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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meritocratic Individualist Competition among Greyhounds

Greyhound and Bulldog. Two breeds with obvious group differences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afro-Colonization of White Wombs(ACOWW) has been facilitated by White Achievements and Power of Electricity and Electronica as Magnifiers and Amplifiers of Black Prowess

Many nationalists blame the rise of feminism as the main cause of West's downfall.

Feminism is a big problem, but it alone can't do much harm. After all, prior to mass immigration-invasion, feminism was just a headache in Sweden, not an 'existential' matter. Feminism or no feminism, the real threat to the white race is due to biological differences among the races, especially between whites and blacks.

After all, the white underclass is hardly intellectual/ideological or into stuff like 'feminist' Critical Theory. Most never came across academic tracts on anything. But we see more and more 'white trash' women breeding with black men than with white men... which only adds to white male depression and White Death, esp as white-have-nots have no leadership or guidance from white elites. If anything, they are condemned for 'white privilege' by the white elites who hog the real privilege(by cucking out to Jewish overlords). White elites ameliorate the burden of 'white guilt' by fancy displays of virtue-signaling. Look how far Tom Brokaw, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and their ilk got by mixing privilege/success with self-serving displays of 'conscience' that dumps most of the burden of 'white privilege' on Joe Sixpack.

Even anti-white-ness per se may not be the main threat to the White Race. After all, white women are not attracted to American Indians -- legit 'victims' of US history -- despite the Narrative that morally advantages Indians over whites. So, even if white men are accused of 'genocide' against the Noble Red Man, the fact is most white women will not run into the arms of Red Man. And no matter how much we hear about the mistreatment of Chinese railroad workers, white women will not have 'yellow fever' for yellow gorks.

The real problem is electronica and Afro-funkery.

Paradoxically, the greatest achievement and strength of a people can end up serving the power of another people. It's like the roads built by Romans. They were meant to expand Roman power and domination. But in the end, it made the invasion of Rome much easier because the barbarians could use those very pathways to march toward Rome to sack it. So, what the Romans built to ensure their domination over others facilitated the domination by others over Romans. Rome ended up being 'host' to invaders. It's like a dog's mobility is a great advantage, but it also enables the spread of parasites much more effectively. Dog's speed allow dogs to hunt and run from danger. But it also means dogs will run all around and spread fleas and ticks to other dogs and mammals. Dogs unwittingly serve as the hosts and carriers of the very creatures that feed on them. It's like the Alien creature in Ridley Scott's movie uses humans as host-carriers of their eggs.

Prior to white development of mass travel, mass communication, and electronic media, blacks were nothing more than oogity-boogity primitives in their own world. Though physically powerful and aggressive, they lacked the intellect and temperament to develop the kind of technology necessary for world domination. They mostly chucked spears at hippos and then yelled "run like a mothafuc*a". They beat on bongo drums and shook their booties and told folktales about how someone's grandma was an antelope. So, no matter how physically powerful and wild they were, they were stuck in their own little worlds and meant nothing to the rest of The World.

So, how did Afromania spread(indeed, even before homomania)? It was due to white achievements in electricity and electronica. Electricity allows the development of electronica, the gadgets, especially of media and entertainment, that AMPLIFY and MAGNIFY human expression, showmanship, and prowess. Before electronica, it took an entire orchestra or a big chorus to make loud sounds. With electronica, a skinny Mexican like Carlos Santana or dufusy Briton like Jimmy Page could create thunder with a single guitar on par with Wagner's operas. Rock music wasn't possible without electricity. Prior to electronica, black music could be loud and raucous but its reach was limited to a saloon or hall. But when bluesmen went electric, they sounded 1000x more powerful.
Even without electronica, people could express themselves powerfully, but the impact was limited. Electronica amplified the power of expression 100x and transmitted images and sounds to millions and even billions of people, especially via satellite technology.

Now, blacks had NOTHING to do with modern science. White folks did it all, just about. Even non-white achievements by Japanese were micro-improvements on white macro-paradigms. So, the power of electricity and electronica developed as achievements of white power to serve white power.
The problem is the power of electricity and electronica came to favor the expressions of another people, even ones that posed harm to the very people who developed the technologies.
It's like Japanese companies like Sony and Toshiba made lots and lots of TV sets and sold them around the world. So, did Japanese TV's spread Japanese culture and prestige? No, for the most part, what people around the world watched on those Japanese-made TV sets were Hollywood and American culture. So, if Japan sold 100 million TV sets, they did little to spread Japanese racial or cultural prestige or enhance Japan's soft power. What really mattered was what was broadcast on TV, and it was mostly American sports and entertainment and movies and music. Japanese provided the hardware but not the idols for global consumption.

So, all those Japanese TV's were really serving the American Sound and Image.
In the end, who prints books is less significant than who provides the ideas and images conveyed on the pages of books and magazines.
I mean a person in some part of the world with a Sony TV does NOT think when watching a movie, "I'm watching a TV set made by Sony. Gee, those Japanese make good TV's. Good workmanship. Nice technology." No, he ignores all that and just gets excited about what is coming through the Tube, which is far more likely a Hollywood product than a Japanese movie or TV show. If Jews were to make all the TV sets but if Palestinians were to make all the TV shows, which side would gain the advantage? Will people show more appreciation to the fact that Jews made the TV sets OR will they show more appreciation to the programs created by Palestinians?

So, when white folks feel assured of their power because so much of Human Achievement was the result of white genius, white brilliance, and white innovation, they are not seeing the bigger picture. Much of white achievements in technology is merely useful and convenient. People don't pay attention to the technology itself but what it can deliver or convey. How many people know what really goes into a TV, smartphone, computer, internet, or video game in terms of technology and programming? They just like the sight-and-sound, the fun stuff relayed by such technologies. Thus, so much of white genius and white-human-achievement goes undetected and remains invisible. When people flush the toilet, they don't think of the important historical figure who came up with modern plumbing and sewage system.
People are still organisms, and most organismic needs are basic and functional. People do them because they must. It's like taking a urine, taking a dump, drinking water, getting some sleep, cleaning and bathing, and etc. People do them not because they want to but because they must. They're about bodily functions.
What people fixate most on are things of pleasure. Not just any food but sugary-creamy food. Music and dance, related to sex culture, as music and sexuality light up same parts of the brain. And human organisms still have that warrior-hunter instinct, which is why people, esp men, still love sports and action movies and video games.

As for culture, elitist high art has no chance against pop culture. Elite culture had prestige when the world was ruled by aristocrats with fancy airs. They were patrons of high art. Also, the power of religion emphasized themes of grace, dignity, transcendence, and redemption over ones of wantonness, excess, vulgarity, and shamelessness. For most of human history, most people had humble folk culture and family lore. Elites had high culture. But in the democratized world of mass consumption, pop culture is the only dominant culture, and it is driven by profits derived from catering to 'base' animalistic drives of masses of human organisms.

White people developed the power of electricity and invented electronica on a massive scale. Today, even tribesmen in Africa have smartphones that connect with all the world. Since white folks developed the technology and since East Asian nations make a lot of these gadgets, one would think the power of electricity/electronica would favor whites above all and Asians second. But, the controllers of much of globalist media and entertainment are Jews who generally happen to have their own ethno-organismic interests that tend to be hostile especially toward white gentiles(but also against Muslims and Asians). So, movies like GET OUT, DJANGO UNCHAINED, and 12 YEARS A SLAVE are financed by them(but nothing about the Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map).

Also, in our culture of shameless thuggery and lasciviousness, blacks have a decisive advantage in entertainments with greatest reach for masses around the world: Pop music, sports, vulgar comedy, pornography, increasingly sexualized dance forms, and art of hollering(like in rap battles, though when used well, it can lead to impressive oratory, as with MLK).
Blacks always had these traits, but they were contained in Africa. Someone in Mexico, India, China, Turkey, Iran, or Hungary wouldn't have known about black volume or virility prior to mass electronic communication. But with the spread of electronic networks all around the world, blackness in sports, music, dance, sex, and hollering has spread all over. And this is leading to a kind of Afro-mono-culture. Now, global electronic networks can, theoretically or ideally, spread all sorts of cultures and expressions around the world. And this spirit does exist in the Art Film Community where people still show interest in different works from around the world. But these films make minuscule amount of money. Look at any Variety box office charts, and it's rare for a foreign or indie film to make more than $100,000 at box office in the US, no matter how good the film is. Most indie or foreign films make much less than even that.
Especially in a world culture that is increasingly shameless, infantile, savage, and vulgar, people don't have patience or interest in anything except that which gives them a quick fix or high, like crack or smack. Also, sports is a zero-sum game. People only care about top winners and no one else. Blacks dominate sports because they got more fast-twitch muscles, making them quicker and more explosive. Also, blacks have tougher bones and faster reflexes. Evolution made for racial differences in physical advantages. Since blacks are most wild and dominant in the culture of mass thrills -- even coming up with a dance called 'twerking' -- , World Culture is going Afromaniacal. Long ago, French pop music was unique. While it borrowed elements from other musical styles, it maintained a distinctive Frenchness. But go on youtube and check the top 10 hits of France last year, and it's just French version of Afro-funkery and rap. And look at the French soccer team. Almost all black.

This means that the most advanced part of the world, the West, has done most to promote and disseminate the attitudes and (lack of)manners of the most primitive, aggressive, and troublesome race on earth, the blacks, whose racial nature has made a total mess of Africa, Haiti, Detroit, parts of Baltimore, and etc. Whites built computers and the internet. Blacks had nothing to do with it. But black expressions are spread to all corners of the world via the internet.

http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/how-hip-hop-is-fueling-feminism-in-an-unlikely-place/77095?utm

Afromania may be sold as 'diversity', 'feminism', 'progress', or 'tolerance', but it is really Afro-colonization of the world via the CARRIER of white technology. Even though technology was created by high intellect, great discipline, and much learning, their purpose is to make things easier and simpler for most people. Initially, technology was to ensure better survival and production of basic goods like automobiles and laundry machines. They were not about pleasure but necessity and convenience. But once people's basic needs were met, they relied on technology more and more for pleasure, especially with the rise of youth culture in the 50s and 60s when hedonism became the main mode, even to the point of infecting leftism, whereby May 68 in France was ignited by French male students being angry for lack of easy sexual access to coeds.

The masses find most pleasure in sports as form of neo-tribalism, pop music, dance as horny expression, comedy & culture of vulgarity, pornography & other forms of sex culture, and narcissism & celebrity(to the point that even fat homely Lena Dunham imposes herself on us as 'hot stuff), and etc. And blacks have gained dominance in many of those. And because US media have global reach and because internet interconnects all the world, it means Euro-power in electricity and electronica have come to serve as midwife to and carrier of savage Afromania. And this may be a destructive force, not least because modern technology not only allows mass communication but mass travel. In the 50s and 60s, white Britons may have listened to black music and drawn inspiration, but most black Africans had little chance of making it to UK. Also, there were far fewer blacks back then in Africa. But modern medicine and food vastly increased black population in Africa. Also, air travel is now cheap enough that any well-off African can fly to any part of the world. Also, the breakdown of borders and loopy redefinition of 'western values' mean that Africans can willfully endanger themselves at sea to be dragged into Europe, whereupon they can trek from Italy or Spain to northern parts of Europe. And since the 80s, European women have been dosed on madonna-ism, the ideal of white ho having orgy with the entire NBA. This leads to the Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. And if you have trepidation about any of that, all of EU, from top to bottom, have been mentally-colonized to condemn you as 'racist'. A people who are only territorially conquered can still survive as a race. Poles and Kurds had been conquered this way, but as most of their women had children for their own men, the people and culture survived. But when the women of a race are womb-colonized by another people, it leads to something like mestizo-ization. The Hispanic colonization of native wombs in Latin America forever destroyed the identity and pride of Meso-Americans who still linger as strangers in their own land, or strangers in a familiar land.

At the current rate, the white race is going from boomers to doomers. Not only do more and more white women invite their wombs to be colonized by black men but white men, as sappy cucks, have embraced their own inferiority and fitfully virtue-signal their 'anti-racism' of having accepted the black man as the 'better man' who's more deserving of possessing and enjoying white female beauty. Paradoxically, white 'progressives' who rhetorically reject the notion of racial differences actively behave in ways that are premised on racial differences. After all, why would white women go with black men unless they believed black men are superior as savage-warrior-hunter-studs over sappy white loser males? And why would white males seek comfort and compensation in Asian women? It's because they are losing white women to black men.

Response to Gregory Hood's Commentary on Jay Nordlinger's Cuckservatism: National Review’s Wishful Thinking About Race

https://www.amren.com/commentary/2018/06/national-reviews-wishful-thinking-about-race-jay-nordlinger/

That is a truism, but Mr. Nordlinger’s larger point is that
conservatives should not succumb to defeatist thinking about
demographics or tribalism, and should keep trying to pitch conservatism
to blacks, Mexicans, Hmong, and everyone else. “Do we have so little
faith in our ideas and their power?” he asks.

American Conservatism is a state of Epic Fail because it confuses words with reality.

The CORE FEATURE of true conservatism-rightism is tribalism, ethno-centrism, us-versus-them, and self-preservation of a people and culture.

It's a special kind of American idiocy that pretends that 'individualism', 'low taxes', and 'free markets' are the main features of conservatism. In truth, those values can serve or hurt conservatism. People can use individualism to support conservative values or radical trends. Just because George Soros' taxes are lowered won't make him favor white conservatism. And free markets can operate in accordance to nationalist Rule of Law or globalist trade agreements that undermine national sovereignty and favor rootless globo-oligarchs.

So, those 'values' do not constitute the CORE essence of conservatism. The CORE is sense of tribe, nation, us(as opposed to them), a sense of blood and soil, and sense of OUR heritage.

It's about putting OUR interests before those of others. Humans are organisms, and all organisms are competitive. While humans can come together to form larger units of mutual cooperation, history has shown that the nationalist model is preferable to the imperialist model for the sake world peace.

So, it is ridiculous for Jay Nordlinger to preach 'conservatism' to non-whites because they are already conservative in the most primal way. They are tribalist, ethno-centric, and always ask 'Is it good for our side?'

If anything, white 'conservatives' at the National Review should learn some Real Conservatism from blacks and browns. Blacks are into black power and browns are into La Raza, the race.

The great American Irony is that white conservatives have no idea what Real Conservatism is. And blacks and browns, though ostensibly 'anti-conservative', practice Real Conservative politics by putting their Tribe and Kind above others.

National Review should learn Real Conservatism from blacks and browns.

Or from Zionists who are for Israel First and Jewish Interest First. Nordlinger is all for National Review supporting Jewish identity and Israel, so why does he shy away from doing same for whites?

The fool has as much sense in his head as hair on his head.

White Gentiles Must Operate by the Rule of GFJGFU or What’s Good for Jews Is Good for Us

Whenever Jews think or act, in the back of their minds is the question, "Is it good for the Jews?" Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with such an attitude. Just like every individual acts in self-interest(to a large measure if not entirely), a person who belongs to an identity and culture will have to think of the good of the tribe as a whole.

Should a person just see himself as an individual? Should everything be determined by the narrowest self-interest?
Or should a person see himself as part of humanity and try to act in a way that is good for all of mankind?
Actually, both are extremes. A person is more than himself. After all, he didn’t make himself but was created by his parents who fed, nursed, nurtured, and cultivated him. Furthermore, his parents were also created by their own parents, and all such people were part of a heritage, culture, and community. So, a person who only thinks of himself as a godly individual who made himself is living a conceit.
But then, a person who sees himself as a member of all of humanity is also deluded. While it’s true that all humans are part of the same species called Homo Sapiens, mankind not only branched out into different races but, within each race, distinct cultures and histories came into being. So, even though Russians and Poles are racially closely related, there is Russian culture & history that is distinct from Polish culture & history. So, even though any people must recognize the rest of humanity as part of the same species and wish others well(and find constructive ways to trade, communicate, and learn from one another), it is practically impossible for any person or any people to belong to all of humanity. There are over 200 nations in the world and so many cultures. And so many languages, histories, customs, and heritages. Anyone who claims to belong to all those peoples, cultures, and histories is being presumptuous. Even though he may consider himself tolerant and ‘inclusive’, he is pretending to belong to cultures he knows nothing about. He is laying claim to other lands and cultures. The so-called ‘global citizen’ is implying that he has the right to go to any nation and demand the right to live there and belong there(like illegal 'dreamers' do so in America). So, Obama the glob-citizen thinks he has the right to go to, say, Hungary or Japan and demand all the rights as a 'citizen of the world', a truly neo-imperialist notion. No wonder the US, with such mindset, has been embroiled in so many invasive wars and so much cultural imperialism. A 'global citizen' is also under the delusion that cultures will survive and be enriched if he allows limitless numbers of foreigners into his own nation. Of course, the result of mass invasion will be the loss of distinct identities and cultures, like what happened in North Africa and Latin America where no one really knows what they are.

So, the best solution is the Goldilocks rule of the middle. Just like hot soup is too hot and cold soup is too cold but warm soup is just right, a person finds the most meaningful place and purpose in life as a member of a tribe, the domain of shared culture, history, and identity. It’s too selfish and petty to only live for oneself and too daunting & confusing to live for all of humanity. It is best to temper one's individuality to find a place and purpose within the world of one’s tribe. And if all persons chose that path all around the world, they and their communities & nations would be much better off. Indeed, that is the core principle of nationalism.
But instead, the current globalist order only tolerates the libertarian individual(on the capitalist ‘right’) and the communitarian universalist(on the socialist ‘left’). People seem not to understand that it is via nationalism that capitalism and socialism can best be combined to produce and maintain a well-ordered system.

The reason why nationalism is Taboo has to do with the question of "Is it good for Jews?" But, upon carefully scrutinizing the Jewish argument against nationalism, it turns out nationalism is not bad for all peoples and for all times. Nationalism is wonderful for Jews as far as Jews are concerned. Not only do Jews safely guard Israel as a Jewish state but they demand that gentile nations(especially Western ones) bend over backwards to secure the future of Israel as a Jewish state. Well, well, nationalism must be wonderful, at least for Jews.
Also, Jews will fan the flames of nationalism or tribalism among gentiles when it serves their own interests. Since Jews hate Russia, they are not averse to fanning Ukrainian and Georgian nationalism against Russia. (At the same time, Jews try to weaken that very same nationalism with Homomania. So, Jews use Ukrainian nationalist rage against Russia BUT also subvert it in relation to Jewish power by pressuring Ukrainians to bend over to Homomania, the proxy cultural and quasi-spiritual agent of Jewish globalism.) To break up Yugoslavia and Syria, Jews were more than willing to encourage tribalism in those regions. As a result, Yugoslavia is no more, and Syria was seriously damaged by the ‘civil war’ that has raged since 2014, a conflict that was stoked along ethnic and sectarian lines. And Jews threaten to subvert Iran the same way by driving wedges among various ethnic groups in a nation where the majority Persians barely make up the 50%. So, when Jews say "Diversity is Our Strength", the ‘our’ doesn’t mean all of us but only the Jews. Diversity means Jews can play divide-and-rule among the various groups of gentiles.

Extensive diversity is so problematic that very diverse nations can maintain stability only under autocratic or oligarchic rule. When democracy is introduced into a diverse region without a dominant majority, the result is often what we witnessed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Indeed, the reason why democracy has been more problematic in Latin America was due to its great diversity. This is why Jews can practice democracy in Israel where they comprise the solid majority but must rely on military rule in West Bank where they’re a decisive minority.

Jews know a good thing when they see one, and they see nationalism as the most useful, secure, and powerful foundation for power. That is why Jews love nationalism for themselves. True nationalism combines identity, history, and homeland. But even without a homeland, a people can survive as a nomadic-nation. But a people-and-culture without a land are in a unstable situation. They are like a people on a boat than on a rock. They can go from rock to rock but don’t have a rock to call their own. And because of such uncertainty, there is a tendency for the members to jump ship and assimilate with other peoples in the various lands. Why be stuck on a rickety boat when one can live on an island and join with the native tribesmen?
Indeed, it is not natural for a people & culture without a homeland to survive as a distinct ethnos for long. With each generation, more people will be lost to other tribes with more secure roots and footing in their own lands.
So, in order to keep the kinfolks within the Tribe, Jews expanded the field of Talmudic studies. The rabbis informed Jews that they are the most special people with a special Covenant with God. Also, through the great Talmudic scholarship, each generation of Jews would learn the great tradition and discover new revelations through debate, prayer, and prophecy. With such heady stuff happening in the Jewish community, there was less chance of Jews opting to cut ties with the Tribe and join with the goyim. Not only were the goyim filthy and unclean but they lacked the Talmud and its living wisdom.
One of the core objectives of the Talmud was to boost morale to keep the biological family of Jews together, but it had paradoxical and unintended consequences, for good or ill for the Jews. It’s the Tribal-Cerebral Paradox. Because Jewish culture became so intellectual as a result of Talmudic studies, many Jews, male and female, came to value the life of the mind over the life of the body. The danger was that ideas, unlike sperm and eggs that remain in specific bodies, tend to morph into universality. After all, ideas are abstractions and, as such, divorced from their material or biological foundation. While every body belongs to a single person, the scientific facts about blood, bones, and cells apply to all human beings and all animals. So, even though Talmudic studies were meant to be about the Covenant between God and Jews — a spiritual idea inseparable from Jewish blood — , the thought processes grew ever more complex & elaborate as theories. By their nature, theories want to be tested for universal validity in the larger world. So, Jews who maximized the power of ideas to persuade their kinsmen to stick to their own race inadvertently ended up creating lots of Jews whose intellectual curiosity went far beyond the Tribe.
As a result, we live in a strange world of Jewish neurosis. Because Jews rule America that rules the world, the entire world spins on the axis of Jewish Neurosis. We've become infected with Jewish confusion because Jews control the media, academia, and the Narrative. On the one hand, Jews are a very cerebral and intellectual people whose ideas are supposed to have universal import. But if we dig far back enough, the origins of Jewish intellectualism are to be found in Jewish tribalism. Jews didn’t embark on intellectualism to construct universal ideas for all of humanity. Jews didn’t mean to be purely abstract in their thinking like the Greeks in their philosophy, science, and math. Jewish intellectualism was meant to come up with powerful reasons as to why Jews should all stick to the Tribe and keep it all in the family in the name of obeying God, the master of the universe. But because Jews thought so very hard to justify their tribalism as the greatest thing in the universe, their mental processes grew ever more abstract, and abstract thinking, by its own logic, longs for universal validation of truth. So, modern Jews are so radically universalist but also emotionally entrenched in a deeply rooted tribalism that will not compromise on anything.

Anyway, Jews are convinced that their way is the best. One reason why Jews cannot tolerate ‘anti-Semites’ is because the stupid dummies fail to understand and appreciate the rightness, greatness, and nobleness of Jews. Jews like David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, Richard Cohen, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, John Podherotz, and so many others are shocked and outraged that there are still all those repellent gentiles who dare defy and resist the way of Jews. A Jew like David Brooks thinks, "We Jews know what's right whereas them white deplorable dummies don’t know jack shit. So, why don’t they just shut up, kiss my brilliant hynie, and just do like we say?" Be a ‘changemaker’ or some such.

But increasing numbers of white Americans are growing skeptical of the Jewish Way. Some even think Jews are out to harm the European goyim with ‘white genocide’.

Well, I have a perfect solution that will solve the tension between Jews and whites/gentiles. Instead of denouncing the Jewish Way as harmful to goyim, the goyim should find more creative and useful means to adopt the Jewish Way. What way would this be? GFJGFU or "What is good for Jews is good for us". So far, the problem hasn’t so much been the Jewish Way but how it's been presented to the goyim. Jews have done wonderfully by the Jewish Way but white gentiles have done poorly from it.

If the Jewish Way is so good for Jews, why has it been so bad for whites? Because whites have gone about the wrong way of learning and mastering the proper way of using the Jewish Way. Thus far, the rule has been Jews using the Jewish Way for themselves but telling white gentiles to do the opposite of what Jews do. We’ll call this the Jewish Way #1.
Imagine a soccer game where Team A has a way of winning. It is to work as a team to kick the ball to one another to move down the field to ultimately score a goal. So, the Team A Way is to work together to score and win. But suppose Team A tells Team B that the Team A Way is for Team A to work as a team to score goals whereas the Team A Way for Team B is for members of Team B to think of themselves as individuals than as part of a team and not play defense while Team A cuts down the field to score more points. Naturally, this formulation of Team A Way is great for Team A but terrible for Team B.
So, should Team B conclude that Team A Way is bad? No. What Team B should do is study the Team A Way and realize that it should do like Team A does. They should realize that the Team A had hoodwinked them about the Team A Way. Team A had convinced the Team B that the Team A Way for Team B is for Team B to not play like Team A does. But that was the great lie. If indeed Team A Way is so great for Team A, then Team B should also play like Team A. In other words, the real Team A Way for Team B would be to play like Team A, coordinate the game as a team, try to convince Team A not to play as a team and defense, and score as many points as possible. After all, what was the Team A Way? It was (1) Team A playing as team (2) telling the other team not to work as a team and not to play defense (3) score as many goals as possible. So, if Team B were to use Team A Way properly, it should (1) play as a team (2) tell members of Team A not to play as a team and forget about defense and (3) score as many goals as possible.

And that is the way whites need to play the game with Jews. Whites should admire the Jewish Way, learn from it, and do the same thing Jews do. If whites were to act thus, Jews should have no reason to blame whites of ‘antisemitism’ because, after all, whites would only be emulating Jews. If whites are wrong to act like Jews, then aren’t Jews wrong to act like Jews? If the Jewish Way is great and noble, then whites should do like the Jews do. But if whites acting like Jews is terrible, then acting like Jews must be terrible, in which case Jews shouldn’t act like Jews. If whites acting like Jews is ‘antisemitic’ then, Jews acting like Jews must also be ‘antisemitic’.

Anyway, if the Jewish Way #1 is Jews acting like Jews but telling whites not to act like Jews, the alternative Jewish Way #2 would be Jews acting like Jews and whites acting like Jews.

Now, how do Jews act? (1) Jews preserve their sense of history, heritage, and ancestry. They are big on inheritance and identity. (2) Jews believe that the best way to ensure the continuation of Jewishness is to secure a territory for themselves. Even though Jews ‘stole’ land from Palestinians, Jews operate on the principle of ‘takers keepers, losers weepers’. (3) Jews tell their white/gentile competitors, rivals, and enemies to forgo identity, territory, and sense of history. Jews tell gentiles to be just atomized amnesiac consumers whose entire culture revolves around watching blacks go ‘muh bling’, ‘muh butt’, and ‘muh dick’. (4) Jews tell gentiles to abandon border security and open their nations to endless invasions. (5) Jews tell gentile women that gentile men are their worst enemies. Jews say white women should see white men — fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons — as wicked a**holes. Jews tell white women to welcome ACOWW or Afro-colonization of white wombs. (6) Jews say white history is ‘sinful’ and whites should be filled with collective guilt forever. (7) Jews say white people should replace Christianity with Homomania and Queer Worship. (8) Jews say gentiles should let Jews take over the elite institutions & industries and never complain about Jewish abuses of power. (9) Jews say whites should blindly admire, praise, and revere Jews and never ever criticize Jewish power or even notice it.

By practicing such a way, Jews have accumulated great wealth and gained mastery of the world. Shiite, I have nothing but admiration for the Jewish Way. Now, between Jewish Way #1 and Jewish Way #2, I prefer the latter. Why? #1 means only Jews get to play ball while others must just stand around and let Jews score all the goals. In contrast, #2 means gentiles can play by the same way, the Jewish Way.

So, what should whites do when they play the Jewish Way #2? The following:
(1) Europeans and Euro-Americans must preserve their sense of history, heritage, and ancestry. They must be bigly mindful of their own inheritance and identity. (2) Whites must believe that the best way to secure whiteness and white power is to secure their own territories. Even though whites ‘stole’ America from Indians, whites must operate on the principle of ‘takers keepers, losers weepers’. (3) Whites must tell their Jewish competitors or rivals to forgo Jewish identity, territory, and sense of history. Whites must tell Jews to be just atomized amnesiac consumers whose entire culture revolves around watching blacks go ‘muh bling’, ‘muh butt’, and ‘muh dick’. (4) Whites must tell Jews to abandon border security and open Israel to endless invasions from Muslims and Africans. (5) Whites must tell Jewish women that Jewish men are their worst enemies. Whites must urge Jewish women to see Jewish men — fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons — as wicked a**holes. Whites must tell Jewish women to welcome ACOJW or Afro-colonization of Jewish wombs. (6) Whites must tell Jews that Jewish history is irredeemably ‘sinful’ and Jews must atone for their collective guilt forever: Genocide of Canaanites, stoning homosexuals, evil Jewish patriarchy, murdering Jesus, theft through usury, communist mass murder, Nakba, etc. (7) Whites must say Jews should replace Judaism & Holocaust Remembrance with Homomania and Tranny Worship. (8) Whites must say Jews need to allow gentiles to take over the elite institutions and industries of Israel and never complain about gentile abuses of power. (9) Whites must say Jews should admire, praise, and revere whites and never ever criticize white power or even notice it.

In other words,

DO AS THE JEW.

SAY NAY TO WHAT JEWS SAY.

So, it’s about time Jews stopped giving advice to whites and gentiles. There is a saying, "Action speaks louder than words." So, the BEST lesson that whites and gentiles can learn from Jews is to closely observe and study what Jews really do in terms of action and then formulate that knowledge into a course of action that enables whites and gentiles to follow the successful Jewish way to power. And why should Jews complain? After all, isn’t imitation the sincerest form of flattery?