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

In the Post-Ideological Age, It All Comes Down to REALITY vs IDOLOGY(idolatry-as-ideology) — American Preference of Savagery over Slavery — 'Social Justice' American Style favors the Winners over Losers — China's Fusion of Reality and Idology

What we have now is...

Idology(idolatry-as-ideology) vs Reality.

The cold truth is that blacks kill blacks, and cops have been saving black lives over the years by coming between blacks and blacks. Without presence of cops, blacks kill more blacks and nonblacks as well in the bargain. That is the Reality.

But in 2020, Jews needed extra black support to unseat Donald Trump and ran with the super-idology of noble sacred black bodies being murdered by ‘racist’ whites in Trump’s America. As with Covid-19 Hysteria, Trump was caught between a rock and a hard place, or Scylla and Charybdis. On Covid, if Trump went with the lockdown, his economy would be ruined. But if he opposed the lockdown, the Jewish media would say he’s responsible for MASS MURDER.
As for the black issue, if Trump stood with the cops, he could lose whatever gains he made among black voters. But if he praised George Floyd to high heaven, he would lose some credibility with his base, and indeed white male support for Trump’s dipped in the 2020 election. So, BLM was useful to Jews in 2020. Trump couldn't win either way, Jews couldn't lose either way, especially as Trump is so afraid of Jewish Power that he pleads to suck Jewish penis after it's been rammed up his arse.

Jews also find Negrolatry useful in perpetuating ‘white guilt’. Jews know that whites really feel guilt only for what is deemed superior and don’t feel much sympathy for ‘losers’. It’s part of American DNA. Winners over Losers, as Patton said. “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.” Even American ‘social justice’ that ostensibly cares about the ‘losers’ is geared toward favoring the winners. After all, why do Americans care so much about Jews as holy holocaust people but care NOTHING about Palestinians? Jews are rich and successful, or winners. Palestinians are poor and backward, or losers.
Same logic applies to blacks. The reason why whites feel a special thing for blacks is because blacks have become so dominant in what Americans care about most: Sports, Pop Music, and with pornification of pop culture and sexting via smartphones(from a young age), sex. In other words, if Jews try to bait white guilt about most groups, whites wouldn’t much care no matter how much the said groups may have suffered. Brown natives of the Americas suffered a great deal, but the basic white attitude toward them is "mow my lawn", "pick my lettuce", and "change my kid’s diapers".

Indeed, it’s interesting that American Indians got more respect in the past despite the fresh memories of their threat to whites. Back then, blacks were slaves while Indians were savages. A white man was far more likely to get killed by a savage red man than by a slavish black man. So, even though there was much white fear and hatred in regards to Indians, there was also a good deal of grudging respect for them as warriors and hunters and badass killers. Savages could be cruel and crazy but they were also wild and free, thus acting like natural winners. In contrast, blacks-as-slaves were conditioned to act like losers. Blacks were cotton-picking shuffling toms.
But over the years, Indians went from savages to de facto ‘slaves’. Once proud warriors riding wild and free over the prairies, they eventually became ‘slaves’ in reservations, defeated and docile. Meanwhile, blacks went from slaves to ‘savages’. In time, they became wild and free, feral and aggressive, winning in sports and taking over streets and acting as they done please.

And oddly enough, white respect went from Indians(who went from savage to ‘slave’) to blacks(who went from slave to ‘savage’, or neo-savage). Especially since the 1960s, blacks have been acting like how Indians used to act: attacking whites, whooping & hollering, and taking trophies of white women. Watching all this black dominance in sports and rap music, whites have become accustomed to seeing blacks as the superior race, the natural warrior savage winners.
Thus, ‘social justice’ American style is just another form of winners uber alles. It isn’t really about favoring the underdog but honoring the new top dog. Blacks fail in many areas but succeed in what matters most to Americans. White Americans feel, “If blacks are tops in the coolest fields, it’s only right and just that they should be best in everything.” The fact that blacks aren’t good in everything seems an injustice within this context.
Especially with the rise of youth culture and black-inflected popular music, American Society has gotten more shameless and uninhibited over the years. Even as the rational fields of science/technology have continued to advance at breakneck pace, the culture has gotten more savage, often led by trends spearheaded by blacks. In a way, paradoxically enough, technological breakthroughs have made mankind even more savage or neo-savage. Electronic devices amplify and disseminate wild & orgiastic expressions of celebrities, deviants, and perverts. Geeks make the gadgets, and studs, skanks, cucks, and dorks all indulge themselves in the Age of Jeffrey Epstein.
It used to be civilization and order were valued as the means by which to rise above savagery and slavery. But many feel that civilization long enslaved the natural savage energies that make us free and liberated. Thus, Western Civilization and its creation of order were tantamount to a form of slavery of one kind or another. If blacks were slaves picking cotton, whites were slaves imprisoned by their own repressions. Thus, the only way of liberation is by unleashing the savage energies of blacks as the driving force of world liberation.
Of course, such delusions are possible only because Western Civilization created the material means by which people can have enough food and necessities, indeed in abundance. Even as the neo-savages scoff at Order, their fantasies would evaporate without it. In nature, there is sober savagery. All creatures are savage but know the savage world is filled with dangers. It is a wary kind of savagery. If a baboon chose to wiggle its ass all night long in a state of drunken savagery, a leopard would ambush it for dinner. But neo-savagery need not be sober because it can indulge itself in a world of plenty made available by order. It's like all those kids at the Woodstock Concert had enough food(produced by farmers), could go back home(thanks to the car industry and those who work to maintain roads), and receive medical attention if need be(thanks to doctors and nurses). And Negroes could riot, loot, and destroy businesses because there is enough order and supplies in the US to fill up the store again and return to business-as-usual. But those into the convulsion of neo-savagery hardly think about the conveniences made possible by an orderly system. And of course, blacks understand this least because they are most childish, least reflective, and endlessly indulged by White America stuck on 'white guilt' and 'white fever' for all things black(to the delight of fiendish Jews).

Jews know this about white psychology, and this is why Negrolatry is key to the perpetuation of ‘white guilt’, without which it’d be difficult for Jews to control whites. Stuff like BLM wouldn’t have gotten far without Jewish media and deep state pulling strings. Unlike past riots, the deep state encouraged more rioting and looting. Just when blacks were burning and rioting, the authorities were ordering city officials to paint BLM signs on streets and fly BLM banners(along with homo flags). Just like globo-homo wouldn’t have gotten so big without Jewish power and deep state, same goes for BLM. Jews lead, goyim follow, especially because white goyim have lost their cultures, customs, traditions, and values over the years. The only thing that the goyim have left is a bundle of fads and fashions, cultural or ‘intellectual’, that are controlled by Jews.

The main Jewish priority is to control whites and subdue them into obeisance, without which Jewish Supremacism cannot be maintained. Jews use blacks to do this. Jews use the black body to intimidate and subdue the white body. Jews tell white boys and girls that black bodies are more muscled, bigger-donged, and more booty-licious, and this fills white girls with jungle fever and white boys with sappy cuckery. Movies like GET OUT spread such notion. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you don't like blacks and want to live apart from them, you are 'racist' and have no reason to live. If you love blacks too much, you are guilty of appropriating blackness and 'racist' in your own 'liberal' way, and it'd be no loss if blacks slaughtered you. Such is the black-body-politics as used by Jews.
But Jews also use black souls to berate white souls. It goes like this: Blacks have sun-souls while whites have ice-souls, and the cold frigid evil white soul must be warmed and redeemed by the sunny black soul. George Floyd was useful as both black body and black soul. He was a big man, powerfully built. But he was also in a state of debilitation as he'd swallowed lethal dose of fentanyl. So, despite his bigness, he seemed powerless and (hep me! hep me!) helpless under the knees of four police officers. Jews spun the narrative that saint George Floyd died for the sinful souls of white folks. But it’s been in the works with movies like 12 YRS A SLAVE, THE HELP, BUTLER, DJANGO UNLEASHED, BLACK PANTHER, and etc. The very Jews who crush Palestinians and kill countless Arabs in the Middle East put on moral airs in the West by promoting Noble Negro myths.

Such is the ‘idology’ of the Negro as used by Jews to control whites. But it’s utterly at odds with Reality. So, what is the reality? What is really up and what is really happening in the West? Two key truths are as follows:

1. Jews got the power because they are smarter. Also, they abuse their power because they are supremacist and nasty, filled with vicious contempt for goyim. And they shamelessly use every dirty trick in the book to get what they want, as demonstrated by the mad events of 2020, many of which were engineered or orchestrated by Jews.

2. Blacks are that way due to evolution in hot Africa alongside crocodiles, hyenas, lions, wild dogs, leopards, hippos, buffalos, elephants, gorillas, baboons, and etc. Blacks drove the animals crazy and vice versa. Negroes chucked spears at hippos, and hippos ran after Negroes to stomp/chomp them to death. So, animals in Africa got more vicious and aggressive, and Negroes also got tougher and nastier. Blacks and animals drove each other crazy along the evolutionary chain. That’s why blacks be the way they be.
And so, blacks act like predators in the modern world alongside other races. They look upon other races(that are weaker and slower) like how hyenas or leopards eye prey animals. Such is the reality, but whites cannot face the truth for four reasons.

A. Jews control the media & academia and push the ‘white guilt’ narrative.

B. Christian tradition among whites focus on guilt & redemption and derive some kind of masochistic delight with self-flagellation and holier-than-thou virtue-signaling.

C. Jungle fever and Afrophilia due to sports, music, and sex makes whites blind to the dangers posed by Negroes. Or worse, it makes whites excited by the danger as sexy and awesome. Even with blacks burning down cities, white women go with Negroes and have Negro kids and white boys cuck to BLM signs.

D. White male pride has been loathe to admit white guys got their asses handed to them by blacks in sports, schools, and in the streets. Even HBD types prefer to discuss IQ(where whites are superior) than delve into PQ(physical quotient) where blacks have the advantage. So much could have been different after Jack Johnson beat up all the white boxers IF white men had been honest about the black threat and reacted accordingly. But nope, white male pride couldn’t face up to it.

In the war between Idology and Reality, which will win? Of course, in the long run, Reality always wins, but that doesn’t mean your side will win for having accepted reality for what it is. After all, the HBD argument won in Detroit. HBD says blacks are naturally prone to criminality and various pathologies, and the fate of Detroit is a testament to that argument. But still, even if HBD has been validated, blacks took over the city and ruined it. The most HBD types can say is, "I told you so" as consolation.
Even when Reality wins, it won’t necessarily save your side. Suppose you speak the truth, “Heroin will ruin your health and lead to early death.” Suppose the heroin user says, “Bull! Heroin is great and makes me feel good. It does me no harm.” In time, you will be proven right. In reality, the heroin user’s health goes down the tube, and he ends up dead at a young age. You were right, but he still wasn’t saved. Reality validated your view but still failed to save a life. Likewise, HBD can be right as observation but still lose out as solution IF most people decide not to heed its warnings and instead choose to go over the cliff like so many lemmings.

Of course, there are cases where both Idology and Reality can win. China is one example. In reality, Mao Zedong was a frightening figure. He not only unleashed the Great Leap Forward that took tens of millions of lives but the Cultural Revolution that ravaged the entire nation. So, despite all the official Mao-worship by the Red Guards, the Reality was Maoism Sucks!
And after Mao died, China embarked on a new path more attuned to Reality. Market-guided economics, a degree of pluralism, more rational foreign policy, pragmatism, appreciation of expertise over ideological fervor, and etc. On that score, Reality won out. And yet, the ‘idology’ of Mao remains as a unifying and justifying symbol of New China and its government. Mao is still the top icon in a nation that acts in accordance to reality.

THE FUTURE OF NATIONALISM | INTERVIEW WITH FRÓÐI MIDJORD

Western Superiority was not the product of White Supremacism — Attitude vs Aptitude — The Connection between White Possession of Traits and White Properties of Power

Too often in the permitted(or imposed) discourse, white superiority and white supremacy(or white supremacism) are confused as interchangeable or as if superiority is the cause-and-effect of supremacy. In truth, one(superiority) is a condition, the other(supremacism) a contention. Many PC folks argue that the West, Europe and America, gained world hegemony and domination over other races due to the ideology of white supremacism than through the industry of white superiority. Now, supremacy and superiority are partly interlinked. It's natural for a people who gain superiority to believe they are somehow innately better than others and have a right(and/or a responsibility) to rule over them. This rule could be ruthless and exploitative or conscientious and constructive — the Others' burden or the burden for Others — , but in either case, it means dominion of one group over another.

While superiority all-too-often leads to feelings of supremacy, supremacism per se hardly guarantees superiority or domination. If anything, supremacist attitudes can lead to dissipation and downfall, as with the story of the hare that slacks off in the race with the tortoise. Or, exaggerated displays of supremacism could actually be therapeutic compensations for those plagued with inferiority-complex. (Mussolini's Italian He-Man huff-and-puff was mostly that.)
What matters is that attitude doesn't translate into aptitude. White people with all the supremacist attitudes in the world couldn't have gained domination without certain superior aptitudes resulting from genetic, cultural, historical, or material factors. In supernatural movies, 'psychic' will often determines outcomes, but reality doesn't work that way. If reality did, Germany and Japan would have prevailed in World War II, or at least fended off invasions by Allies. Nazi Germans certainly had a supremacist worldview and believed themselves to be invincible against the slovenly Slavs. Japan, though severely disadvantaged against the US in manpower and materials, felt imbued with a divine spirit that would favor its destiny. In an earlier period, the Ottoman Turks thought the divine will of Allah was on their side, and in time, nothing would stand in their way. Indeed, Muslims in general believed the whole world would be remade by Jihad in accordance to the prophecy of Muhammad. And the Chinese believed for a long time that they were fortunate people of the Middle Kingdom, the summit of civilization, wisdom, and power. Now, if indeed what-ism determines what-is, the Ottomans would have defeated Europe, and China-as-Middle-Kingdom would have been impenetrable to Western Imperialism and Japanese aggression. But no matter what the Chinese thought of themselves and others, reality led to a rude awakening. Chinese 'supremacism' or 'Sino-centrism' didn't ensure Chinese superiority.

This is why it's idiotic to fixate on White Supremacism as the cause of the Rise of the West over the Rest. If, like the Ottomans and the Chinese, white Europeans possessed the big attitude minus the big ability, the white world wouldn't have been victorious. Indeed, this has been amply demonstrated in sports. No amount of white supremacist attitudes led to white victory over blacks who possess genetic superiority in athleticism. No amount of promotion of the Great White Hope produced a white boxer who could defeat Jack Johnson. And even if the combined 2.5 billion population of Chinese and Asian-Indians were to adopt supremacist attitudes in the 100m and 200m sprints, the odds are blacks of West African descent will dominate the finals.
Now, attitude and will do matter but as accents and adjectives to the hefty nouns of power. It's like yells, spurs, and/or the whips can make the horse run faster but they can't substitute for the horse itself(or turn a weak horse into a strong one). Furthermore, their effectiveness has limits as the horse can run only so fast and for so long. The real advantage comes with the quality of the horse itself. Indeed, a mild-mannered man on a horse will win a race against a strong-willed man on a donkey. Attitude is a matter of inches, not yards. A man with supremacist confidence armed with a knife will lose to a moderate man with a sword. It's like the story of the train-that-thought-it-could. Its attitude played a role, but what really mattered was the powerful engine that could turn wish/will into reality. While it's true that potential without confidence won't get far, confidence without potential won't get anywhere. Supremacism without superiority is just talk without walk.

According to PC, modern history is as follows: One day, white folks woke up on the wrong side of the bed and began to feel 'supremacist'. And this supremacism suddenly drove white people to invent better weapons, build bigger ships, develop better medicine, advance science & technology, create new forms of arts & music, set sail to other lands, and dominate the modern world that they created. This Narrative implies that all of mankind and all of history were a stranger to supremacist attitudes BEFORE white folks, suddenly out of the blue, got to feeling awfully supremacist and decided to conquer and dominate others. Thus, whites weren't only guilty of feeling supremacist but inventing supremacism. Apparently, all of humanity were into equality, passivity, brotherly love, or peacefulness. Or just plain inertness without much in the way of Will to Power. Such historical view is like the soccer match between Greek Philosophers and German Philosophers in the Monty Python skit. All the thinkers just wander about the field, lost in thought without a clue as to what game they're in or what the ball is for. But then, suddenly a Greek philosopher has an idea to KICK THE BALL and sets off a chain reaction among the Greeks who win bigly.

Supposedly, all the world was in a slumber of pacifism or just plain lethargy until white world suddenly woke up with the will of supremacist domination, and THAT was the real catalyst for the Triumph of the West. It's all so laughable. First, as stated before, attitude doesn't ensure aptitude. Even if it was true that whites or Europeans, alone among all peoples, stumbled upon a supremacist view of the world, that in and of itself wouldn't have guaranteed anything. After all, any person can claim to be a genius, but it doesn't make him so. Any person can claim to lift a ton with his bare hands, but he's no Hercules. So, to focus so much on white attitude without investigating the whys and whats of white aptitude is to ignore essential history.

Furthermore, it's simply not true that the Rest, unlike the West, was suspended in a historical equilibrium of peacefulness, equality, harmony, or whatever. All of humanity have been at war since time immemorial. Just ask those vanquished by the Persians, Mongols, Turks, Zulus, Assyrians, Aztecs, Mughals, and various American Indian tribes in which every male was brought up to be a fierce warrior. So, supremacist attitudes have been part and parcel of the human DNA forever, and they also exist among animals in instinctive form; organisms of all kinds seek dominance. Among humans, the supremacism could be clannish, tribal, ethnic, racial, national, religious/spiritual, philosophical, or whatever. Whenever someone or some group insists 'my/our way is better than yours', he or it is setting the world up for future competition, conflicts, and even all-out wars.

One thing for sure, winners are decided less by supremacist attitude than superior aptitude. If wishes come true, Byzantium wouldn't have fallen to the Ottomans. After all, Byzantine Christians believed they belonged to the superior civilization and God was on their side. And yet, their spiritual supremacism didn't ensure protection against the Ottoman juggernaut. Of course, the Ottomans were also spiritual supremacists, but they prevailed because they had superiority in leadership, organization, manpower, and strategy. The Franco-German War of 1870-1871 was a clear example of how supremacist attitudes guarantee nothing. The French, having been the dominant power on the European Continent for as long as they could remember, didn't believe they could possibly lose to the German nation-state that had only recently coalesced into being, but German superiority in industry and military prowess led to crushing defeat for France.

Now, there have been no shortage of historians who explained as to why the West gained superiority over the Rest. Not long ago, Niall Ferguson came up with his list of 'killer apps' that pushed the West(especially Northern Europe) over the top to dominate and remold much of the world. As Ferguson pointed out, the domination wasn't merely military as, even with the fall of European empires following World War II, the Rest adopted so much from the West as the shining standard of modernity and progress. So, even as the military conquests and demographic colonization abated and came to an end, the Rest continued to be scientifically, technologically, culturally(especially in dress and manners), and ideologically 'colonized' and reshaped by the West. If indeed the only thing the West had going for it was nasty 'supremacist' and 'racist' conceits, why did the Rest adopt so much from the West, and why does it continue to do so? An honest look at reality would indicate that there was much that was indeed superior about the West that was worthy of being adopted and emulated by the Rest.

People like Ferguson are careful to note that Western Superiority had NOTHING to do with any racial/genetic advantage but, even if correct, there's no getting around the fact that the West did achieve real superiority in so many crucial spheres of power projection: Transportation, Communication, Hygiene & Medicine, Science & Technology, Political Philosophy, and even Theory of Justice(not least because even anti-white non-whites resort to Western theories, ideals, principles, and values to make their case against the West; blacks who find slavery to be evil didn't get that idea from African culture, which was more about killer apes than killer apps).

Western superiorities didn't arise from 'white supremacist' attitudes but certainly fueled them, but then, whites were far from alone in their 'guilt' in this regard. So many civilizations, upon reaching their apex, believed themselves to be innately superior to other peoples for reasons of blood, spirit, or divine providence. Given the unprecedented breakthroughs of the Modern West that surpassed all previous achievements by the greatest civilizations around the world, was it so surprising that white folks(especially in the North) came to believe they possessed some innate right-stuff generally lacking in other races? If blacks, who've contributed close to nothing in science and technology, can't help indulging in supremacist fantasies of fictional Wakanda, was it so out of line for whites who created the Modern World to feel that there was something special about themselves?
Besides, in areas where black superiority is obvious, especially in sports, no one is troubled by black confidence or even arrogance. Blacks are encouraged to feel maximum pride in black domination over other races. One thing for sure, black domination in sports is proof that supremacism isn't the same as superiority. A white guy with a supremacist attitude in the sprint is likely to lose to a humble black guy with sportsmanship. Of course, superiority can be wedded to supremacism. A black guy can be superior in the sprint and be filled with supremacist arrogance against non-blacks, but still, his victory on the track field will have owed to real superiority in muscle than supremacism in attitude.

It's similar with Jews in the brainy fields. Jews do have a superior edge in intellect and verbal skills, which naturally led to Jewish preeminence in science, medicine, finance, academia, letters, high-tech, law, and etc., and many Jews are obsessed with recording and relating how awesome and stupendous they've been as a people, culture, and community. On the basis of the Covenant, Jews have had a supremacist worldview for eons, but the Jewish Advantage hasn't merely been a matter of attitude, and this is especially true of Ashkenazi Jews who, probably through assortative(and assertive) mating, managed to elevate their IQ above goyim. (In contrast, Middle East Jews seem to have the supremacist attitude but not the superior aptitude of the Ashkenazis, the 'tribe' of Jews who managed to conquer the world by conquering the Anglo elites who'd done most to conquer the world; conquer the conquerors, and then, you don't have to conquer the world.)

Anyway, we must be careful not to confuse supremacist Jewish attitude with superior Jewish aptitude as, once again, attitude doesn't guarantee aptitude. Jews possess real talents in excess of other groups, and that accounts for Jewish dominance in certain fields. Of course, and again, pride of superiority can foster arrogance of supremacism, and current Jewish Power is undoubtedly both conscious of its superior advantages and contemptuous of goyim as inferior cattle. One thing for sure, superiority of power doesn't guarantee higher morality or commitment to principles. Both Nazis at their peak and Zios(Zionist-Imperialists) today amply demonstrated that. (But then, principles become problematic among unequals. After all, we don't have the same set of rules for adults and children, let alone for humans and apes. Within a population where most peoples and groups are more or less alike, adherence to principles is viable. But when some people are clearly more intelligent, perceptive, and capable than those of another group, principles break down because the superior group develops a low opinion of the other group that seems incapable of grasping, let alone practicing, the fundamentals of principles while the inferior group, in its envy and resentment, feels that the superior group has accrued its advantages by means foul than fair. If the superior group, out of either compassion or 'guilt', decides to compromise principles to accommodate the inferior group, it will have ceded the moral high ground, and then, the inferior group, out of stupidity or spite, will exploit the situation to further erode rule by principles. Generally, the greatest harm to principles come from those with superiority-complex and those with inferiority-complex. The superior feel the rules needlessly favor the inferior and therefore must be circumvented in favor of the superior, and the inferior feel the rules favor the superior and must be circumvented in favor of the inferior. In the current US, intellectually superior Jews subvert principles in favor of intellectually inferior blacks to erode the pride & confidence of whites to guilt-bait them into serving Jews. Jews encourage blacks to blame everything on 'white supremacism' to break the white spirit, but then Jews manipulate guilt-ridden whites to support Jewish supremacist hegemony. It's really messed up as bait-and-switch.)

In a sane world, people would freely explore the reasons as to the facts of white superiority(that catapulted the West far beyond the Rest) while warning against white supremacism(that could be dangerous not only to non-whites but to whites who, in supremacist zealotry, might turn overly aggressive, or, in supremacist smugness, might become overly complacent). And there are surely many historians who work in this vein and contribute to our understanding. But scholars and academics don't set the overall/official tone of the Narrative, though, to be sure, most Narratives are perverse simplifications of ideas derived from academia. What nuance or complexity that may have existed in the original theory is overlooked in favor of pat formula and mindless mantra. Politicians, bureaucrats, and mass media decide the Narrative that, more often than not, is history turned into mass myth for morons. Generally, scholars are either too powerless, craven, or fuddy-duddy to question the Narrative. Or, even as they disdain it as fairytale for dummies, they may broadly sympathize with its agenda either out of condescension or due to consecration. In the US, Jews control the gods and made the Negroes noble & sacred, yet blacks have failed miserably in many fields, and that has led to eggheads seeing blacks as both gods to worship and children to save. Also, if they don't play along, not only will they be smeared as 'racists' by blacks but as 'white supremacists' by Jewish Power.

In such a climate, honest and sane discussion is nearly impossible as anyone can become 'canceled' over the slightest wrong-think. After all, whites are micro-scrutinized for the slightest 'aggression'. Indeed, not only public debates but private conversations could be jeopardous for honest scholars because 'cancel culture' in media and parts of academia reward people for ratting out thought-criminals. One thing for sure, academia has taught us that intellect and erudition are hardly pillars of integrity and courage. Western intellectuals are no more likely to stand up to tyranny than intellectuals were in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China. Per chance they do speak out, it's almost always in service of the prevailing Narrative. Thus, it's sham courage, much like a dog barking with the approval of the master. A person can make a show of 'courage' out of toady cravenness. It's like all those tough-talking US politicians who bark at Russia, China, and Iran are just ass-kissing tools of Jews and the Deep State. All those who 'courageously' denounce 'white supremacism' are just submissively bowing down before Jews. Would they courageously support BDS and denounce Zionist Imperialism or call out on the facts of black criminality? Fat chance. They got big mouths and cold feet. Michael Moore will never name the Jew.

The sad result of Cancel Culture and other forms of 'wokeness' is the total lack of honesty about history. Then, no wonder that White Superiority has been conflated with White Supremacism and all that it implies: All white achievements and demonstrations of civilizational superiority are products of evil and 'racist' white supremacism. Thus, even white achievements of genuine merit are deemed 'supremacist', like when Yale Medical School decided to take down pictures of great medical pioneers and scientists. Portraits of these men had been placed on the wall for their very real contributions to medicine, but honoring them simply could no longer be tolerated because they were white. Any proof of white superiority is automatically dismissed as 'white supremacism'.
In a climate where any demonstration of white/western superiority in any field is a case of 'white supremacy', we mustn't take notice of white merit, just like we mustn't take notice of black demerit(as criminals and louts) and Jewish demerit(as subversives, seditionists, radicals, fraudsters, and crooks). If you notice the good about whites, you're aiding and abetting 'white supremacism', and if you notice the bad about blacks and Jews, you're taking part in 'racism' and 'antisemitism'. The current climate is utterly ludicrous, but it's far worse than radical egalitarianism. Radical egalitarianism would at least be sincere in its idealism. In the current order, Jewish Power is pushing sham-justice to guilt-bait whites into shame and servitude, all the better to manipulate them into supporting Jewish Supremacism. A dirty trick of bait-and-switch.

The current PC logic, if applied to Muhammad Ali, would insist his victories in the ring were the result of ego-supremacism. After all, Ali was no stranger to arrogance and announced to the world that he was 'the greatest'. Whether one characterizes Ali's attitude as colorful or contemptuous, the fact is he had the aptitude to match the attitude. It wasn't just bluster, which any boxer can dish out. Arrogance doesn't guarantee apogee, no more than supremacism ensures dominance. The walk has to back the talk. Whatever one thinks of Ali's talk, he sure had the walk. This was no less true of a far less likable boxer, Mike Tyson, a truly grotesque personality. If Ali's arrogance had a comic touch, Tyson's outrages were simply demented. Like Ali, he claimed to be the very best that no one could beat. Yet, only a fool would say Tyson's power owed to his ego-mania, ego-centrism, or ego-supremacism. At his peak, he really was the most fearsome heavyweight boxer who steamrolled the opposition. So, one mustn't conflate his very real superiority as a boxer with his ego-supremacist rhetoric. His talk didn't make him the dominant figure in heavyweight boxing in the 80s. For a time, he really was the best with unmatched power and speed. No amount of ego-supremacism in an inferior boxer could guarantee victory.

Then, it's similarly ludicrous to attribute the epic rise of the West to 'white supremacism'. If 'supremacism' leads to great power, why didn't Arabs take over the world? Armed with Islam, they sincerely believed Allah was on their side and they were justified in the Jihad against the infidel. Plenty of American Indian tribes thought they were the best and toughest warriors. With such supremacist attitudes, they should have been able to fend off Pale Face. African tribal warriors were just as convinced of their prowess as warriors and killers, but many of them ended up on slave ships.

Blaming 'white supremacism' for everything is a cheap trick to enshrine the backwardness or stagnation of non-white peoples and cultures as 'tragic victimhood' than as relative failures in global competition. There should be no great shame for any people to have fallen behind(as it happened to all peoples), and there should be no special blame for any people to have pulled ahead. There was a time when North Africa and the Near East were far ahead of Europeans, especially those in the North. So, are we to assume that the great achievements of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia were the results of 'supremacist' attitudes whereas Northern Europeans lagged behind because of... 'supremacism' of the then Global South?
Perhaps, Egyptians, Libyans, Babylonians, and such folks really did believe their great achievements owed to something innately superior in them, but regardless of their attitudes, the fact is they achieved far more than Northern European folks in ancient times. Jews certainly developed a supremacist attitude, but the power of their spiritual vision cannot be attributed to tribal arrogance alone. Along with Hindus, Jews took spiritual imagination to the highest and deepest levels, and there was genuine superiority in the vision and wisdom, which explains why so many goy folks eventually adopted the God and sacred texts conceived by Jews.

In a way, PC denigration of white achievements is like antisemitic assumptions about Jewish achievements. Because Jews have often been vicious, nasty, arrogant, and contemptuous, Anti-Semites assure themselves that EVERYTHING accomplished by Jews must have been by hook or by crook. So, all Jewish achievements become suspect. Perhaps, Jews feel they are getting even with the historically 'antisemitic' West by encouraging the same kind of mindset against white achievements, i.e. whatever great or noble things whites achieved were always somehow tainted with 'white supremacism', 'racism', or 'antisemitism'(or were stolen from others). In other words, every white achievement, however astounding or beneficial to humanity, was the expression, product, partner, accomplice, enabler, or some such of White Supremacism. Whiteness is now akin to Nazi Lite, and the logic goes as follows: Werner von Braun may have been a great scientist/engineer, BUT his genius was in service to an evil ideology, therefore his genius was evil; likewise, whatever good whites may have done, it is morally questionable because it came about within the context of White Supremacy.

Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that positive white achievements were especially dangerous because they furthered and expanded the power of White Supremacism. It wasn't just the guns and bombs that tyrannized and terrorized the non-white races. Everything achieved by whites INDIRECTLY oppressed the world because it boosted the power of the white world inspired by 'white supremacism'. Medical advancements meant healthier white soldiers to invade other lands and lay waste to indigenous folks. Improved food production meant explosion of white demographics, setting off waves of white colonization of non-white territories. Better ships led to not only increased travel and trade but white domination of non-white lands via control of sea routes and formation of coastal colonies. If whiteness is indeed the foundation of evil 'white supremacism', then white achievements, however remarkable in and of themselves, are to be judged within the context of history in which whites used their advantages to gain dominance over the rest of the world.

There is surely a kernel of truth to such a worldview as it is true enough that the Power uses whatever means available to further its reach and control. Thus, nuclear science/technology in both the US and USSR could never be independent of politics. But, this has been true of all social orders, and it also applies to the spiritual realm. Has God or gods ever been neutral? Not only will both Domain A and Domain B exploit the latest technology to make better weapons but they will claim god or gods as being on their side. So, if achievements in the West were used to further Western power, how was this different from how the Mughals, the Chinese, or the Persians used their knowhow and technology?
It's an interesting topic for discussion, but hardly something the West has been uniquely guilty of. Some controversy surrounding Hayao Miyazaki's THE WIND RISES raised this very question. Should we admire the dreams and the craftsmanship of an airplane engineer because his achievements were used by the Japanese Military in acts of imperialist aggression and war? A sane person should be able to both acknowledge the real achievement and critique how it was used. After all, we can both admire the superb design of the samurai sword and despair of how it was often used. Or the Winchester 73 as a piece of brilliance and a killer of Indians. That the West and the white race often abused their great power is true enough, but that's been the timeless story of power, and the white race is no more or no less guilty than the rest. The main 'guilt' seems to be its pulling ahead of the rest and breaking through the sound barrier of history that no one had thought possible or even imagined as a possibility.

Now, what were the foundations of White Superiority? Here, we need to make a distinction between 'possession' and 'property'. For convenience sake, innate traits among whites will be called 'possessions', and external factors owned and/or controlled by whites will be called 'properties'. So, a man with higher IQ has possession of intelligence, and a man with land & weaponry has property of means. Of course, the two are interrelated as people who possess superior traits usually end up with more properties of power. (Consider what was done to Detroit by whites and blacks. Whites built it, blacks wrecked it.) Still, it isn't always the case. A people of real ability could become mired in a civilizational trap, like traditional East Asia prior to Western Imperialism or like Jewish intellectual culture prior to Emancipation and Secularization. Or, a people of ability could be situated in a harsh climate with poor soil, or they could exist in crippling isolation from the rest of the world. In contrast, a people of no special ability could be favored by fortune: Fine arable land with lots of water. And they could have warlike spirit(like the Ottoman Turks) and gain control of the inventions of other more gifted peoples. Thus, people who possess innate abilities could be severely limited in property(due to external factors), whereas a mediocre people with good fortune and warlike spirit could gain much in the way of property. Also, quality often loses to quantity. The upper classes have been brought down by mob uprisings, and talented minorities were set upon by the envious, resentful, and/or desperate majority. One hundred elite troops will lose to 10,000 mediocre troops. A tiger can be brought down by a large pack of wild dogs.

Beginning with 'possession', what innate traits favored the West over the Rest? Surely, this is the most controversial topic in our PC age, and even relatively maverick historians like Niall Ferguson don't want to go there. Instead of a single factor, it was probably a combination of traits. Some believe it owes to higher IQ among Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, but then, why did East Asians lag behind though their IQs have been shown to be comparable, even slightly higher? Some have surmised that Europeans were more individualistic and innovative because of their racial personality; or European IQ is higher at the tail end.
Does this mean the white race is individualist whereas the yellow race is conformist and/or communalist? Maybe but maybe not. More likely, most whites may actually be inclined toward conformism, just like the yellows. The spread of PC and the ideological & idolatrous consensus in the current West is a testament to that. If most whites are truly individualistic, how come so many fell under the spell of PC and other officially sanctioned nuttery?
Then, what really made the difference between East and West? Rather than individualist West vs communalist East, it's more likely that the West had just enough extra individualism to set it apart. So, it wasn't as if 100 people in the West were individualist and 100 people in the East were communalist. Rather, if only 2 out of 100 people in the East were individualist, 6 out of 100 people in the West were individualist, and that provided just enough added window space to allow for more innovation and discovery. So, even though the great majority, 98 in the East and 94 in the West, were always communalist than individualist, the West had just enough MORE individually-minded folks to create just enough extra space for more freedom necessary for innovation and revolutions. But because entire civilizations are defined by their most iconic figures, many came to assume that the entire West is marked by individualism. But the actual history of the West is more often of herd-mentality, mob-mentality, and ideological conformism. In reference to Ayn Rand's THE FOUNTAINHEAD, it was more about the masses bound to Toohey than individuals standing tall like Howard Roark. Still, having a society where 6 out of 100 are Roarkians than merely 2 out of 100 could make all the difference. It's like 6 strikes with flint-stones than merely 2 are more likely to provide the spark that lights the tinder on fire.

Genetics cannot provide all the answers, especially as the abilities of one group may be closer to those of another group that is genetically more distant. For instance, Northern Europeans are genetically closer to Arabs than to Northeast Asians who, in turn, are closer to Southeast Asians than to Northern Europeans. And yet, in terms of IQ and ability, Japanese are closer to Germans than to Malaysians. Europeans in general are closer in ability to East Asians than with Arabs even though both Europeans and Arabs belong to the Caucasian race. Even among various groups within a single broadly defined race, different cultural-historical-geographical factors could have led to notable divergences. Burmese and Mongols are closer to one another than Burmese are to Arabs or Mongols are to Swedes, but Burmese and Arabs are better adapted to warmer weather, whereas Mongols and Swedes are better adapted to colder weather. American Indians are genetically similar to East Asians, and yet in terms of IQ, Europeans and East Asians are more comparable.
White advantage surely owes to higher IQ but also to racial personality. If blacks evolved to be wild, East Asians evolved to be mild. As such, blacks found it difficult to build complex social order, and East Asians found it difficult to break free of the order. In contrast, Caucasian genetics were somewhere between the polar opposites of Negroids and Mongoloids.

Europeans also lucked out because the core of Europe was sufficiently close to non-European civilizations(to draw inspirations from them) yet also sufficiently separated from them(to fend off attempts at wholesale invasion). In contrast, East Asia was far removed from the rest of the world and mostly developed in isolation. Thus, it drew fewer inspirations from foreign civilizations other than India, which, by the way, was more notable for spiritual contemplation than vigor in science/technology. So, while certain white advantages were possessions(innate), others were matters of properties(external) that accrued to the white world because of the 'accident' of its geographical location that was just close enough to and just closed off to the non-European world.

In the long run, Northern Europe especially gained much from the 'backfield advantage'. As it was further removed from the Cradle of Civilization, it naturally lagged behind Southern Europe that came into regular contact with North Africa and Near East. And yet, this contact also meant endless conflicts of invasions and being invaded. Over time, the endless conflicts led to more destruction than construction.
In contrast, once the civilizational formulas that originated in the South crept up North, they could develop in a world of greater security and stability. Indeed, the US had this advantage to a much greater magnitude over Europe in the 19th and 20th century. Notwithstanding the horrors of the American Civil War, the US could develop with far greater security, stability, and freedom than Europe where Great Power politics led to endless tensions and eventually to World War I and World War II. The American advantage was like that of historical Britain but on a much larger scale. Whereas UK was a small island nation(relatively speaking) separated from the Continent by a narrow channel, America was separated from the Old World by an ocean and furthermore, had limitless empty space to stretch out across for a grand experiment without interruptions of war(especially as the native Reds were easily quelled). In that sense, certain European ideas came to their fullest expression and realization in America.

If white 'possessions' are forms of superiority owned by whites regardless of their fortunes — it's like Jews will possess high IQ even if robbed of wealth and blacks will possess athletic abilities even if robbed of freedom — , white 'properties' are forms of superiority that whites are fortunate to own. Europeans were geographically fortunate, and Anglos were especially fortunate to have arrived in North America, the best land mass in the entire world. (Russians lucked out because the vast territories of Siberia were mostly unpopulated and simply there for the taking. And despite the horrors suffered by Russians at the hands of Mongols, the yellow barbarian hordes very possibly prevented China from grabbing much of Siberia. After all, the reason why the Chinese refused to expand northward was they regarded the Northern Tribes as hopeless barbarians who should be kept out with massive walls. If the Mongols weren't there, Chinese might have grown bolder and more expansive. So, even the monstrous misfortune like the Mongols proved to be a fortune for the Russians.)

One may argue that white properties shouldn't qualify as evidence of white superiority as they are external to whiteness. After all, if Bill and Bob are equal in strength but if Bill gains an advantage over Bob by wielding a rock or a stick, his superiority depends solely on an external factor. Bill isn't any stronger than Bob because he has a rock or a stick, and if the rock or stick were to end up in Bob's hand, things would be reversed. For much of modern history, the white world had the better weapons, what Omar Sharif's character calls 'guns' in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Especially since the end of World War II, non-white nations have been developing their own technologies and weapons, and what had once been the sole property of the White World now belongs to all the world.

Still, there is a connection between possession and property. Consider the opening part of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Bones and sticks are strewn everywhere. So, any ape could have picked them up to be used as weapons. But, no ape did(or even thought to) until a certain spark affected the way one particular ape(the Howard Roark of apes) began to see things. No longer were bones merely lifeless matter strewn on the ground. Dead things could be 'resurrected' like Lazarus into force & energy by living organisms. A dry bone could be an extension of an ape's arm, an idea that eventually led to mankind's building of spaceships with lifeless matter. The ape turned the bone into a property of power because he came to possess a spark, which in the film was gifted by the monolith controlled by extraterrestrials.

It's possible that the revolutions in thought and technology in Europe were purely a matter of accident, as Jared Diamond argues in GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL. They could have happened to ANY people but just happened to happen in Europe because of certain factors related to geography and other external factors. But then, even accidents can indelibly alter the future course of organisms in profound ways. After all, mankind had nothing to do with the creation and formation of Earth that was an accumulation of series of cosmic 'accidents', but mankind, like all life forms, was profoundly shaped by these 'accidents' at the genetic level. Mankind didn't create the Arctics and the Tropics, the 'accidents' of geology, but the extremes of cold and hot did lead to divergences in evolution and favored certain genes at the expense of others among the various races. Even random events have deep repercussions.

Now, if the world were turned upside down by relentless series of accidents, nothing could be for certain. It's like a game of poker would be meaningless if cards were endlessly shuffled; the game is possible because it progresses in accordance to a certain logic once the cards have been shuffled.
Suppose the Earth was constantly bombarded with asteroids. Everything would be in a mad state of chaos and flux. But such major 'accidents' that fundamentally reconfigure and realign the world are rare and are usually followed by long stretches of relative stability in which the divergences set off by the Great Accident lead to long trajectories with profound implications. So, the Occident is more than an Accident. Whatever forces beyond human control led to the geographies and demographics that separated European folks from other folks, they set off far-reaching divergences that led to real differences and expressions of uniqueness among the races. And it's possible that Europeans ended up with just the right combination of higher intelligence, inspiration, individuality, and imagination to create the sparks that led to the fire of modernity. It isn't a certainty but should at least be considered, but the gods of the current order cannot tolerate any heresy.

ROOTING OUT WHITE SUPREMACY IN MATH - American Renaissance