm for their utter lack of imagination. The system regarded them as 'safe'. And despite rising corruption and expanding privileges of those in the inner circle, there were limits to how much one could enrich oneself as long as the communist system remained in place. It was with the fall of communism that piggishness really ran wild in the USSR. If there was communist ideology to restrain individual greed and material self-interest in the 1920s and 1930s, the 1990s were an era of hog-wild for the New Russia. Granted, there was the new ideology of the End of History that said Russia was ripe for ‘liberal democracy’ and ‘free markets’ that would supposedly lift all boats in an era of privatization and profiteering for all the Russian folks, but that didn’t happen. Most of the wealth went to a handful of Jewish oligarchs who were supported by Global Jewry mostly centered in the US. So, what happened in the 1990s of New Russia more closely resembles what happens in the final part of ANIMAL FARM. It was all about the smartest people in Russia, the Jewish pigs, slurping up all they could find and then some. It didn’t matter that some of these Jews had been communists or had communist ancestors. They invoked ‘liberal democracy’ and ‘privatization’ as cover to rake in as much as they could for themselves. And like the utterly cynical pigs at the end of ANIMAL FARM, the Jews of the 1990s had only one thing in mind: "We Jews grab and loot everything." Say what you will about Stalin the mass killer and tyrant. The fact remains that he and those around him were mostly True-Believers in communism. That’s one thing you can’t take away from Stalin. He died a communist. He may have violated all sorts of Marxist principles, but he didn’t take power just to pig out for personal gain. But that is precisely what happened in the Russia of the 1990s. And if Stalin favored loyalty and mediocrity, Russia of the 1990s favored the most ruthless and nihilistic kind of Jewish smarts & greed to run wild. Of course, Jews did much the same in the US with the Dot.com bubble and Housing bubble, but thankfully the US economy and system were sturdy enough to withstand Jewish greed gone hog-wild. Unfortunately, Russia was too weak, dazed, and disoriented after the fall of communism to weather the piggish Jewish onslaught that ravaged Russia 100,000x worse than any band of Cossacks who, at most, ransacked one village at a time. Jewish Globalists were like Mentally Advanced Cossacks or Mongols who’d devised global strategies to descend upon any vulnerable nation like a swarm of locusts to devour as much as they could until they set their sights on a new target. These Jews are like George Soros the vulture-hawk who is perched high above and looking for the next kill. When Jews spot the next prey, they all coordinate their actions and move in for the kill and take all they can. Jewish globalists are glocusts.

But then, Jews pose a problem to all societies because they are most pig-like in their intelligence(higher) and appetite(voracious and insatiable). Indeed, Karl Marx said as much about Jews, and if anything, argued that one of the reason why capitalism must be destroyed is because it enables Jews, the kings of capital, to go crazy with greed and mess up all the world. Letting Jews practice capitalism is like letting pigs loose on the farm; they will dig up and eat everything. It’s like taking fat black women into an all-you-can-eat fried chicken joint. It’s like homos entering a bathhouse. Jews just can’t help it. They see that money, and they go crazy. They got to have more and more and more... like in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET.

Jewish personality and Jewish intelligence are a marriage made in hell. Jewish personality is arrogant, sneering, pushy, contemptuous, rabid, and virulent. Jews often say ‘anti-Semites’ are ‘rabid and virulent’, but so-called antisemitism is a strong counter-reaction to Jewish foulness. Jewish intelligence is restless, tireless, and obsessive. Jewish personality and Jewish intelligence conspire to act like pigs with locust-wings. Jews are like a swarm of flying locusts. Just like pigs dig up and devour the roots of all plants, Jewish pigs gnaw at the roots of all cultures and sever a people from their identity, territory, and roots. Jewish pigs have been digging up and destroying the roots of European folks. Jews are now even going so far as to change European mythological and historical figures into blacks. So, Lancelot and Achilles are made black. So is Julius Caesar. And white cucks go along as they worship the Holy Negro, and blacks love it because they believe that their innate ‘badassness’ makes them the superior race, and that means everything great and noble must be associated with blacks even if blacks had nothing to do with it. The logic goes as follows: PC says blacks are great, so if there was a great European figure, his greatness should be conflated with blacks because blacks are great. Blacks = Great, just like Homos = Pride.

Flying Jewish Pig with voracious appetite about to devour a city

Flying Jewish Pig with restless intelligence figuring out how to take over the world

Even though the pigs don’t spell it out in ANIMAL FARM, they seem to be especially angry at humans for having forced them to be equal with the lower animals. How dare the humans to have treated pigs the same as all the other creatures that aren’t possessed of high intelligence, cleverness, and the power of will? So, even as pigs lead the dumb animals, they feel contempt for them. They feel the insult that the humans had regarded them, the smart pigs, as hardly better or higher than ducks, chickens, and sheep. Pigs, with their ambition and ability, want to be like humans. But because of the history of human oppression of animals, including pigs, they also want to destroy humans. Pigs wage war on humans but to become the New Humans. They claim to represent the animals, but they find it insulting for their kind, the superior pigs, to be associated with dumb animals. In a way, pigs are not the villains of ANIMAL FARM. In the end, they are following their own nature. It’s not so much that they choose to be evil. It’s that the power of biology and nature inevitably drives the pigs farther away from the rest of the animals that simply aren’t all that cunning and capable of brain power. Granted, pigs become evil in the sense that they betray their stated ideology, but the principles were an accidental product of certain conditions. Because humans oppressed all animals more-or-less equally, pigs found themselves in the same straits as the rest of animal-kind. And since they needed collective effort to overthrow the humans, pigs embraced egalitarianism. But once the humans were no longer around to impose and enforce the equality-of-oppression on the animals, nature took its course and favored the smarter and more cunning pigs to rise higher than the rest of the animals. Sure, the pigs lie and cheat a lot, but then, being smart is about finding ways to run circles around the less intelligent. Take gambling. Why is it such a big industry? Because smart people dupe so many pathetic dummies into giving up their money. If a Jew told some guy, "How about you give me $1,000", the guy would give the Jew the middle-finger. But if the Jew shows the guy a machine with lots of flashing lights that offers the promise of a jackpot, the guy may happily blow his $1,000 that ends up with the Jew. The clever Jew took his $1,000, but the guy thinks he had a swell time because of the fun machine with flashing lights. (How pathetic that the GOP relies so heavily on Las Vegas for funds. So much for the Family Values party.)

Anyway, we can learn much about Jewish psychology by considering the pigs of ANIMAL FARM. Why were Eastern European Jews so bitter? While some Jews became fabulously rich, especially in Western Europe, many Eastern European Jews faced limited opportunities and hard times. Though smarter than the goyim, many had to toil as working-class folks and small-time peddlers. Many couldn’t rise much higher than the poor goy sods who toiled the fields or factories. And this drove many Eastern European Jews toward various forms of radicalism ranging from anarchism to communism. But subconsciously, just like the pigs of ANIMAL FARM, they must have felt resentment that they, the smart and special Jews, had to rub shoulders with the dimwit goyim. The People of the Book had to make common cause with people-who-couldn’t-read-books. Being tireless, restless, and intelligent, many Jews made able revolutionaries, and they were instrumental in exploiting the crisis of WWI to take power. Because of their experience of oppression and deprivation, many Jewish Bolsheviks were sincere in their commitment to communism, at least consciously. But Yuri Slezkine’s THE JEWISH CENTURY indicates that, early on, the victorious Jewish communists began to realize that the upper echelons of the New Order was filled with Jews. Even though they dare not say it openly, there was a sense that they, as smarter and more capable commissars, should take control of the USSR. And as they began to gain dominance in the elite institutions, they grew ever more distant from the rabble, the masses. All that had been denied to Jews under the Tsarist system was suddenly open to them. There was no institution, however high, that shut its doors to Jews. Jews could enter the innermost sanctum of power under the New System. And they took full advantage. The more they did this, the more they realized, at least subconsciously, that they are not part of the rabble, the dimwit toiling masses. They were meant for higher and better things. They were becoming the new elites, the new aristocrats. And yet, because they came to power in the name of the Revolution devoted to equality, they tried to square elitism with egalitarianism. Just like the pigs in the early stages of the revolution in ANIMAL FARM, Jewish elites sincerely wanted to believe that they deserve special privileges because people-of-the-mind must think and strategize without the distractions of the daily grind. And yet, what happens when one’s elite position becomes entrenched? And when one marries someone of similar intelligence & ability and raises one’s own kids to also be part of the system?

In the US, Jews are the most powerful and the richest people. They are the least equal and most privileged. And despite Jewish feminist bitching, Jewish women make more money than goy men. Jews got almost all the media, much of Wall Street, almost all of Hollywood & Gambling, the biggest prizes in Silicon Valley, and etc. Most politicians are bought-and-sold whores of Zion. Jews control elite academia and mold the minds of young goyim who will manage the West according to the wishes of Jewish oligarchs and neo-prophets. And yet, because of Jewish perception of history wherein they were oppressed along with the rest of humanity, especially by Europeans/whites, Jews still act like they’re in rebel-egalitarian mode. Of course, Jewish historical perception is seriously warped. While it’s true that there were periodic outbursts of violence against Jews in Europe, Jews also did things that understandably pissed off many Europeans. Jews collaborated with Moors who occupied Spain. Jews later aided the Turkish takeover of Constantinople. Jews were heavily involved in slavery and the selling of millions of Slavs to North Africa and Middle East. Also, Jewish financial power funded much of Western imperialism, and it was Jewish David Sassoon who was the main seller of opium to the Chinese. And in the American West, Jews sold guns to white people to kill Indians with. So, Jewish historical perception is perversely selective and bogus. Because Europeans sometimes bashed Jews, Jews would have us believe that they were of kindred spirit with black slaves and non-white subjects of Western Imperialism. More often than not, Jews were funding the black slave trade. They were working with Western Imperialists in the colonization of non-white lands and profiting most handsomely. Yes, there was Shoah, but Nazi madness was a historical reaction to horrible Jewish behavior in the Soviet Union(where millions died under Bolshevism) and in Weimar Germany where Jews acted like Russian & American Jews in the 1990s. Shoah, horrible as it was, didn’t just happen out of blue for no reason at all. Rather, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was an extreme reaction to extreme actions. Just like Japanese bad behavior led to events that spiraled out of control and led to the mass-bombing of Japan(and the deaths of many innocents as well), Jewish bad behavior led to massive reaction that went mad and committed a horrific genocide. Nothing justifies the Shoah, but Jews got burned by playing dangerously with fire. If you piss off enough people, don’t be surprised if things get out of control and you get burned twice as bad as you deserve. Angry people lose all sense of limits. Jews have a way of pissing people off, and Jewish behavior today in finance, media, culture, and politics really makes us wonder if ‘antisemitism’ was irrational or unjustified. I can’t imagine how any sane person could not be anti-Jewish in today’s mad climate of Jews gone rabidly and virulently hog-wild.

Just like the pigs, Jews seem to harbor a two-front hostility. On the one hand, they continue to see the White Race as the Eternal Goy Enemy, the people who, as Christians, persecuted Jews for over 1,000 yrs and carried out the Holocaust. Jews want to get back at whites as much as possible. Jews want white nations to be inundated with non-whites. Jews want white wombs to be colonized by blacks and want white men to become castrated cucky-wucks. Jews still see themselves as champions of progress against the forces of White Reaction and ‘Racism’. As the leaders of the movement, Jews see themselves as allied with the wonderful and noble People-of-Color, especially the blacks. But on the other hand, Jews seem to be resentful that past white denial of equal opportunity to Jews forced Jews to identify with the inferior and lower orders of society such as ‘white trash’ working class, blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. The smarter and superior Jews were put in a situation where they had to make common cause with the dummy rabble of the world. But just like pigs needed the other animals to overthrow the humans, Jews have needed allies as they simply don’t have the numbers. In the USSR, they eventually lost out because their quality of power was so overwhelmed by the quantity of power of non-Jews. And in the US, the Jewish-favored Democratic Party kept losing elections from the Nixon Era to the Bush I era. Thus, Jews relied on Mass Invasion-Immigration whereby the contract between Jews and non-white immigrants would be (1) Jews would keep pushing for more non-white mass entry into US and (2) non-whites would vote for the Democratic Party to keep Jewish elites at the helm. But how do Jews really feel about jive-ass blacks, mediocre Mexicans, lame-personalitied Asians, swarthy Muslims, and grubby ‘dotkins’? Deep down inside, Jews wanted to be with the white race. But the white race’s response ranged from "You can’t join our country club" or "You can’t marry my daughter" to the Holocaust. Or, that’s how Jews remember things.
Of course, whites have now changed their tune and want Jews as allies against the darkies. The White Conservative proposition to Jews is, "We will embrace you Jews as fellow whites, indeed as superior and best kind of whites, on condition that you work with us and for us against all those darkies." But why should Jews take the bargain when they got even more power, privilege, and prestige than the whites? Whatever appeal such an offer may have had many decades ago, it’s hopeless when Jews already got just about everything that counts in the US. Jews have gained Jewish supremacist power in the US, and their main obsession is to keep whites in Submissivist mode to serve Jewish supremacism. Jews no longer see white elites as superior people to aspire to or model themselves after. Jews respect only one thing, and it’s smarts. Once Jews figured that they are smarter than whites, their attitude has been, "You dumb whites serve us Jews or shut up." It’s like blacks measure everything by physical toughness, and once they realized that they could beat up whitey, their respect for the white man went down the toilet. Blacks had more respect for whites in the distant past when they feared the white man as a frightful character. But upon watching all those white boys knocked out by black boxers, blacks came to see white boys as ‘slow faggoty-ass mofos’. Blacks see white males in the way that white males see Hindu, Mexican, or Asian males. Not seriously.
At any rate, Jewish hatred for whites isn’t just about memory of past injustice or contempt for dimwit white goyim. (Imagine how William Kristol must have been laughing to himself when he used to tell the world that Dan Quayle was the most credible candidate for the 1996 election.) It’s about Jewish self-image. Rightly or wrongly, Jews feel incredibly ugly. They feel God gave them a raw deal in offering the Covenant but denying them beauty. While there are plenty of attractive Jews, the general idea is that Jews, by and large, are gross and ugly. Jews really feel this way even if they may not admit it. Some Jews react to this self-image with humor and mockery: Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Howard Stern, Marx Brothers, Don Rickles, Albert Brooks, etc. Some turn to sexual extremism, like Philip Roth in some of his novels, and the likes of Harvey Weinstein with their perversions(that largely set off the #MeToo mania). In some ways, this is what angers Jews the most, why they hate whites the most. It is bigger than history or any theory of justice. It is bigger than intelligence. It’s like the character of PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT is many times smarter than the shikses he bangs, but he feels powerless before them. And in CASINO, the super-smart Jew, who calculates every move, gambles everything on the blonde shikse whore. Also, Nazism was essentially an aesthetic movement to preserve Aryan Beauty from the clutches of Jewish ugliness. What troubles Jews is that even as they rail against the Beauty Cult of the Nazis, they can’t help acting according to Nazi stereotypes. PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT and other such Jewish tales in books and movies do indicate that Jews believe in racial hierarchy in beauty. Jewish men want to stick their dongs into ‘Aryan’ shikses and generally dislike the looks of Jewish women. (Lately, Jewish women have formed their own cunt-covenant or clit-covenant or clitonant with history, and they’ve decided to let their pussy-craving dictate their behavior, and this has led to massive Jungle Fever among the Jewish American Princesses.) The fact is even if all whites denounce Nazism forever and profess their sympathy for Jews, Jews will continue to resent the white race for superior beauty that makes Jews look ugly and gross in comparison. Now, we can’t blame whites for being more attractive as such would be irrational. After all, white beauty is not the creation of ‘anti-Semites’. Still, like the envious three sisters in CINDERELLA, ugliness resents beauty. Even beauty resents beauty, as in SNOW WHITE where the Queen is offended that there is a woman who is prettier than she. Just like ancient Jews called for the smashing of all false idols, modern Jews want to desecrate white beauty that keeps reminding Jews of their inferior looks and ugliness. Jews have pride of higher intelligence and stronger personality. But one must make an effort with intelligence and personality to achieve things. In contrast, beauty is effortless in attracting attention and affection. And Jews hate this about whites even though it’s not whites’ fault that they are prettier. So, how do Jews handle this? Some Jews just marry whites. But other Jews seek to desecrate and destroy white beauty through promotion of miscegenation, especially with blacks. This is why Jews promote Jungle Fever among white girls. Especially Jewish women who feel great envy for blonde ‘Aryan’ women want white wombs to produce children with flat noses, fat lips, and kinky hair. They want white wombs to produce kids that look like baby monkeys.

Jews promote ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs so that white women will give birth to kids that look like this. Jews, who are so envious and resentful of white beauty, seek to destroy it by having it mixed with other races, especially blacks. Jewish girls will celebrate with joy when the beautiful white girl whom they've envied all their lives go with blacks and produce some kid who looks half-simian. Jewish feminists used to bitch about sexualization of women into objects, but they no longer do so because so much of sexuality in pop culture now promotes Jungle Fever that will encourage more white women to destroy the posterity of their beauty by going with 'groids' and producing from their wombs kids who identify as 'black' and work against the white race. Of course, Jew-run media give special attention to such race-traitor whores.

Though Jews tend to moralize their gripes against whites, the fact remains that the MAIN reason for Jewish hostility toward whites is aesthetic. Indeed, suppose your average Jew looked like Clint Eastwood or Paul Newman(a very handsome half-Jew) whereas most whites looked like Ralph Kramden or Rosie O’Donnell. Jews would be happier, more at peace with themselves, and less hateful of whites.
Jewish God is a jealous God, and this jealousy was a projection of Jewish personality, the most jealous personality in the world. Jews feel they must have everything. Jews are jealous of Russians for having all that land. Jews want it for themselves. Jews want to own and control the US, the lone superpower. Jews want control of all of media. But one area in which Jews lose out is in looks, and this makes them furious. Consider the very semitic-looking actress in MULHOLLAND DR.(at 42 sec of the video below). Even though she’s an insignificant character in the movie, people who look like her are all over Hollywood. Imagine what is going through their minds whenever they see some pretty shikse. I don’t know if the actress Kate Forster is Jewish, but David Lynch clearly made her out to look Semitic with frizzy hair. Also, it’s strange that she is introduced as ‘lovely Martha Johnson’ when she is clearly made out to look unfeminine and ‘alien’, hardly waspy like ‘Johnson’. Jewish self-image fuels much of the neurosis that drives Jews to act crazier, more reckless, and more pathological in world affairs. It wouldn’t matter if Jews weren’t powerful, but they are very powerful, and just like Hitler projected his pathology onto the world, Jews are doing much the same, and this bodes ill for mankind. Some Jews have maintained that Wasps are all looks but no soul whereas Jews are no looks but all soul, but what if Jews are no looks and no soul? Not many seem to have entertained that possibility. In BROADCAST NEWS, the Jewish guy lacks looks and grace but speaks much truth and stands for principles whereas the wasp guy is nice-looking and likable but so shallow and without scruples. But the fact remains that Jews have maintained total control of much of the media, and with each passing year, they’ve exhibited less and less principles and integrity. Things got worse with the rise of Boomer Jews. At least older Jews grew up with some culture of restraint and dignity. Boomer Jews who grew up with permissive individualism and insatiable egotism have no inner brakes in using media or whatever instrument at their disposal as their personal sex toys.



Anyway, what can we say about the future when Jews, the least equal people on Earth, insist on carrying on as the champions of equality and fairness? What can we say about Jews who bitch about ‘white supremacism’ but then demand that all whites go into submissivist mode and support Jewish Supremacism all around the world, even the IDF death squad’s shooting down of hundreds of Palestinian protesters commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Nakba pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map, surely an act far more grievous than Japan’s invasion of Manchuria or Germany’s takeover of Czechoslovakia. When Jews sound the alarm about ‘white supremacism’, they are not denouncing supremacism per se but rather demanding that whites must suppress any sense of white identity and interests if they are to serve as agents and puppets of Jewish Supremacism. After all, why would a people who primarily care about their own race and culture prioritize the serving of ANOTHER people? If slaves began to put their own interests first, why would they serve the master? Jews are triggered by something far less than real white supremacism. I can understand Jews being freaked out by genuine neo-Nazis(though Jews don’t seem to mind forming an alliance with such ilk in Ukraine), but Jews fear run-of-the-mill white identity even more. While neo-Nazism can easily be discredited, white identity and interests that call for limited white nationalism in white nations is NOT supremacist and, if anything, anti-imperialist. Such white people are saying white/Western nations should NOT meddle in the affairs of non-white nations, and in turn, non-whites have no right to demographically inundate and invade white nations. It sounds reasonable, and that is why Jews are trying to smear such views as ‘far right’ and ‘nazi’. Because if white people gain sensible nationalism and mind their own business, they will be far less likely to sign up to serving Jewish globo-homo supremacist imperialism.

In the Animal Farm of the future, what we need is separate nationalism for each species of animals. Let horses have their corral, let ducks have their pond, let chickens have their coop, let cows have their pasture, and etc. Let all animals get along but also respect each other’s spaces. And all animals must tell the pigs to keep to their own pigsty. Let pigs do their own thing. Sure, pigs, being smarter, can do much for other animals, but due to their piggish nature, pigs will just manipulate and abuse others for their own aggrandizement; it's just part of their nature; they lack nobility of heart despite their superiority of mind. So, it’s best for other animals to be wary of the pigs. And lest pigs use dogs to frighten and pressure other animals, the Animal Farm of the Future needs to re-train dogs to regain their autonomy as free dogs and not serve as lackeys and Janissary of the pigs.

Of course, on some level, Jews know that equality is no longer tenable given their great power and privilege. Why would Jews want equality? In a truly equal world, Jews as 2% of the population should make up only 2% of media, academia, law, Hollywood, high-tech, and etc. What Jew would want such equality? Jews love and cherish their immense power. This is why Jews came to favor Diversity over Equality or try to trick people into believing that Diversity is the New Equality when, in fact, Diversity leads to even more inequality as it brings together different peoples with wide-ranging variances in ability and talent. Not for nothing is California the most diverse and the most unequal state. But Diversity among goyim means they will be too busy squabbling among themselves to be able to unite against the Jews who will just 'eat like effendi'.

Could the Academia be More Ideologically Egalitarian because It is more Elitist in Setting? - Culture of Civility and Britain's Doom

Paradoxically, is the academia more egalitarian(ideologically at any rate) precisely because it is more elitist in culture and company?

In real life, it’s easy to spot racial, ethnic, and cultural differences. It’s plain to see that various groups talk, act, and behave differently not only in what they do but how they do it. You see this in all walks of life.

So, why is the academia blind to such obvious truth? One possible reason could be that, traditionally at any rate, the elitism of academia in admission and conduct(proscribed professional standards) has had a filtering and fostering effect. In other words, the academia attracted the smartest members from each and every group. The smartest individuals of any group tend to be unrepresentative of the whole. Smart Irish don’t act like most Irish. Smart Poles stand apart from average Poles. Smartest blacks don’t act like most blacks.
Also, because academic culture is cerebral, it requires teachers and students(esp those in graduate studies) to conform to standards of behavior most conducive to pursuit of knowledge and scholastic civility.
So, in aptitude and attitude, the result tends to be an agreed-upon consensus of conduct and manners among academics regardless of race or ethnicity. Whether Irish, German, Chinese, black, Muslim, Anglo, Mexican, and etc, most academics have to be well-mannered and well-spoken. They can’t act like rednecks, Jihadis, street peddlers, hagglers, or rappers.
Such a social climate is likely to create an impression among academics that all people are the same under the skin, i.e. given the right opportunities and under proper conditions, anyone of any group could become a rational learned person.

But in fact, the academic setting is highly artificial and sheltered from the real world. It’s like comparing a zoo or a garden with nature and wilderness. Elite Academia takes exceptional and unrepresentative people — the smarter and/or more intellectually curious ones — from all walks of life and then fosters them to adhere to strict standards of conduct that discourages impulsive behavior. Thus, the academism flattens the genetic personalities of various races into a generic persona. A white academic in an elite college who never lived with run-of-the-mill Negroes might rub shoulders with a smart well-mannered Negro and get the wrong impression that most blacks could be like him. Granted, it's also true that most whites are different from a well-mannered white academic, but it’s no less true that there is a huge discrepancy between a run-of-the-mill white person and a run-of-the-mill black person.

Anyway, as colleges become more ‘inclusive’ and diverse — esp with declining standards — , it’s very likely that more and more of raw reality will spill into the academic setting. Students and even faculty — and hack administrators — will more closely resemble and reflect the crudities of the communities from which they’ve sprung. Also, as the academic culture changes from one that's civil, self-restrained, and neutral — the favored styles of Anglo tradition — to one that is more strident, aggressive, egotistical, and radical, the academic consensus of conduct may well vanish, in which case professors may range from the civil and gentle to the loud and obnoxious. (Of course, many colleges have reflected such transformation since the late 1980s when boomer academics began to take over in huge numbers.)

Paradoxically, the ‘anti-racist’ egalitarian ethos that led to more ‘inclusion’ and diversity on the campus could very well make it more self-evident that races and groups are indeed naturally different. The fiasco at Mizzou — the setting of a massive chimpout by black students — was a clear example of this. And then, there were the screaming blacks at Duke University who took over the library to holler like apes. (I highly doubt if they ever took out a book. Maybe the rabid mania against 'white supremacism' is usefully therapeutic for so many PC whites and non-whites because of the mounting evidence of racial and cultural differences in their midst. By uniting their hatred against 'nazis', they desperately cling to the illusion of diversity = equality.)


Incidentally, the culture of civility may discourage honest discussion of issues, especially if the community happens to be diverse. Within a homogeneous community, it’s far less likely that anyone will take offense, so people are likely to speak more freely. But in a diverse setting, a thesis, argument, or opinion, even if expounded with the sincerest intellectual intention, might be deemed offensive to some people... like when Lawrence Summers upset a bunch of women when he spoke of male-female differences in IQ at Harvard. Summers was met with incivility from fuming academics, but the rage was to restore the culture of civility. The communal sense was that Summers had broached a topic that, in giving offense to certain academics, had disrupted the culture of civility. Now, if civility weren't a part of academic culture, Summers and his defenders may have shouted back and relished a fight. But the culture of civility leads to the fear of upsetting the apple cart.

Though the intention of civility in academia is to give everyone a fair voice that is to be regarded rationally and courteously, civility could go from a means to an end. So, instead of civil behavior as means to the truth, the truth may be suppressed to maintain civility if the truth may upset some people and make them feel sick and offended. Indeed, this is one reason why the UK has been so defenseless against the invasion and Diversity. Brit, elites and middle class alike, are so into the cult of civility that they are utterly allergic to the cardinal sin of being uncivil and giving offense. It’s like Benedict Cumberbatch profusely apologizing for having use the term ‘colored people’ than ‘people of color’.

When UK was officially and proudly race-ist, British culture of manners, civility, and conscience had a consolidating effect against aliens, foreigners, and invaders — it was about Brits being kindly and mindful of one another as a tightly enclosed national family — , but once the Jews altered the core code of British society and changed the themes of Britain from Queen & Country to Queer & Diversity, the Brits have become so afraid of giving offense to foreign elements(lest they be called 'racist')... and a result, UK now seems doomed as it bans white patriots and threatens white Russian while rolling out the red carpet to tons of Muslims & Africans and massaging their egos as bearers of holy diversity.

When John Lennon committed adultery with Yoko Ono and brought her to his house, and then, when Lennon’s then wife Cynthia found them together, SHE apologized for violating their space EVEN THOUGH it was her home and the hideous Japanese bitch had stolen her man. Why did she act thus? Because she was raised to prize proper manners and civility above all. Indeed, she'd gotten pregnant with John at a young age because, being too much of a ‘nice girl’, she didn’t have the guts to tell John to fuc* off and leave her alone.
The incident with John, Yoko, and Cynthia speaks volumes as to why the UK is turning into a third world hellhole. Just like Cynthia apologized to John and Yoko(even though they should have apologized to her and cleared out)because she was afraid of being ill-mannered and giving offense, today’s Britons are a bunch of Cynthias who would rather have Africans and Muslims ravage their nation than say BLOODY NO because doing so might be construed as ‘racist’ and ‘bad form’. Incidentally, if the dreadful Lennon(great musical talent but lousy human being) ended up with nasty Yoko, Cynthia later married a freaking Negro. The Lennon Case seems to sum up the fate of Britain over the years.

It now seems the culture of honest integrity is preferable to that of civility that can easily turn cancerous when Jews penetrate the cultural psychology of a people and change the inner-coding.

Is the Advance in Science & Technology Undermining the Egalitarian Ideal?

There are generally two schools of thought on the issue of social inequality. One group(mostly on the secular right) attributes it mainly to biological/genetic factors while another group(mostly on the secular left) blames it on socio-politico-economic factors. But most people, regardless of their political affiliations, are not purists on the matter. Even most leftists will agree that there are genetic differences among individuals--and some will grudgingly admit there may also be group differences, even if they reject the conventional concept of race. And even the so-called 'race realists' will admit history, environment, and culture must be taken into account.

Even so, what accounts for the rising 'problem'--if indeed it is a problem--of inequality in the world, not least in the modern West(and most notably in the U.S.)?  How did the egalitarian dreams of the early 20th century  become essentially hopeless by the beginning of the 21st century(if not earlier)? What happened to the vision of an American future where all races would finally be equal under just laws and remedial social policies?
There are many places to look for the answers, and the rise of advanced science & technology is one of them.

Social equality/inequality isn't only a measure of ability but of availability. Regardless of one's ability, one can only work within what is availed to him. So, if Sergey Brin had been born into a primitive society, he could have, at most, used his brilliance to fashion better weapons for hunting or digging for water. He might have won special rewards for his efforts, but his wealth wouldn't have been much greater than those of his tribesmen. He might have 100 clam shells while others on average have 50. He might have a better hut, but it would still be made of straw and mut. Even in the Middle Ages, special smarts would have taken a man so far. Before the late modern era, one's high status, power, and privilege in society had more to do with parentage than individual ability. If you were born to noblemen, you were a noblemen. If you were born to peasants, you were almost certain to live your entire life as a peasant. And this could be said of much of even the West even in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Because one's elevated status in society had depended on ancestry than ability for as long as anyone could remember, some Enlightenment intellectuals thought the problem of inequality was simply one of aristocratic privilege. If the children of all classes were given equal opportunity to learn and earn with knowledge and reason, they too would be able to rise higher in society. In time, the oppressed poor would rise and the undeserving rich(born into privilege)would fall; eventually, the two groups would meet somewhere in the middle.

But, this view was, at best, only half-true for it was based on a fallacy: since ancestral privileges had been the main agent of inequality for centuries(or as long as men could remember), removing those privileges would lead to equality. Of course, not every Enlightenment thinker fell for this fallacy. If one group, who would later turn to socialism and then communism, believed virtual equality would be possible for all men, another group, the Classical Liberals, understood that a new natural aristocracy would rise in the place of an old one. One variant of this view was called Social Darwinism.

But in an increasingly mass-oriented society, Social Darwinism couldn't appeal to most people; it sounded too grim, like the genetic version of the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination. In the 19th century,  it mainly appealed to the super-rich as it justified their newly attained wealth. The theory suggested the New Rich won the game of wealth and power on the basis of scientific principles that favored the intelligent and energetic over the dumb and/or lazy. But in time, even the super-rich grew less enamored of the idea in a world where mass opinions became increasingly important. Why arouse mass resentment by openly saying, "We are so smart and you're so dumb." And Social Darwinism couldn't have been very appealing to the traditional aristocracy in Europe that increasingly felt threatened by the rise of the bourgeoisie. Besides, in the fast-changing economy, one could as easily lose as win the game. So, if a rich man became a poor man, what did it mean? He went from superior to inferior overnight? Besides, if Social Darwinism was true, the superior super-rich should be having superior children, but many of the children of the super-rich turned out to be nothing special and unable/unwilling to be ruthless and driven as their parents.

So, regardless of whether a society was socialist/communist or capitalist/democratic, the ideal espoused by most people--elites and masses--was one of greater equality. Socialists/communists believed the state should  guarantee, even enforce, equality among the people. They didn't see themselves as working against human nature since they were convinced of the 'scientific fact' that most people are, more or less, equal. So, if there's great social inequality, it is the product of injustice, criminal activity, cheating, connections, corruption,  greed, and lack of scruples--and much less with differences in natural ability. (Later, when it became obvious  to people in communist nations some people are naturally a lot smarter than others, the new rationale for maintaining the communist system was that naturally superior people should work for the good of the whole than for 'greed' of the self. Similarly, even if the American Left were to admit group differences exist in IQ, it will likely come up with new rationales to push for equality: "Individuals/groups born with special gifts must work for good for the whole than for the self out of moral obligation. Since a gifted person didn't earn his natural gift but was 'unfairly' born with it, the fruits of the gift must be shared with those who were 'unfairly' not born with it. And in a way, this is already operative in today's society in a hushed manner. Obama and Sotomayor don't want communism--even if they had the means to turn America communist--because they would merely be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Instead, their real purpose is to keep whites, Jews, gays, and Asians working harder to produce more wealth to 'spread around', mainly to mulattos like himself. And the super-rich support Big Government because spreading some of their wealth around has the effect of buying off what might boil into social rage and resentment: the semi-educated are bought off with government jobs and the lazy dumb poor are bought off with free TVs and TV-dinners. Wall Street, by supporting Obama, kills two birds with one stone. They make the masses believe that a 'socialist' who cares about equality is in power. Thus calmed and dazed by Obama, the people overlook Obama'a massive bailout of Wall Street banksters. But there is a third bird killed with this stone. Though Wall Street supported Obama to hide its massive bailouts--since 'progressives' were far less likely to blow the whistle on Obama 's servility to Wall Street--, conservatives stood up for Wall Street as being 'unfairly' attacked by Obama. How Wall Street toyed with conservative minds--especially of the Tea Party--was no different from what the Zionists did. Jews made Obama president but also convinced conservatives that Obama is a 'stealth Muslim' out to hurt Israel. So, dumb conservatives stand up for Jews in the name of protecting them from Obama, the man who became president with the support of Jews.)  As for the capitalist/democratic West, especially in America, the prevailing idea was that everyone could 'make it' if he tried hard enough. Even if most people couldn't be the next Carnegie or Rockefeller, he could do well for himself if he got an education and worked hard. And in the post-war years, it seemed like most Americans would become part of the vast middle class, with only a few people being poor(but not too poor) or rich(but not too rich).
With more people attending colleges and with job markets opening up everywhere, it looked as though America was headed toward greater equality. And in Europe, with the total demolition of the Old Order(that had only been half-destroyed in WWI) in WWII, there was hope for a new and better Europe, and the vast expansion of the middle class all across Europe seemed to validate this. And despite the horrors of Stalinism,   USSR and Iron Curtain nations by the Sixties had stabilized into societies where most people were provided with the basic necessities of life. The world seemed to be middle-classing under both capitalism and socialism. It didn't matter if it was the US, Sweden, or the Soviet Union. It seemed like the future belonged to the expanding middle, and some even said US would become more like the USSR and USSR would become more like the US.

So, why did this ideal and trend fail? Among the many reasons, we need to look at science and technology. Consider science and technology in the late 19th century. Despite the proliferation of complex theories, formulas, and machines, most of them weren't so difficult that a reasonably bright person with education couldn't understand and even master them. It didn't take a genius to understand steam engine, basic laws of electricity, and steel-making. It wasn't easy but far from impossible. Through the dint of hard work and dedication, most men could master the latest knowledge and hope to become somebody. And throughout much of the 20th century, it was this fact and factor that made it possible for Japan and Soviet Union to catch up with the West so quickly. Laying down railroads, building steel factories, and making basic machine parts didn't require genius. Though innovators in the West made great fortunes, there were lots of competitors since ingenuity could make up for lack of genius. One is or isn't a genius, but even an average person can, though hard work and inspiration, chance upon ingenuity. Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers, while highly intelligent, were not geniuses on the order of Sergey Brin or Albert Einstein. They were hardworking, dedicated, and clever. Though few inventors could hope to be as successful as Edison or Wright Brothers, many bright people lacking in genius could stumble upon an inspiration and hit the jackpot. And so, it was natural to believe that if more people had access to basic education, they too could be the Edisons or the Wrights of the future. It seemed doable if not easy.

But the whole ballgame changed with the rise of high-technology, and this was one of the reasons why the USSR could not keep up with the US. Though US built better machines than the USSR, USSR could always compensate by building more. So, if the American tank was better than the Soviet tank, Soviets could build 5 tanks for every American tank. If American jets were better than Soviet jets, Soviets could build 3 jets for every American jet. When the competition was about quantity over quality, the Soviets could stay in the game. Even if their weapons were shoddy, more could be made in what was essentially a war economy. Thus, a society that enforced middling equality for all and restricted the freedoms/successes of individual entrepreneurs could still remain a superpower. But once it turned into a high-stakes game of advanced science and technology, Soviets sensed that the game was up. Soviets mastered the atomic bomb, but it didn't much practical use and hardly added to national wealth. Soviets were also good at space technology, but its uses too were more symbolic than practical(at least through much of the 20th century). Also, if the Soviet state controlled all aspects of science and technology, individual scientists and innovators had far greaer freedom, leeway, and incentives in the West, especially the United States. While institutional command structures are necessary, many new ideas come from unforeseen places. And generally, individuals want to have control over their inventions and reap rewards by selling it whomever--other individuals or institutions--that want them.

There was a time when Reason seemed the best friend of equality. It mean universal education and the hope of people mastering the basics of knowledge--and using the knowledge to succeed in life.
And prior to the rise of high-tech, students, experimenters, and researchers could hope to master a scientific field or gain considerable technological know-how to make their fortune in life. This was the age of Edisons and Wrights who were not only admired as great inventors but celebrated as folk heroes. There was a 'one of us' aura about them. Their inventions were ingenious, but people could comprehend how the devices worked in a single day or even instantly. Though it was no easy task to perfect the light bulb, anyone could immediately grasp why and how it worked. And anyone could understand why the airplane worked the way it did. But what can one say about Einstein's theories? Most people won't understand the theory even after a year-long course on the subject.

When Einstein was alive, high-science hadn't yet translated into high-tech(except in government through massive funding like the Manhattan project; this was a time when wars were still mostly won through technological quantity than quality; Soviets and Americans just built more planes, tanks, and ships), and computer technology was still in its infancy. What was called high-tech in those days, while complex, could still be understood and even mastered by many educated people. It's like most people can learn to shoot  free throws in basketball.

Since high-tech lagged behind high-sci, geniuses like Einstein stuck mainly to theory than seek ways to use their geniuses to make lots of money. While the resources of the state could make the atomic bomb, most of the economy depended on technology that didn't require special genius. Any reasonably smart person could learn how to make a better radio, TV, refrigerator, record player, automobile, and etc. Science had become Einsteinian but the technology still played by the rules of Edisonism. Thus, techno-economic success was open to many more people than it is now. And it was during this period(which lasted up to the mid-80s, the time when the computer really started to take off) when Japan reached new heights with better cars and consumer good like the walkman, a device that, while cleverly put together, was no product of genius.  Japanese too learned how to shoot free throws.

But with the rise of personal computers, especially with the rise of the internet--and vast financial rewards associated with them--, advanced science and high-tech have finally become one and the same; and high-tech have become the staple of the new economy, which is why Apple and Google are among the biggest companies in the world. If Einstein were alive today, he wouldn't merely have to work in the world of theory. He could use his ideas to come up with gadgets and technology of almost science-fiction complexity and rake in billions of dollars.

The game is no longer about who can learn to shoot free-throws but who can hit the hole-in-one. We went from a basketball economy to a golf economy. Golf is a deceptive game. Despite the sloping fields, players more or less hit balls and stroll across a seemingly flat and uniformly green fields. And since there's no showy athletics, it seems like the most egalitarian game where anyone can play. But, hitting a hole in one is something most people cannot do. It's extremely difficult even for pros. So, golf has the look of equality but hides extreme hierarchy. The current socio-economic reality is like that. There is so much talk of equality, especially as the super-rich often dress like we do and talk about 'social justice'. But if most Americans long ago looked at men like Thomas Edison and thought, "I can do that!", how many can look at Zuckerberg and Brin and feel the same way? Perhaps the popularity of Steve Jobs was that he gave us that hope. He was not a computer genius--perhaps not a genius at all--, but he had the will, tenacity, and personality to take control and became one of the most successful people in the world. No one would mistake Gates or Brin as a folk hero, but there is a folk hero aura around Jobs.