Charles Murray and His Critic Edward Dutton are both too fixated on Facts to understand that 'Woke' Woes derive from the Faith-driven Delusions of the Current Year — Awesome White Race-ism's Role in US History — The Need for White Fidelism if Whites are to Survive as People & Culture

https://vdare.com/articles/murrayism-as-in-charles-murray-has-failed-now-what

And, more immediately, it shows that “Murrayism”—trying reasonably to discuss racial differences while making many concessions to the anti-science Left and suppressing Politically Incorrect science that goes further—has failed. Now what?

What is to be done?

Name the Jewish Supremacism and call for White Liberation from it. Jews control academia, media, deep state, and much else. Probe into the source of PC and 'wokeness', and they're invariably part of the Jewish Strategy to suppress white identity, pride, and autonomy lest whites-going-their-own-way or WGTOW happens. Jewish Supremacist Power needs white submission much like a rider needs an obedient horse. To Jews, whites are just dog, cattle, or horse.
After all, if PC or 'wokery'(and its mantras about 'equity', 'diversity', and 'inclusion') really mattered as universal principles, why is there no outcry among politicians and 'mainstream' journalists about how the US continues to abet the Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians? How come there is hardly any discourse about disproportionate Jewish wealth, influence, and privilege in top industries and institutions? So much for Jewish commitment to 'equity'. How come there is no discussion of Jewish role in Western Imperialism — Jewish bankers certainly bankrolled much of it, and Jewish merchants provided all manner of materials and services to white imperialists and invaders around the world? Why is there utter silence about lack of 'inclusion' of Palestinian-Americans in media and high places that would allow for viewpoint 'diversity' as counter to the Zionist-centric worldview that animates American Foreign Policy?
In other words, how come Jews, the richest and most powerful group in the West, are passed-over by the inquisitions of PC and 'wokery'? It is because 'wokeness' has been conceived by Jews to ostracize and impugn whites(especially Anglos and Germanics) for their 'historical sins' while overlooking the dark facts of Jewish role in history. This is what Charles Murray and Edward Dutton fail to address. If you want to understand the Nile River, you must find the source. If you want to understand the current 'woke' madness, you must unveil the source, which is Jewish Power. If you don't have the sense to realize this and the courage to address it, you might as well just give up. It's like bitching about your house being on fire without ever naming the suspects who either set the fire or hired others to do so.

Another key tactic against Jewish-controlled 'wokeness' must be to reject using ‘racist’ as epithet. Take it from the only true race-ist. Spell it as ‘race-ism’ to accentuate the meaning of -Ism, i.e. -Ism means belief, and race-ism should mean belief in the reality of race & racial differences and the need for racial consciousness. Jews and blacks have strong racial consciousness, and look how they grew in power... whereas whites have been sinking like a stone ever since they abandoned their own race-ism. Without race-ism, a people are invariably doomed. It's a law of history, even of nature.

Also, repeat the truth of BAMMAMA or 'blacks are more muscular and more aggressive'. So much of Black Problem can be explained by thuggery fueled by contempt for 'slow' and 'faggoty' whitey. The essence of black hostility toward whites isn't driven by anger about history but arrogance over biology. Black guys see white guys as a bunch of wussy 'faggoty-ass' weaklings and treat them like punching bags. And black girls hate 'white bitches' for being prettier and taking black men from them. If 'history' is the main reason for black violence, why do blacks so often attack nonwhites as well? Blacks take pride in thuggery and feel it's their 'lion-king' right to make predatory moves on weaker races. And of course, this thug-pride often leads to black-on-black violence and mayhem as well because so many Negro males vie for the title of who-be-the-most-badass-mofo-in-da-hood.

There is also the matter of JAMIAMO, or 'Jews are more intelligent and more obnoxious', i.e. Jewish Supremacism and contempt for goyim are largely the product of tribal arrogance stemming from a combination of higher intelligence and nastier will, made all the more aggressive and hostile by Covenant-thinking. Jews feel they are the Chosen of God or History to rule over inferior goyim. Jews will never admit to this and instead yammer about 'diversity, equity, and inclusion', but always judge people by what they DO than what they SAY. Why do Jews pull strings to suppress BDS, a movement calling for justice for Palestinians? You see, Jews may SAY one thing, but what they really DO is a different matter. Jews see Palestinians as mere cattle to be slaughtered or vermin to be expelled off the land.

Chucky Cucky Murray: “America is self-destructing, discarding its founding ideals…”

ROTFL.

What made America(by which we mean White America) powerful and rich was not its founding ideals but its founding practices, which was AWESOME RACE-ISM.

AWESOME WHITE RACE-ISM made America powerful. It took all the lands from native Red Savages. If not for awesome white race-ism, whites would have recognized the 'rights' of the American Indians and made hardly any moves to wrest the vast territories for themselves for agriculture and industry. Awesome white race-ism also kept Black Savages down. This was crucial because Europeans europeanize whereas Africans africanize. Left to their own devices, blacks are prone to turning societies into Haiti or Detroit. It was because whites maintained control over blacks that black labor was rendered productive and contributed much to American development. If blacks had been granted equal freedom early on, they would have gone into 'africanization' mode and worked to undermine the American experiment; they also would have attacked and victimized the weaker white race in increasing crime waves. This isn't to deny the injustice of slavery(or the 'genocide' of the Red Savages or American Indians for that matter), but America simply couldn't have been realized into existence with its 'founding ideals' alone. America was essentially an extension of European Civilization in the New World, and whites had to use much force and violence to ensure they were in control to conceive and construct their preferred vision of civilization.
But then, could the modernization and progress of the entire world have been possible without white violence? Even when the West arrived before the Rest bearing gifts and offering friendship, the latter tended to rebuff the white guests and ordered them to go away or refused to adopt the advanced ways of the West. The Rest had to be forced into adopting modernity, and much of this force was awesomely white race-ist.

AWESOME WHITE RACE-ISM also took the Southwest Territory from Mexicans who were deemed stagnant, backward, mired in inertia, and hopelessly lacking in initiative. Who can deny Anglos did so much more with the SW territories than Mexicans could ever have? Indeed, to this day, Mexican economy is just an addendum to the US economy. Awesome white race-ism also limited the mass immigration of the yellow hordes. As there were many more Chinese than whites, open borders policy toward the Far East would have meant the American West, though conquered and settled by whites, could turn yellow-dominant, a much bigger version of what came to be the fate of Hawaii. Also, if studious yellows with decent IQ arrived in huge numbers, they might out-compete whites(and other races) in schools and take over institutions founded by whites for the purpose of white power. Why would whites want that? Awesome race-ism shielded America from such a fate. (Just like Chinese resented Western imperialists, aka 'foreign devils', taking over parts of China, white Americans had reason to worry about possible demographic imperialism if US enacted open-borders policy for the Far East that made up 1/4 the world population.) Awesome white race-ism once reminded Jews that America is a CHRISTO-RACE-IST country and that Jews better behave. Back then, most Jews got the message and wrote X-mas songs and made Jesus movies; they knew better than to rock the boat too much. But what has happened to the US ever since whites ceded power to the Jews? Nails are being hammered into the coffin of White America. What would happen to Israel if Jews allowed non-Jews, especially those hostile to Jewishness, to take over key institutions and industries of finance, media, academia, government, and etc.? Jews would merely be marking time as the demise of Israel as a Jewish State would be assured.

“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage — the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. ” - Ayn Rand

And yet, what goes for ‘anti-racism’ in the US is a game of ascribing moral, social or political significance to Jewish and black genetic lineage — the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry(that makes him either Jewish or black).

And Rand was pro-Zionist and had a way of generalizing Jewish Israelis as a people of individuality and progress while ascribing subhuman savagery to ALL Arabs.

Now, I would half-agree with Rand. It’s stupid to assign virtues or abilities to any individual based on his race. While certain races have more particular abilities and positive attributes than others, it simply doesn't compute that just because one happens to be ____, one possesses particular virtues/values. Germany produced many great musical composers, but most Germans had no musical talent. Singapore is relatively a cleaner country, but it too has corrupt people. There have been many great Jewish thinkers, but most Jews aren't big on thought. Individual virtue can't be ascribed to religious affiliation either. Just because one is a Christian doesn’t mean he acts Christian. Plenty of Buddhists are thugs and gangsters, more into money than Nirvana.

But a saner concept of race-ism is NOT about ascribing virtues to individuals based on race. Rather, it’s the sense that an individual isn’t just some atomized creature defined by ideology or individual merit/demerit but an inheritor of a long history, genetic as well as cultural, and that he gains from a sense of solidarity with others of his racial family. While every individual can claim something unique(especially if he’s gifted), his essence is largely the product of heritage and inheritance in appearance, allusions, and remembrance. What is history but collectivity and continuity of memory? Biography makes sense only in the larger context of History, and every person belongs to a certain group as he didn't create himself but is the product of the history/culture/biology of a people. Ayn Rand's ultra-individualism(which she never meant for Jews, however) would only make sense if humans were godlike and created themselves into existence and created their own culture, language, values, and everything.

Now, no one should assume that some individuals are better simply because they are of his or any tribe. He should always remind himself that there are cretins among his own kind and good people among other tribes/races. Still, his people are his people, just like his family is his family. He is part of a culture and history, and it’s his duty to preserve them and ensure their survival and continuity. Putting individuality at the center would maybe make sense if people could live eternally. But every individual is born, live, and die, and what really lives on is the people-and-culture, in which he is merely a link.

Also, most individuals lack individuality. Rand’s heroic ideal of individual is maybe one in a million. While the truly gifted have a greater claim to individuality with their genius, most people find meaning as part of a community and tradition. And even decadents who reject tradition and community go off to form their own subcultures or dogmaville, which is why most people fall under the spell of Toohey in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Tooheyism is presented as villainous, but most people will always be Tooheyian, and therefore, the real solution is to arrive at a better Tooheyism than fall for the delusion that Howard-Roarkism can serve as the model for most people, something that Rand herself didn’t believe because she went out of her way to show how Roark is innately superior in every way, which makes him rare indeed. He was born superior, with precious gifts of talent, will, and fiber.

A better Tooheyism is found in the Frank Capra movie IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE that takes the needs of the community into account but for its good than for vanity of control, which is what cynical Toohey is really about. He actually feels contempt for the masses but knows how to mold them.

Charles Murray is ultimately hopeless because he approaches the current problem as a conflict of ideas and values when it's really a battle for control, i.e. Jews are willing to DO ANYTHING to keep the power, which hinges on the submission of whites to Jewish authority. For Jews, it's power uber principles. Jews push 'wokeness' and bait 'white guilt' to morally paralyze whites into serving Jews. Jews want to be permanent masters over whites who are to be trained like dogs. In failing to recognize or admit this, Murray is either utterly clueless or ultimately craven because, when push comes to shove, he crumbles before the Jew Taboo. Murray is like a fool who keeps speaking the truth in the hope of winning over those whose very power depends on the Big Lie. To the extent that his truth is threatening to their power, Jews will never give his ideas the time of day.

Paradoxically, Charles Murray pretends he’s unaware because he’s all-too-aware of Jewish Power. Even in his disadvantaged and disgraced state, his only avenue to respectability is through Jewish Power. While most Jews dump on him, some Jews(neocons) find him useful because, for all his talk of racial differences, he is hostile to white identity and utterly submissive to Zionism and Jewish supremacism. So, his books still get published by the 'respectable' press even if not the promotion and attention that Murray and his admirers think they deserve.
If Murray spoke of the need for Wower(white power) and pointed to Jews as anti-white agents, he would lose whatever remains of his respectability. His last remaining cred as a scholar and 'decent' human being would go up in smoke, and he would be tossed into the same wilderness with Kevin MacDonald(who does name the Jew) and Jared Taylor(Senator-Geary-like craven cuck who won’t name the Jew despite Jews tarring-and-feathering his ass until the cows come home). He would lose all access to the 'better kind of people'. Reportedly, the bald-headed cuck lowlife even voted for Joe Biden. Now, I can understand not voting for Trump the scump but for Biden? Murray also bent over for ‘gay marriage’ because all the 'better kind of people' got on the globo-homo wagon(and because he has 'gay' friends). If he’s going to be so craven, why not cuck all the way? The fool doesn’t know what he wants.

Andrew Breitbart said politics is downstream from culture. It’s no less true that ideology is downstream from idolatry, and so-called 'Western Values' are now mainly about idolizing Jews, blacks, and homos: The Tridolatry. If Murray were a bit more self-aware, he would understand why there’s such a taboo about blacks. After all, he has operated on the basis of a self-imposed taboo about Jews. He laments how others cannot speak honestly about the Black Problem, but he refused to self-examine as to why he cannot speak critically on the Jewish Question, or even address the question at all.
Being less enamored of blacks, he can be more factual and rational in his discussion of them. But he is so reverential toward Jews that he cannot write critically of them even though it’s the Jews who are slapping his silly bald head and cackling with hideous glee. In a Commentary magazine piece, Charles Murray tackled the Harpending-Cochran theory on Jewish Intelligence. In a way, he took on a controversial topic but in such a gushing tone, and his last words were, “Uh gosh gee whiz by golly, maybe Jews are the Chosen People… Can I suck you Jewish Wiener now?”
So, while Murray is just barely controversial-courageous enough to ponder higher Jewish IQ(which makes some Jews nervous), it is only as flattery and hero-worship. It never occurs to Murray that IQ doesn’t equal virtue and that Jews have often used their higher smarts for evil ends. (If Germans and Japanese can use their considerable talents for bad ends, why can't this be said of Jews as well? Saying that Jews are incapable of evil would mean they are innately nobler, and that would certainly smack of racial supremacism. But such is the unspoken assumption of current discourse.)

Jew-Worship is the idiotic side of HBD, a kind of IQ worship. Just like little boys worship baseball players based on batting stats, HBD clowns worship people based on IQ. As Jews are smarter, HBD-ers are in awe and dream of Jews finally coming around to their side. While Murray is right to admire higher IQ among Jews(as intelligence is pretty amazing), he is wrong to pretend that Jewish IQ = Jewish wisdom/virtue. But because he’s so devoted to IQ-worship, he seems incapable of critical perspective on Jewish Power.
So, even though he talks of blacks and street crime, he doesn’t talk of Jews and white-collar crime. How many Russians died as the result of Jewish Rape of Russian Economy? How many Arabs/Muslims died as the result of High-IQ Jews in media, think-tanks, academia, and government pushing the Iron-Zion Curtain policy?

If Murray had any sense, he’d realize that the silence about black pathology isn’t much different in kind from his silence about Jewish pathology. Just like his gushing reverence toward Jews shuts down any honest discussion of the Jewish Question, the white awe of blacks as loud rappers, victorious athletes, booty-shakers, long-dongers, and bellowing orators has made it impossible for them to think rationally or factually about the black problem.

Indeed, what was the real appeal of MLK? His message of equality? Is that why he came to be deified? Or was it because he could holler up a storm as the mighty Kong of Morality? The Civil Rights Movement soon became a Racial Cult Movement. Not only was MLK howling up a storm as the new voice of god but there was Muhammad Ali whupping everyone and calling himself the 'greatest' and there were so many white musical groups taking inspiration from black music. And it was eventually followed by Jungle Fever and white cuckery, sexual as well as spiritual.
That is why white people cannot be rational about blacks. In MLK, they hear not just some reiteration of founding principles of dead white males but the voice of god hisself; MLK be the real founding father or brotha in their cuckish minds.
Blacks are deemed as physical and spiritual superior race because of their racial attributes. In other words, so-called 'anti-racism' is predicated on Black Racial Superiority. This is why even black criminality cannot be handled rationally. When people worship something, even the terrible things it does is deemed as just and awesome. Did the Aztecs condemn their terrifying gods? No, they knelt before the gods and offered more sacrifices. Did the Jews ever blame their God for sending floods and pestilence and etc? No, God was always right, and Jews blamed themselves as unworthy and deserving of the punishment.
Likewise, whites now worship blacks to such an extent that whatever blacks do might as well be divine. It is prized as divine gift, like jungle music, jungle fever, and jungle sports. Or, it is accepted as divine retribution for bad whitey’s ‘racism’, historical, systemic, individual, subconscious, and etc. So, no matter what blacks do to create more havoc and mayhem, they are righteous and justified whereas whites must find fault within themselves for the deserved punishment. It’s all about idolatry of magical blackness than ideology based on universal morality. Whites feel guilty about blacks because they see blacks as a wronged SUPERIOR people. Notice whites feel ZERO sympathy for Palestinian plight because Pallies are regarded as losers. Who cares is inferior losers are wronged, especially when America is all about WINNERS? And no one cares about ‘white trash’, brown, or yellow victims of black crime because they’re regarded as just a bunch of 'lame losers'.

When whites were proudly race-ist in the past, they made sure blacks didn’t gain such power over whites. Even though whites didn’t spell it out, they understood that blacks posed a unique threat to the white race because tougher black guys could thump white guys and hump white women(infected with jungle fever). Whites understood the biological raciality of nature and countered it with social race-ism. Because nature made blacks tougher and more aggressive than whites, whites needed social defenses against blacks.
But the prosperity of post WWII years made whites drop their guard. They became more complacent, especially when white youths got turned onto black music. Also, the Cold War made US vie for the hearts and minds of the non-white world, and so, the US had to suppress its ‘racist’ past and practices. Also, Jews took over key institutions & industries and figured on using ‘white guilt’ & ‘white fever’, especially in relation to blacks, to weaken and paralyze white identity and power. The combination of Jewish brains and black brawn proved fatal to whites who lost their crucial race-ist defenses. The result is the current America of Cuckery, Jungle Fever, Iron Zion, Idolatry of St. George Floyd, Merrick Garfinkle’s war on whites, and etc. And what do whites have as their spokesmen? Lindsey Graham and Ben Sasse. LOL.

I haven’t read Chuck the Cuck Murray’s latest book, but I’ll bet he doesn’t discuss BAMMAMA or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. If he did, my wrong. At any rate, THAT ISSUE, more than IQ differences, explains why blacks are so problematic. If blacks were low IQ but were a bunch of Gary Colemans or Emmanuel Lewises, would they pose much of a problem? No, blacks are dangerous because they can whup the white race. Paradoxically, this danger that turns whites off to blacks also turns them onto blacks. Black-White relations is like one where a black guy beats up and humiliates a white guy who then cheers for a black athlete who beats up whites on TV. White guy hates a black guy for kicking his butt but then loves a black athlete for kicking butt on TV. It’s the same in France and UK. The very white guy who hates being beaten up by African or Jamaican immigrants will worship the black athlete on TV as his national hero. (And same thing is happening in Japan.) Sports Imperialism is very lucrative to blacks, and Jewish globalists know it’s a potent weapon for subverting national unity and pride among goyim. Black guy comes to France and beats up white French guys, but the French cheer him as the New French National Hero. It’d be like Poles praising the German Wehrmacht in WWII as the New Polish Military. It’s utterly laughable.

Not only Murray but Edward Dutton would rather discuss IQ because it’s drier and cleaner. Also, as whites have higher IQ than blacks, it makes whites feel better. But the problem isn’t IQ. Lower IQ doesn’t necessarily translate into criminality. Poor whites are far less criminal than blacks. Mexicans aren’t high-crime. The real problem is blacks are tougher and more aggressive. If whites weren’t crazy about sports and pop music, black thuggery might be seen for what it is. But because this thug-advantage is sensationalized in sports(that characterizes American pride of manhood and even the cult of virtue) and because pop music sensationalizes rappers as preachers-of-badassery, black bad behavior actually is tremendous profitable to blacks in terms of business and prestige.

So, if Dutton wants to be serious, he needs to be more 'portnoic' and discuss the song-strong-dong factor than babble on and on about IQ. We need more vulgar discourse. When a surgeon must remove a cancer, he must cut into the flesh and see the ugliness inside. To understand what is really happening, we need to understand that the real forces of power in history are ‘vulgar’ and crude. And only neo-fascism can deal with the pornographics of power. Not that one should surrender to such crudity. Rather, one should understand the true nature of power before finding ways to tame it. But idiot Murray lives with the fantasy that Real America was shaped by ‘founding ideals’. Total BS.

Indeed, if US had been settled by Imperial Germany under autocracy, it would have developed just the same. Germans had talent & work ethic, and the New World had tons of land and resources. Germany in the late 19th century was autocratic but raced past UK in industry & many fields and, pound for pound, achieved more than the US. Meanwhile, democracy spread to Latin America, and the results have hardly been spectacular.

The secret of American Rise was the Anglo-Germanic stock, the Protestant Work Ethic, property rights, and tons of resources and land to be exploited. Those could be had without 'liberal democracy'. Indeed, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did, at least on a per capita basis, just as well as the United States even though they didn't throw off the 'yoke of British Tyranny'.

Murray’s book is clear, concise, and well-argued. But I’m not really sure who he was trying to convince... It’s not even for most conservatives: they know these things even if they are careful not to discuss them, let alone review books that discuss them.

But then, why are 'conservatives' afraid to discuss such topics in the first place? Why do they submit to the taboo and remain silent or speak only in hushed tones among themselves, and worse, more often than not, condemn others in their camp when they do show some courage in taking on controversy?

Why is it that people know the facts but fear to speak them? Part of the reason may be careerism and peer pressure, but it's not like people are dragged off to concentration camps to be shot. Or literally burned at the stake. Why the excessive fear then?

It's because even 'conservatives' have internalized the faith-based sacraments of the current idolatry. Even if they know about the Black Problem, they too worship MLK, believe in America's 'historical sin', and hope for redemption via the second-coming of some Magic Negro. And they too are so enamored of blacks as sports and music stars that their starry-eyed vision of blacks as idols and 'heroes' fall silent on matters that might be offensive to blacks. What do fans fear most? Offending the celebrities they idolize. Similar dynamics operate between whites and blacks. After all, the taboos around 'racism' only really applies to blacks. To be 'racist' means to be blaspheme against the idolatry of black coolery and cast doubts on the coming of the Magic Negro as messiah.

Also, as 'racism' has been so relentlessly associated with Nazism, KKK, and 'white supremacism', even the slightest hint of 'racism' is immediately associated with Extremism. Such association occurs both institutionally and psychologically. Jewish-run media go all out to associate even the cuckish likes of Charles Murray with 'white supremacism' and 'extremism', and all those weaned on PC-indoctrination have been conditioned to immediately associate the faintest whiff of white racial thinking with the most extreme forms of murderous hatred. FBI has investigated the who-dun-it of "It's Okay to be White" signs. No wonder then that kids in elite colleges react to the invitation of Charles Murray as if the red carpet has been rolled out for the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Facts are cold but Faith is warm, and people prefer fuzzy warmth. Also, the cult of hope is an easier way to cope than dealing with hard facts that call for real action. Facts about blacks imply we must find ways to deal with harsh realities, but Faith about blacks allows people to ignore inconvenient facts and keep dreaming of a better future where blacks finally realize their messianic role and serve to redeem the white race of historical sin and the wickedness of 'whiteness'. This is why people react so violently to Black Facts or ignore them altogether. Trying to shake them out of their Faith is like taking candy from a child... or taking the blanket from Linus(of Peanuts comics). So many 'liberals' and even 'conservatives' are really delusionals.

Of course, in the long run, their Faith will destroy them as stark facts will eventually catch up to them — you can ignore that the house is on fire only for so long. But, they'd rather kick the can into the future and cling to the hope that things will somehow turn out alright if they worship MLK enough and sing paeans to St. George Floyd. And Jews want it this way because white spiritual and sensual submission to blacks means the extinguishment of white identity and pride, all the better for Jews to exploit and prey on white energies.

To understand the power of Faith, consider modern 'conservatives' who are very much part of the secular world but still believe in God. Now, they've gone to the same modern schools and studied science. They know there's no factual evidence of God or empirical data on miracles. But they still believe in God. Why? It just so happens that their sense of the sacred is deeply meaningful to them regardless of evidence. Secular 'Liberals' might scoff at such incorrigible 'conservative' need for Faith, but they are fooling themselves because most so-called 'liberals' are no less psychologically prone to faith-thinking. They may not believe in Jesus as the Son of God but, for some reason or other, they believe they see holiness in the homo's anus or George Floyd's thug-face consecrated by the Jewish-run media and academia. They may not go for communion but line up to wash stinky Negro's feet or taken the umpteenth Covid booster shot. And they'd rather repeat the dogmatic catechisms of Political Correctness than question everything with a critical mind.

So, if people really want to address the issue of PC or 'wokery', the approach must be psychological as well as factual. One must get to the psychological ROOT of why people allow faith-centered feelings to take precedence over facts and logic. It's like the ending in STAR WARS. It wasn't enough to blast at the exterior of the Death Star. Luke Skywalker had to shoot laser beams into its very core to blow it up. When facts are lobbed at the 'woke' or timid 'conzos', they hardly dent the ideological armor. One must penetrate into their psychological interior and strike at the idolatrous root.

Now, what distinguishes whites from Jews & blacks(and Hindus and some others) is that so many whites root for the other team. Most Jews and blacks(and Hindus) root for their own team, and this is simply natural. So, their worldviews have less to do with facts or faith than with simple fidelity to their own kind. They are into Fidelism, or belief in fidelity to one's own race, tribe, ethnicity, nation, or etc. Fidelity is more basic than faith. It's like one's fidelity to one's family has little to do with ideology, spirituality, or morality. It's just a sense of belonging and gut loyalty. Whites used to be fidelist, i.e. they believe in the fidelity between whites and white lands, between white men and white women, between white parents and white children, between white elites and white masses, between white heritage and white future. But fidelism broke down among whites, and they are losing because Jews and blacks(and Hindus) are still in fidelist mode.

Many whites reject fidelism and go for faithism, which makes them root for the other side. Faithism imbues many whites with the magical myth that Jews and blacks are holier than whites whereas whites are almost irredeemably tainted with the historical 'sin' of 'racism', 'slavery', and 'antisemitism', which means the ONLY way whites have any hope of salvation is by cucking to Jews and Blacks as their masters. Unless whites regain their fidelist ways, they are finished because whites are divided between those who still cling to some vestiges of fidelism and those who are full-fledged faithists whose highest vision of holiness is about total submission to Jews and blacks(and homos, the only whites with some innate holiness points).

TOUGHER BLACKS BEAT UP WEAKER WHITE KIDS, BUT JEW-RUN MEDIA SAY WHITES OPPRESS NOBLE BLACKS

Kathryn Paige Harden, the authoress of "The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality", is a Stupid Dirty Lying Whore

Harden's Folly by Steve Sailer - https://www.takimag.com/article/hardens-folly/

This Kathryn Paige Harden is a real Tarden. Is she really this stupid or just prone to mendacity in an academic culture that prides itself on free inquiry all the while banishing the slightest hint of heterodoxy? Harden tries so hard to prove it's all about the science while pandering to official dogma with mantra-like incantations about race not being real.

All this suggests US and West in general are a theocracy. To deviate from officialdom, you must try to fool the authorities(and even yourself) that your heresy is not only in tune with but in service to dogma. Harden is like a biologist arguing before the Church that evolutionary theory, far from disproving Creationism, confirms it. The problem isn't so much fooling the others — as one must lie sometimes to 'survive' — as fooling oneself, and Harden seems high on her own supply. Perhaps her formative years under PC made her believe in the official nonsense even as her studies indicate otherwise. Kind of similar to some Chinese wishing to believe their much capitalized economy is an extension of Maoism when its model is closer to Singapore. Her book ought to be called Genetic Hide-and-Seek as that's the game she plays(and in which she can't even find herself). Or the Genetic Shell Game.

Steve Sailer: "elaborately contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head off growing Ibram X. Kendi-style science denialism"

But is the Kendi Man really about denialism? His only interest seems to be blackity-black, and the likes of him never complain about black over-representation and over-achievement in certain fields, especially athletics. So, to the Kendi Man, it's not about science or genetics but "We blacks deserve everything". It's not about egalitarianism but privilegism by other means, i.e. blacks are owed rewards even when they aren't deserving. Of course, the Kendi Man is just clever enough(or stupid enough, but how can one tell the difference these days?) to drudge up stuff about slavery and Jim Crow as such dominate the current narrative. Mentioning those precludes the need for any rational debate. It's like people used to quote verses from the Bible for instant holy-than-thou points. Kendi's shtick is, "I'm holy because the Narrative favors black magic, so pay me."

Saying the Kendi Man is for egalitarianism is giving him too much credit as idealist or person of principle, however misguided. In truth, he is an arch-tribalist who, if science proved blacks are smarter, would be most welcoming of the finding... along with all the 'woke' idiots whose real religion is black-worship than racial equality. Their fixation on 'not enough black quarterbacks' but never on 'not enough non-black running backs' gives the game away. Inequality in favor of blacks is never a problem. Jewishness is similarly an object of cult reverence. There can never be enough Jews in any department, but when the Jewish share of Princeton students dipped to 10%(still disproportionate given Jews are 2% of US population), that was a huge scandal. The 'injustice' had to be corrected, and Princeton dutifully complied.

Harden: "When social scientists routinely fail to integrate genetics into their models of human development, they leave space for a false narrative that portrays the insights of genetics as a Pandora’s box of 'forbidden knowledge'…"

Harden or Tarden is absolutely the worst because she's doubly dishonest. The race-realists are honest about race and racial differences. The anti-genetic ideologues are, at the very least, honest in their anxiety about the implications of genetic science that can overturn the very foundation of post-WWII consensus. Political Correctness isn't honest about the science but honest in its fear of the science, just like the orangutan patriarch Dr. Zaius in THE PLANET OF THE APES isn't honest about facts but honest in his fears. In contrast, Harden pretends the science is good for Political Correctness. She's either a devious player of 4D chess(which I doubt) or a smart person made stupid by a sickly blend of dishonesty and dogmatism, dime-a-dozen in media and academia.

Steve Sailer: "But, no matter how people differ genetically... we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people, not just the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry."

This is doable on the national but not the global scale. Every nation has its share of smarties, middlies, and dummies. All modern systems have progressive taxation and other means to help out the dummies. This is manageable within the national setting, especially in smaller and homogeneous nations. But on a global scale, it's like the Aesop's tale of the dog losing its bone to snatch the seemingly bigger bone reflected in the water. In trying to save the world, the nation will be neglected and fall to pieces. And in the end, the world won't be saved either as it's too big to be saved by any single nation or civilization. Besides, how is a nation supposed to take care of its dummies when it keeps on taking in more people, many of them dummies from all around the world? Perhaps, some of the immigrants will work hard and pay taxes and produce more wealth to take care of the native dummies. But then, the dummies will be further relegated to loser status as there are more competitors in their midst. Worse, what if many of the immigrants are dummies themselves? Sweden used to have a pretty decent system for taking care of its dummies, but the social safety net has frayed because Sweden chose to save Africa and Afghanistan.

Now, it's true that the US has been somewhat different. In most European nations(in the past at least), most of the poor and the dumb were ethnically same as the middle and rich. But in the US, many of the poor have been blacks; worse, blacks haven't been merely poor but prone to criminality and other pathologies, made worse by the fact that they are more muscular and aggressive than whites, which is why so many whites are scared-half-to-death of blacks. Especially following the Civil Rights Movement, black behavior, fueled by rambunctious black pride, has been so unruly that many communities figured they would do better with immigrants than with blacks, a running theme in David Cole's columns. Los Angeles with so many Mexicans may not be paradise but it sure ain't Detroit or Baltimore either.
All these 'progressives' like Harden must decide if they're more about loyalty to the Democratic Party(that gains from mass immigration) or concern for blacks. The dirty secret is the so-called 'progressives' elites want mass-immigration because newcomers are useful buffers between themselves and blacks.
Of course, the problem with blacks is that, even minus immigrant competitors, too many fall through the cracks either due to lower IQ or lack of character(as much of black esteem is about out-hustling others than playing it straight — even the attitude of the smart guy in COOLEY HIGH is, "I can lie and steal too good not to survive").
Also, while many blacks are hostile to more immigration(as they see the newcomers as usurpers and competitors), they identify so closely with the Democratic Party that they favor anything to its advantage. There's kneejerk sense among blacks that what is good for the Democratic Party is good for black people, just like many white conservatives believe GOP is implicitly about white interests. Of course, while a party can boast of its concern for blacks(and Jews and homos), it's taboo for any party or political figure to show any interest that pertains to whites as a group.
But the pro-mass-immigration stance of both parties seem hellbent on replacing both historical blacks and historical whites of America. As Jews control America, it's mainly in their interests. Even as Jews flatter blacks to use against whites, Jews know blacks are the main destroyers of cities where Jewish Power is concentrated. So, Jews want more docile immigrants to replace blacks in urban areas. And Jews want non-white immigrants to replace the historical white Christian America because more diversity among goyim means Jews can play divide-and-rule over them.
With Trump at the helm, it seemed just barely possible for blacks and whites to unite on anti-immigration position. But once Jews engineered the 2020 BLM riots by encouragin the worst tendencies among blacks, the black-white anti-immigration coalition seems dead.
Even MAGA people, after the black riots, would prefer immigrants over blacks who ruin cities. And as immigrants tipped the South to Democratic control which led to the toppling of Confederate monuments, blacks are okay with mass immigration too. Blacks alone couldn’t take the south, but blacks plus immigrants are turning the entire South to the Democratic Party. Same happened in the Midwest. They were mostly Republican, but the combination of white globalists, blacks, and immigrants tipped them Democratic.

The silly whore cannot even decide on her stupid hair color.

As the South fills up with more immigrants, Democrats are gaining over Republicans, and blacks welcome the transformation. But won't blacks face more competition? Or, are black elites unconcerned with the black masses and care only about their own privileges by way of Democrat dominance? Or, do blacks regard non-blacks, white and non-white, as just more people to leech off and suck dry? As blacks have lagged in generating their own wealth, much of their 'economy' depends on milking what others create. It's the same in Africa. Hindus and Chinese are let in to build stuff. Black elites get their cut in the form of bribes and contracts(where non-blacks actually do most of the work). And the unwashed blacks get theirs on occasion through massive looting when riots break out.

Harden and her ilk confuse 'palliative' with 'egalitarian' or 'equitarian'(if such term exists). At most, a free society, even at its most social-democratic-leaning, can be 'palliatarian'(or 'palliational') but never truly 'egalitarian'. If parents have two children and one is big and strong while the other is weak and wobbly, the latter can be provided with palliative care so that he can, at the very least, walk and function in life. But there is No Way he's going to be a high school track star or football player. If a parent has a kid who is very bright and another who is retarded, palliative attention can help out the dummy kid, but he's never going to be a smart kid, let alone a genius. And of course, everyone knows this, but people love to pontificate about 'equity' or 'egalitarian' to either feel good, virtue-signal, or conceal their obsession with elitism. Kamala Harris will yap about 'equity' but has been a whore to the rich, smart, and powerful all her life. Nice cover. That so many conservatives attack the likes of her as 'leftist' means they fell for the trap. She is a whore to the rich and powerful but accused of being 'leftist'(ROTFL), which means her cover has worked.

Harden pretends she's saying something original when the modern order has long accepted the need for social safety nets and palliative measures for the poor, the sick, the old, and etc. Social Security for the old provides a measure of stability, but it's hardly egalitarian. If Social Security made old people equal in health and ability, they would be re-entering the work force. It's precisely because age wears down one's abilities that palliative means are provided for the retired. Same goes for the less intelligent in society. They will never succeed by mainstream standards(unless they win the lottery, the real kind), but we don't want them starving, so they are provided with aid or trained for less demanding jobs.

It is so tiresome to hear proposals for more programs and more funding when so much money has been wasted, is being wasted, and will be wasted on expensive public education for countless blacks, among others, who hardly respond to scholastic overtures. It's like arguing a fat person should be fed more food.

If honest, Harden will admit the US has pretty much given up on a large sector of the black population. All this talk of 'equity' and the pampering of the black elite(as trophies) are really to pretend otherwise. By always pretending to be doing SOMETHING, nothing really has to be done, except by symbolic measures like erecting George Floyd statues and teaching 'woke' catechisms to school children. Indeed, whole swaths of the black population aren't even deemed fit for manual labor, much of which has gone to brown people from south of the border. PC is about talking one way while walking the other way.

Harden: "The fact that income, educational attainment, subjective well-being, psychiatric disease, neighborhood advantage, cognitive test performance, executive function, grit, motivation, and curiosity are all heritable... blah blah"

What really matters is this. While non-genetic factors matter, they are overwhelmed by genetic factors when (1) genetic differences are significant and (2) there is sufficient freedom for most people. If society allows women to play sports but not the men, women will dominate the games even though men are genetically more athletic. But once men are allowed to compete, they will trounce the women(even if women are afforded some slight advantages by society).

PC operates on a fallacy that, because some groups were disadvantaged as a result of socially sanctioned discrimination in the past, the removal of discrimination will result in equality. But did meritocracy in sports lead to equality between blacks and whites? Did Jewish Emancipation lead to equality between Jews and Christians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
Inequality can be the result of social policy but can also result from the free reign of genetic competition, in which case social policy often comes into play to narrow the gap somewhat but never totally because dumb people cannot be geniuses and paralympians cannot complete with four-limbed Olympians. Thus, social policy can go FROM favoring one group over another for supremacism's sake TO favoring one group over another for anti-supremacism's sake. In Russia, removal of anti-Jewish laws accorded equality to Jews, but later, 'affirmative action' penalized Jews to make the playing field more equal for non-Jews.

When a socially discriminatory order shifts to free competition, established hierarchies will eventually make way for new ones. It's like American Football went from all-white to mostly black; it's even truer of basketball, which at time, was dominated by whites and Jews. Now, if everyone had the same IQ, same personality, same health, and same physical abilities, a non-discriminatory order may be reasonably egalitarian, but no such society has ever existed.
The rise of new hierarchies has been the story of capitalism where the old aristocracy was replaced by new elites(who became even richer and more powerful). Jews certainly got lots of money and power owing to their IQ in a liberalized order.

Now, how come we can accept Jewish inferiority in certain areas but not black inferiority in any area? We acknowledge Jews are richer because they are smarter but also accept Jews aren't well-represented in sports because they're less athletic than Africans, Germanics, and Slavs. There's no controversy about Jewish lack-of-success in sports. We accept Jewish advantage in one area and disadvantage in another. So, why can't this be of blacks as well? They can run faster and jump higher, but they are relatively lacking in IQ.
Besides, why should any race be the best in everything? In a way, diffusion of talent among the races makes for a kind of fairness or a crude kind of 'equality'. Indeed, the symbiotic relationship between Jews and blacks is based on Jewish business smarts and black rhythm & running. Jews are superior in one area, blacks superior in another. There's no scandal about Jews not making it as boxers and wide receivers, so why is there such outcry about blacks not making it as business moguls or top physicists?

Steve Sailer: "On the other hand, it’s not as if the lowbrow leftists like Ta-Nehisi Coates are losing politically and economically."

Coates is not a leftist but a black tribalist who uses leftish-sounding socio-babble to gain more for his race, especially for himself. When has he, or the Kendi Man, ever griped about the inequality faced by Palestinians? Just like Obama, they know they must flatter Jewish power while dumping on whitey to get their hands in the cookie jar. Calling black tribalists 'leftists' only muddles the issue. We can't have clarity unless we know the real name of the game.

Harden: 'One-drop' social rules have guaranteed that Americans who identify as being White are very unlikely to have any genetic ancestry that is not European, so in this case self-reported race and genetic ancestry appear to converge.

One thing for sure, one-word-rule has rendered the meaning of 'Latino' meaningless. Even brown people with little or no white blood count as 'Latino'(or is 'Latinx') because they speak Spanish. More than anything, this clouds the race issue.

Harden: "…race (unlike ancestry) is an inherently hierarchical concept that serves to structure who has access to spaces and social power."

Just about any concept is hierarchical because everything about mankind is hierarchical. This goes for 'class', 'sex', 'age', 'religion'(With God on our Side), 'nation', 'empire', and etc. 'Education' and 'Academia' are hierarchical too. Colleges are above high school, and elite colleges are above run-of-the-mill colleges. Big Business is bigger than small business.

Also, everything is a double-edged sword. Nationalism can be used as springboard for imperialism, but it can also be the battle cry against imperialism, like in the Cuban Revolution and the Vietnamese and Algerian struggles for independence. Race was invoked in the past to keep blacks down, but blacks used race as means of solidarity and unity. Indeed, why are blacks averse to adopting libertarianism and its emphasis on individualism? They know they can gain more pride, prestige, space, and social power by invoking race. 'Race' can be used as expression of supremacism('our race is better than yours' or 'our race has the right to rule over your race'), but it can also be used to gain and secure historical or social space('our race deserves to be free' or 'our race is deserving of dignity', or even 'our race has a right to preserve itself', which is the theme of Zionism in its national manifestation — Charlton Heston as Moses organized on the basis of tribe rooted in the blood covenant when he said "Let My People Go"). Likewise, 'sex' could be used to argue men should rule over women, but feminists have also built an ideology around it for their own 'space'.

It's often said the 'pseudo-scientific' concept of race is the product of 19th century imperialism(with roots in the Enlightenment and rationalism with its mania for classification). So, was mankind a happy lot prior to this Evil Concept? Maybe it wasn't so bad for the peoples conquered, pillaged, and raped by Turks, Mongols, Arabs, Vikings, and Romans because 'race' wasn't a hot ticket item back then? Will America's current racial problems go away if we do away with the concept of race? That's like saying greed and theft will go away if we do away with the concept of 'money' or 'profit'.

If race = imperialism, how does one account for the Spanish Conquest of the New World? It happened long before the 19th century invention of 'race'. The Spanish sent missionaries and converted the savages, and there was much race-mixing, but was that a happy affair? If anything, history suggests the denial of race can be used as a tool of imperialism. It's a denial of group identity, like when Golda Meir said there is no such people or culture as 'Palestinian'; and the Turks deny the existence of Kurds and refer to them as 'mountain Turks'. Using Harden's logic, one may ask, what right did the brown races have to defend themselves against white conquerors when, white or brown, they're all just the same, part of the same human species?
Come to think of it, one way to resolve the racial issue in America is by arguing that the white race didn't really enslave the black race since race doesn't exist. Rather, some people who thought they were white enslaved some other people who thought they were black, but in truth, they were all just people. So, the racial angle of the narrative was pure fantasy. In truth, it was just a case of some people enslaving some people. Therefore, just as it had been wrong for whites to regard themselves as whites lording over blacks, it's about time blacks stop seeing themselves as blacks done wrong by whites. It only furthers the illusion of race.

Now, one people who were long race-or-blood-conscious were the Jews. In contrast, Christians and Muslims were less so as their big theme was converting the souls of all peoples around the world. Now, which people, the Jews or the Christians/Muslims, were more aggressive, invasive, and imperialist? True, Jews joined in the empire-building, but it was on the backs of Christians and Muslims who sought to break through the barriers of race and blood to create a one-world community united before God the Lord. One result is Latin America, a very hierarchical place beset with countless social, political, and economic woes.
Come to think of it, if egalitarian ethos took deeper root in North America, it was precisely because it was more homogenously white, at least in the northern parts and Canada. Egalitarianism, though always out of reach, is easier to approximate with a homogenous population with a narrower range of talents. Easier among beagles than among greyhounds, beagles, pit-bulls, and chihuahuas.

Harden: "A closer look at the science of genetic ancestry makes it clear that 'race does not stand up scientifically, period.'”

The statement is true and untrue depending on how one defines race. And there are varying definitions. Using the stupidest definition of race, her statement would be true. But then, the current age has no problem with stupidity when it comes to sex or 'gender', which has also spawned the pronoun-craze where some dope claims he isn't only a 'she' but a 'they'. Such nonsense is accepted(and enforced) as 'science' in our age. If Harden means that the human species is far more complicated than the simple groupings of caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid, that's true enough. Bushmen are different from Bantu blacks. Tamils are exactly what? And though the American Indians originated from Asia, they seem to have evolved sufficiently into a new category. And Nazi racial science had its crazy side. But, any concept can be invalidated if defined by its falsities or stupidities. Nationalism can be anything from patriotism to jingoism. Love can mean love for the devil or the love of God, in which case 'love is love' is the stupidest idea imaginable.

Still, if she insists the concept of race is wrong because it's burdened with historical baggage, then give us a new term so we can use that instead. But while there's a lot of terminological violence in rejecting the term of 'race', there is terminological silence in coining a new concept. Why the timidity? I don't care if we shouldn't use 'race' anymore. Just give us any term that means the emergence/existence of different groups within the species as the result of tens of thousands of evolution and geographical and climactic separation. Unless such term is provided, no one should reject 'race' because it's the only term we have. Based on new scientific knowledge, what should be the new term for differences created by evolution? How about 'scatterin' as different races arose from organisms within the species scattering all around the world. White scatterin and black scatterin. Or just scats. ('Scat' means animal shit, but that's okay because people like Harden are full of shit. How about 'guano' for race?)

Harden: "…in reality, you could have it exactly backwards, and the genes that matter for education could be more common in the ancestry group with worse educational outcomes."

That'd be more likely in a socially discriminatory or orthodox order. If a group is smart but denied educational opportunities, it will have high IQ but lack in academic prizes. Or, if the group has smart people but is trapped in orthodoxy, like Jews who only studied the Talmud or Chinese who concentrated on Eight-Legged Essays, it will under-achieve in many areas. Evangelicalism and Creationism probably suppressed intellectual achievement among certain Christian groups.

But the problem of inequality in the West is mostly the result of genetic differences. Once discrimination was ended and all groups adopted modern modes, winners and losers were largely chosen by genetics.

Harden: "For example, we now have a polygenic score for predicting the highest level of education attained. In the latest iteration announced this month, using a sample size of 3 million, those in the highest decile were nine times more likely to graduate from college than those in the lowest decile. It works pretty well for whites in the U.K., America, and New Zealand. It works less well for East Asians and worst of all for African-Americans."

East Asians are so education-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in studies regardless of other factors. The ant-attitude defines their outlook. In contrast, blacks are so fun-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in letting the good times roll. The grasshopper attitude prevails among them. In contrast, being neither intensely ant-like or grasshopper-like, whites tend to divide more naturally between those with ant-tendencies and those with grasshopper-tendencies.

Steve Sailer: "Charles Murray... as Frank Sinatra used to say about Laurence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate, is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life."

Bad example as Sinatra's character was brainwashed to say that about someone whom he actually loathed.

Sailer: "Seriously, Murray is obviously a superb individual."

Maybe he's a nice guy, but the nicest guy can have evil ideas while a nasty person can espouse humane ideas. What is better? A kindly devil or a mean angel? So, even as Murray's critics may concede he's a nice person, they can still find his ideas to be abhorrent. But this applies to people on the Left as well. Some Stalinists were nice kindly people as individuals.

At any rate, it doesn't matter how nice you are in a theocracy. If you blaspheme God, you are agent of the Devil even if you're the nicest person in town. In the current ideocracy, blacks are magical, and it's heretical to say they are deficient in any way, or if they are, it's all the fault of evil whites. So, no matter how nice or kindly Murray may be, he can only be a blasphemer in the eyes of the establishment.

The real problem is Murray's weakness. Why is he nice to people who hate him? Niceness is a virtue when shown to those who appreciate the gesture. It is a worthless vice when extended to those who hate you and mean you harm. Be nice to those who are nice to you, be mean to those who are mean to you. But Murray is nice to his enemies. Worse, he's nicer to people who mean him harm than those who are willing to lend him an ear. He'd rather suck up to Neocons than side with people like Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor(who has problems of his own in cucking to Jews). Murray is a fuddy-dud with 'dangerous' ideas, which means he lacks the cojones to see his ideas to their conclusion. In that, he has something in common with Harden who admits certain things but draws all the wrong conclusions. Murray keeps hoping and pretending that his ideas are compatible with individualism and libertarianism(and with 'respectable society') when they're not. Murray's ideas are rebellious but he plays it respectable, which makes him a fool.

Sailer: "She and Murray disagree over the meaning of 'virtue.' Harden’s New Testament-inspired egalitarian utopianism, in the tradition of political philosopher John Rawls, sees no virtue or merit in a pilot (such as her father) having excellent pilot traits."

She is right, at least partly, on the matter of virtue. If talent or skill = virtue, O.J. Simpson would be a saint. In a way, the problem with the US, no less among the 'woke' than among the 'based', is the delusion of conflating success, especially associated with celebrity and fame, with virtue. People look to athletes and pop stars for 'wisdom'. Conservatives are giddy that the rapper 50 cents be complaining about taxes and thinking of moving to Texas. And then, there was the thing with the vile Nikki Minaj. She went on a rant about her cousin's balls and became an instant hero to the anti-vaxxer crowd.

There is value in meritocracy per se that rewards people based on talent and hard work, but a person's intelligence or professional success doesn't guarantee virtue, even though one can say work ethic is a virtue compared to sloth. The US deep state has lots of of smart and diligent people, but they don't seem very virtuous when it comes to honesty, honor, truth, and justice. When one of them, Edward Snowden, blew the whistle on government abuses, the elite consensus was to totally destroy him.

Perhaps, meritocracy is more about fairness than virtue. It is externally applied and neutral in its lack of a priori favoritism. It observes and chooses for superior talents regardless of other factors. It's like the referee in sports mustn't favor either athlete and must be neutral in rewarding points and penalties based purely on performance. If a lowlife son-of-a-bitch is more skilled than a truly nice fellow, meritocracy favors the former.
But all social orders have sacraments and taboos that make absolute meritocracy impossible. Even a super bright kid will not be admitted to Ivy League if it turns out he said unkind things about Jews, blacks, or homosexuals. In the past, one's reputation could be destroyed if one badmouthed Jesus or is a homosexual. So, the rules change over time, and these rules will favor official norms and dogma over absolute meritocracy. So, success isn't determined only by merit of talent but correctness of creed.
Today, anyone who supports BDS or sympathizes with Palestinians won't gain much success in the elite realm. He will be shut out by the establishment that mainly caters to Jewish supremacism. Imagine any writer or director proposing a movie about the plight of Palestinians. He or she will be blacklisted on the spot and for as long as Jews control Hollywood and the media. Jewish power and wealth were built largely on meritocracy of intelligence and hard work, but Jews also use non-meritocratic means to keep their perceived enemies and rivals from gaining ground. To succeed in today's world, you must bow down to the Jewish-favored creed.
In the past, many Jews had to convert to Christianity to rise up the social ladder. Today, Jews control the gods, and one has to worship the rainbow-homo(as Jews replaced Christianity with Queertianity) to gain access to the Deep State, Big Business, and the like.

Even sports are not purely meritocratic because there's a thing called sportsmanship, i.e. even a great athlete can be penalized for un-sportsman-like behavior. Or he can be expelled from the league for saying unkind things about Zionists who terrorize Palestinians.

Unlike mere fairness(of meritocracy), virtue goes the extra mile and is essentially an internally generated trait. Instead of merely being fair with mankind, it wants to do more to be a better person and/or to make for a better world, sometimes in a self-sacrificing way.

To be sure, meritocracy can be an internally generated goodness, a virtue, in a world where success mostly depends on connections and corruption. If one personally chooses to be meritocratic in such a system, he is going against the tide, going the extra-mile to be a good person. That would be virtue. But in a system where meritocracy is taken for granted as the rule, all it can do is pick and choose winners and losers based on a narrow set of talents. It's about ability then ethics.

Harden: "A lottery is a perfect metaphor for describing genetic inheritance: the genome of every person is the outcome of nature’s Powerball."

Harden is one big idiot. That's the dumbest thing I ever read. The human equivalent of powerball lottery would be if someone is super-beautiful, super-healthy, super-personable, super-leadership-qualitied, super-intelligent, super-athletic(and in all sports from weightlifting to swimming to high jump), super-creative(in music, poetry, and act), and etc. Powerball is about one in a million, or ten million, or hundred million.
Human competition is far more mundane and general. Most people are content to excel in one thing or another. For the vast majority, genetics means having just enough decent genes to finish college, have a nice job, and retire with saving. Powerball-thinking is for likes of Elizabeth Holmes, the too-good-to-be-true nutter, who wanted it all.

Genetics is more like a slot-machine, a rigged one at that. Pull on the genetic lever of a smart man and smart woman, and you're more likely to get a smart kid. Pull on the genetic lever of a dumb man and dumb woman, and you're more likely to get a dumb kid. Of course, smart parents can produce dumb kids, and dumb parents can product smart kids, but genetics means that the game is rigged based on parentage.
Genetics would be more like a lottery in the manner of Rev. Mhoon, that is by randomly pairing dummies with smarties in a mass wedding ceremony. But it's generally not the case that smart women marry some fat guy whose ass crack shows when bending over.

Sailer: "Harden propounds a sophomoric view that intelligence is 'socially valued, not inherently valuable,' and follows that up with a conspiracy theory that early-20th-century eugenicists plotted to get us..."

Harden is correct in the strict evolutionary sense. Every trait has value in relation to the environment. A shark's fins are perfectly engineered for the ocean but useless on land. A chimpanzee's high IQ isn't going to do it any good in the middle of an ocean. A low-IQ fish with gills has infinitely better chance of survival.
And even among human societies, the value of intelligence depends on the culture and social setting. While it's good to be reasonably intelligent in any setting, high IQ would have been useless in most societies through history(and especially pre-history). A strong man who could chuck spears and fight rough was more valued. An Einstein or Plato would have been useless to the Vikings or Zulus.
Extreme high IQ has value only in advanced civilizations with freedom that allows for such trait to explore and express itself. And even though all societies, even the simplest, have recognized the difference between smart and dumb, admiration for high IQ began to matter only with the emergence of advanced societies that capitalized on genius.

But Harden is probably not speaking strictly in an evolutionary sense but to virtue signal that she's more about the heart than brains.

Harden: "…to see intelligence (as measured on standardized IQ tests) and educational success, perhaps more than any other human phenotypes, in terms of a hierarchy of inferior and superior persons is not an accident. It is an idea that was deliberately crafted and disseminated..."

The more a society becomes competitive and achievement-oriented, this becomes inevitable. After all, is a great civilization possible without identifying winners from losers? Jews had their Rabbinical studies. Chinese had their Confucian exams. The Greeks were more multi-faceted as they prized not only intelligence but creativity, athletics, and beauty, which is why they were so foundational in the many pursuits that came to define the West and then the World.
But the Greeks also adopted Christianity, and their highest sense of good came to be piety. Christian piety is less enamored of and even hostile to beauty(vanity), intelligence(skepticism & egotism), athletics(brutality), and creativity(sensuality). Its emphasis on humility would seem anti-superiorist but actually provided yet another opportunity for superiority: holier-than-thou-ism.
On the one hand, Harden works in the Galileo-an world of high IQ science, but on the other, she is a member of new church of PC pieties. And just like Christianity, the new theology of Diversity-Inclusion-Equity has its own superiors and inferiors. The superiors are the Good Good People who repeat the fashionable sacraments(and favor Jews, blacks, and homos uber alles) while the Bad Bad people are those who dare to spout heresies and should be burned as witches. Bad Bad people are also those who support BDS and call for justice for Palestinians who are being 'genocided' by Zionist supremacists.

Now, is the US excessively concerned with IQ and success? If anything, many have griped that the problem of America is anti-intellectualism, populist vulgarity, blissful infantilism, and obsession with sports and pop culture than with science, math, and mental stuff. In any high school, the nerds and geeks are ignored while jocks and 'popular kids' get most of the attention. Judging by mass culture, Americans mainly seem interested in trashy personalities and pop stars. Most Americans would rather watch two women beat the crap out of each other in MMA than read a book by Harden or any female scientist. Also, colleges have been dumbed down over the years. It panders to popular tastes, and for all I know, they're teaching rap poetry in colleges. The rap musical HAMILTON became cause celebre among the elites. That Donald Trump became the champion of so many Americans doesn't say much about their intellectual curiosity either. But is he cruder than HAMILTON or the likes of Lena Dunhum promoted by the elites? Go on youtube, and the videos that get the most views are stupid or trashy as hell, or just plain dumb.

The problem with Americans is they love success and money, which is usually the product of high IQ and diligence, but prefer to conflate success and money with something else. The appeal of Rock/Rap culture is the bad boy wins the girls, drives the fancy cars, and wears all the bling. Bruce Springsteen sang about high school dropouts, rebels, and road-busters, the kind of people who lose in life or end up dead. But he became very rich. Most blacks who emulate rap culture end up dead or in jail, but blacks love the idea of the rich gangsta.
In Arthur Miller's DEATH OF A SALESMAN, Willi Loman's delusion is that success comes by way of the hustle, a firm handshake and likability. Of course, such things matter, but it also requires hard work and real ability. Americans want to believe style should be sufficient for success. Substance is too boring and lame. Success is usually the product of intelligence and hard work, but that's too nerdy or geeky for the American Myth of John Wayne, Elvis Presley, and 50 Cents.

Harden says the less intelligent deserve more help, but that isn't the real problem, especially among blacks. The problem is blacks are soul-corrupted and rebuff any sound advice about what they should do. They find hard work and diligence 'lame' or 'white'. They want success to come with style alone or in sports. But how many blacks can make it to the NBA or NFL? (Black culture in the documentary HOOP DREAMS is surely telling, which is to say depressing.) Has anyone asked Harden, "How can you help people who don't appreciate sound advice?" The forgotten white working class is more likely to respond to constructive advice, but their livelihoods have been outsourced globally. Worse, it is evil for whites to care for fellow whites, not least because Jews demand that whites expend all their energies supporting the Zionist tyranny over Palestinians.

Now, there is a segment of Americans who are IQ-and-success-obsessed, and they are the elites(who are 95% Democratic). Elite parents do everything to make their kids go to elite schools or gain favors through connections — how George W. Bush got to be president, how Hunter Biden isn't in jail but selling junk art for $500,000. The rise of PC partly owes to these parents not wanting to jeopardize their kids' chance at success. They tell their kids to toe the line or else lose it all. Harden is surely part of this IQ-and-success-obsessed class. And these people do everything to gain more wealth and privilege.

But they don't want to admit that they are so focused on themselves and their class; therefore, even as they do everything to win and collect more prizes, they create this bogeyman of the 'racist' to fool the world(and themselves) that THEY are warriors for equality. But in fact, the likes of Jared Taylor and even Charles Murray have zero power in media and academia. All of the establishment elites are ideologically on the same page as Harden. So, if she's honest, she will admit that the most IQ-obsessed people are the so-called 'liberals', her colleague and peers. But instead, she paints herself as a humanitarian fighting an uphill battle against dragon-monsters like Murray. She is really punching down, but because the White Male used to be on top, she relies on historiography to pretend she's punching up against the Eternal White Male Patriarch Oppressor.

Even if Charles Murray and his ilk(and all MAGA people) vanished into the thin air this very second, the problems associated with race, IQ, success, inequality, and etc. would exist just the same among blacks, browns, and whites like Harden... like in San Francisco and Madison Wisconsin, totally libby-dib cities. Indeed, without the racist-as-bogeyman, people like Harden would finally have to face the music and offer a solution to the race problem. THAT would be difficult. But as long as her ilk claims to be fighting the big-bad-white-bogeyman, they can say their hands are tied at the moment and can't really address the problem yet.

If people like Harden are really serious, there is actually a solution. Offer more affirmative action slots for blacks in medicine, law, accounting, and other fields. And then, make sure these white 'progressive' types call on affirmative action talent for service. Need a brain surgery? Make sure it's a black doctor who got his license through AA. Need a corporate lawyer? Get an AA black guy. With so many rich progressive types, this should solve the problem. They got the money to sustain so many black professionals of AA pampering. And why should they complain? They are the ones who say there should be more 'inclusion' and that blacks are just as intelligent, capable, and diligent as any other race. They wouldn't want to be 'racist', would they?

DIS-UNITED STATES: WHY IDENTITY POLITICS ARE THE FUTURE - Black Pigeon Speaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMERICA'S WAR ON WHITE CHRISTIANS - Brother Nathanael

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

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

INVASION OF THE NATION SNATCHERS - Brother Nathanael