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

Why Law-and-Order Issues are so Problematic in the US(and the Africanizing West): The Clash of Reality of Black Criminality versus the ‘Idology’ of Black Holy-Schmoliness — Virtue vs Vision — Italians and Swedes

https://buchanan.org/blog/is-trump-capturing-the-law-and-order-issue-137355

Patrick Buchanan has written a column about how Donald Trump can own the Law-and-Order issue in politics. In many ways, he is correct that many Americans are concerned about law-and-order, the need to deal with problems of crime and violence that have infested and even devastated many communities across America. Indeed, even entire cities have been overcome with crime and violence. Consider Detroit and Baltimore. And half of St. Louis and one-third of Chicago have very high crime rates. Given the fact that no one wants to be robbed, raped, assaulted, or murdered, the issue of Law and Order should be clear enough and its appeal should be obvious. What sane person would choose disorder over order? What person would want to live in a town or city overrun by criminals than maintained by lawful peace? While plenty of Americans have romanticized outlaws, gangsters, and the like in entertainment, most Americans don’t want to live in a dangerous neighborhood where their loved ones could be harassed, attacked, or even murdered. No one wants their homes or apartments to be burglarized or invaded. Naturally, in a time and place where crime has gotten out of control, it’s only natural for people to be on the side of the Law against the Outlaw. And on those grounds, Pat Buchanan should be correct that Donald Trump has much to gain by running as a Law-and-Order President.

Indeed, one of the reasons why Republicans dominated the Presidency from 1968 to 1992 had something to do with the perception that they were tougher on crime as opposed to ‘bleeding-heart’ Liberal Democrats who'd become overly dependent on blacks as their constituents. And despite the Liberal Media’s bias, too many people became all too aware of the connection between blacks and crime. They witnessed entire cities fall into ruin as the result of out-of-control black behavior. The problem wasn’t just in the streets but at work. Black workers were more likely to misbehave, steal, and cause trouble. Even blacks who weren’t outright criminal had all sorts of behavioral problems. There was a time when New York, the premier city of wealth and power in the US, nearly went under due to rising crime, and of course, it was mostly black crime. The great housing projects that were supposed to improve black lives in the 60s and 70s only concentrated black criminality that festered and got worse. The environment-centric solutions hardly solved the problem, and if anything, it was like something out of CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES.

Post-War ideological trends posited rather dogmatically that all humans were more-or-less alike and that their behaviors could be fundamentally altered by external factors such as housing, schooling, and the like. It was as if humans were like pigeons inside B. F. Skinner’s experimental boxes, and the ideology underpinning the housing of blacks in huge projects was that modernity, efficiency, and symmetry would make blacks act in more orderly and productive ways. Such macro-experiment totally overlooked the possibility that blacks may be different internally at the genetic level due to 100,000s of years of evolution in Hot and Wild Africa.
Even though Modern Liberals believe in evolution, their ideological hangups have made them unwilling to accept certain implications. Evolution is about processes of divergence and change. For example, suppose there is a small race of humanoids, and those within the tribe more-or-less share the same gene pool. Then, suppose the tribe breaks up and go separate ways. Some remain in the same place, but others move to other areas that are either hotter, drier, colder, and have vastly different flora/fauna. As the various groups would now live in different environments, they would come under different evolutionary pressures that select for distinct traits as favorable. Obviously, a very hot environment will favor certain traits over others, and a very cold environment would likely choose for ‘opposite’ traits to those favored in hot regions. Furthermore, there are ripple effects to selection that have little to do with survivability. An environment that selects for certain traits may set off mutations that lead to further alternations that make the organism(and its kind) even more different from others of its kind living far away under different environmental pressures. For example, if a tribe of humanoids go separate ways and if one ends up in an extreme cold environment while another ends up in a very hot environment, they will diverge from each other in ways other than adaptability to climate. As the environment selects for traits that are better adapted to the cold, the changes may set off cascades of mutations that change the organisms even further. The same goes for those who adapt to an extremely hot climate. For example, blue eyes and blond hair are not necessary for survival in cold climate, but they arose due to mutations of those who adapted to cold climates and by relative ‘inbreeding’.

Anyway, the theory of evolution would make no sense IF organisms didn’t diverge and change from one another. No honest person can claim that the various human races are all the same and interchangeable in their abilities and aesthetics. The races are clearly different according to looks. PC types may argue that we must go beyond looks and focus on souls, but looks do matter, and aesthetics is a valid reason for wanting to preserve certain species, races, and breeds. If looks don’t matter, why do people react so strongly to ivories on an elephant, the mane on a lion, feathers of a peacock, stripes on a zebra, or fur on a mink? Is a peacock plucked of feathers the same as a peacock with a full dress of feathers because their 'souls' are the same? Is a lion shaved and devoid of fur/mane the same as a lion with natural fur and mane? People rely on looks to make the most important decisions of their lives, like finding a mate and buying a house. And in deciding which dress to wear. Looks DO matter, especially to eye-centric humans with complex sense of aesthetics and design. Organisms are the designs of nature.
Obviously, looks are not everything as beautiful people can be wicked and ugly people can be good-of-heart. The Left came to believe that all individuals were, more or less, same of soul upon birth. They were born with blank-slate souls that could be made good or bad depending on the environment, education, and culture. So, at the very least, no matter how ugly someone may be on the outside, he or she has the same chance to be a good person. But as it turns out, inner beauty/ugliness is also largely genetic though inner beauty doesn’t necessarily correlate with outer beauty(just like good looks don’t guarantee a lovely voice). It also turns out that not only are the various races different in outer looks but in inner temperaments. Blacks are more likely to have aggressive, rancorous, and troublesome personalities. Granted, a loud and boisterous person can be good-natured whereas a gentle and cordial person can be psychopathic, but generally speaking, a race that tends to be overtly aggressive and wild will tend to be more destructive of social order and peace. Even though blacks have the ‘ugliest’ and most savage inner souls, so many non-blacks are fooled by black vocality that, in its bellowing tremor, can create the impression of a deep-souled Negro, as when Paul Robeson sang "Ole Man River".

Especially the West, having been molded for so long by Christian theology, has a tendency to conflate the Negro voice with spirituality when, if anything, the core urges that drive the Negro soul is ‘muh booty’, ‘muh fist’, ‘muh dick’, and ‘where da white women at?’ Especially because of founding of America as New Jerusalem and the national ‘sin’ of slavery, white Americans have projected their hopes and dreams on the Redemptive
Negro. By rising from slavery to pursuit of happiness, the Negro is seen as redeeming the American Enterprise. By forgiving and healing white souls(stained with ‘white guilt’), the Negro is seen as the angel that can cure White America. Also, having been the most savage race to have been brought to America, the elevation of Negro to civilized status is seen as the greatest pride of the West, i.e. if the West, for all its ‘sins’, took a bunch of savages and turned them into civilized folks, it will have proven its worth. So, the Dream is that the Negro saves the white man from ‘white guilt’ in return for the white man having saved the Negro from savagery. Of course, the latter part of the equation is no longer muttered as it’d be deemed ‘racist’, but it is nevertheless felt strongly in the white subconscious. After all, why are whites most concerned about bringing progress to black Africa? Because it is the most daunting task as Black Africa is by-and-large the most savage and backward part of the world. While it’s no longer fashionable for whites to say, "We must bring the light of civilization to those black savages living in darkness and ignorance" — whites must only say that blacks are so holy & special that only Black Magic can redeem and cleanse the white race — , so much of what white elites do in relation to Africa & blacks suggests excitement over the most challenging task of transforming blacks from poor backward savages to not only civilized folks but the holy god-men of White Cucky-Wuck Fantasy.

Bill Gates as the Great White Geek

Anyway, why is Law-and-Order such a controversial issue in America? Naturally, most people of any nation would prefer peace and stability secured by law & order. Who wants to live in a world of criminality? We might get kicks from gangster movies or Western flicks with outlaws, but we want safe neighborhoods where kids can play and where old people can walk to the neighborhood store without getting mugged or beaten. I can’t imagine a politician or leader who gains mass support as the representative of crime and disorder. To be sure, there have been nations where criminal elements have pretty much gained control of society. This was once(and may still be) the case in Sicily. And it’s been well-known that drug-cartels have amassed tremendous hold over certain Latin American nations. There, law & order is hardly an issue since outlaws have the upperhand. If there is to be a kind of social order, it is essentially rule by warlords. ‘Peace’ is guaranteed by might than right. It’s a world of guns and bullets than law and order. In such a world, the people may prefer the better-organized and ‘scrupulous’ gangsters(those that have some honor-among-thieves) than out-of-control delinquents, the kind seen in the Brazilian film CITY OF GOD. In contrast, while the Italian mafia did terrible things in America, they kept the streets in their own neighborhoods safe.

It’s been said that organized crime played a big role in Italian-American neighborhoods and Chinatowns across America. Partly out of fear of gangsters and partly out of reliance on them(due to deep-seated distrust of the Law that was seen as corrupt, uncaring, or ineffective), the people of the community stuck with their own kind even if criminal because they were a ‘known quantity’. Thus, tribalism affects the way people see Law & Order.
Ideally, while most people prefer the clean workings of law & order over crime & corruption, they may side with criminal elements of their own kind over law & order that seems to be dominated by the Other. Out of bias, loyalty, familiarity, sentimentality, and/or fear, many Italian-Americans sided with the mafia over the Law. While they understood the dark side of organized crime, the mafia was ‘one of us’, part of Italian-American power and muscle. Just like some people prefer tyranny by their own kind over greater individual freedom(and even better governance) under foreign rule, people may have clouded views of law & order when the Law is perceived to be controlled by the Other whereas the criminal elements are seen as members of the community.

For example, there are plenty of Jews who will side with Jewish criminals(often white-collar) and gangsters over Law & Order. Jewish Power pulled all manner of strings to ensure that monkey-boy Obama would pardon Jonathan Pollard. Even Liberal Jews who kvetch so much about ‘social injustice’ are reliably silent about illegality, criminality, and pathology among their own kind... which is why the likes of Bernie Madoff and Jeffrey Epstein had been able to get away with SO MUCH bad behavior for SO LONG. The matrix of Jewish media, Jewish legal power, Jewish finance, and Jewish deep state ensured a kind of Omerta(or 'schmerta') among Jewish elites. They were like ‘made men’ and had license to lie, cheat, steal, rape, and even kill, indeed get away with just about anything. Sure, when some Jews get too greedy and take too many risks to the point of endangering the entire enterprise, the Jewish Power will sacrifice the Crazy Jew who's giving the Jewish Community a bad reputation no matter how much Jews try to keep it all under a tight lid(or yid). It seems Jeffrey Epstein went too far, and even Jewish Power figured it was better to sacrifice him than go down with him(as there are surely plenty more of such fiendish Jews working behind the scenes to pull all sorts of dirty schemes). Italian-American community has been the same, albeit in a cruder, way. While, theoretically at least, Italians in a purely Italian community may prefer law-and-order over criminality, certain factors have made Italians(in the homeland and abroad) notorious for their associations with crime and corruption. One reason is it took longer for Italy to coalesce as a modern nation-state. Thus, many Italians’ first loyalty was to a region than to the nation. Also, in contrast to Northern Europe, Italians were considerably different genetically, especially between north and south. While traditional Britain had problems among Scotch and English, at the very least they were racially identical and looked it. In contrast, while a northern Italian might look more Germanic, southern Italian might look more like an Arab or North African. Thus, instead of southern Italians working with relatively cleaner northern Italians to fight crime, many of them chose to side with the local mafia against national efforts to root out organized crime. Furthermore, the egotism and family-clanism of Italians made civic mind-set harder to come by. The egotism and vanity made Italians prioritize MY needs and wants above all other considerations. And the family-clanism meant that Italian parents, especially the mothers, were willing to go to any length to favor their own kids over the good of society. So, an Italian mother may appeal to the local mafia, boss, or chieftain to favor her son over the sons of other families who are more deserving by meritocracy. Too many Italians think ‘me over my family’, ‘my family over my town’, and ‘my town over my country’. Furthermore, for all their big talk, most Italian men are mama's boys. Indeed, they make a lot of noise as a kind of bluff precisely because they fear real confrontations that test their mettle. Being essentially cowardly, Italians would rather bend over backwards to criminals than be like Wyatt Earp and take them on.

It’s hard to maintain steady and stable law & order with a people with such mentality. Sense of civic duty is best guaranteed in an order where most people feel that the good of the whole trumps ‘myself’, ‘my family’, and ‘my clan’. A good society needs to be fair, and fairness must be decided by equal application of law and order. The good must be rewarded and bad must be punished regardless of who/whom. Some might characterize such principles or idealism as ‘universalist’, but paradoxically, universalism works best as a closed system within a particularism. Take Sweden before it went crazy under the influence of Jewish PC. Nearly all people were Swedish. They were one people in looks, culture, and history. And Lutheranism had long instilled qualities of sobriety, order, and earnestness. Also, Northern Europeans tend to be genetically more disposed to severity. Even as marauding Vikings, the Nordics were more sullen and heavy in their emotions than, say, the Jafro-Jiving black savages of Africa. This lack of color in personality made for a more even temperament that adopted Christian values and respected authority with greater sense of duty and trust. So, among such a people with particular-commonalities of looks, feelings, and thoughts, a Trust Society of ideals, values, and law & order could arise. In other words, universal principles of right-and-wrong secured by law-and-order was possible ONLY BECAUSE the people of Sweden saw each other as part of a close-knit national family with so much in common.


The key distinction between Italy and Sweden was peoples in the two nations were anxiety-ridden about different things. Italians fretted most(to the state of paranoia) about the possibility that other Italians might lie to them, cheat them, or steal from them. In contrast, Swedes were most anxious and ‘paranoid’ about being regarded as liars, cheats, and thieves by other Swedes. Italians worried that other Italians might be ‘get the better of me’, whereas Swedes worried that other Swedes might regard ‘me as not good enough for their standards’. So, Italians saw life as a game of out-cheating other Italians, whereas Swedes saw life as a duty of gaining the trust(and approval) of other Swedes. It just goes to show that an attitude or outlook can have a profound ebb-and-flow ripple effect from soul to society and back from society to soul, on and on.
Between traditional Italy vs traditional Sweden, the latter comes across as much better, a well-ordered society of rule of law, fairness, and trust. In contrast, Italy comes across as a cesspool of egotism, corruption, and pettiness. Sweden seems about higher principles over petty privileges, whereas Italy would be the opposite. However, Sweden could maintain such ‘universal’ ideals of justice ONLY IF it remained a nation of Swedes, a people of common looks, shared culture, familiar values, and similar temperaments. But because universal values worked so well inside Sweden, the foolish Swedes thought theirs was an ideal microcosm of a universal nation, and decided to become a ‘moral superpower’ by sending tons of aid to Africa and flinging open Sweden’s gates to the world. But Swedes in Africa made no progress in improving the lot of blacks who have different attitudes, cultures, values, temperaments, and IQ. And newcomers to Sweden from Muslim world and Africa could not become good New Swedes because they are so genetically and culturally different. Needless to say, blacks are the MOST problematic. But it was made even worse by ‘multi-culturalism’ that contradicted the whole Swedish project of being a universal moral super-power. After all, if the Swedish experiment had worked out so well because the Swedish Way is the way-to-go, then newcomers should be pressured to think, act, and behave like successful Swedes as much as possible. But multi-culturalism said Sweden should welcome foreigners and let them stick to their cultures of origin. But why? Didn’t it ever occur to the Swedes that the foreigners made a mess of their own nations largely due to their cultural attitudes and behaviors?
Even though much of Swedish attitudes and values were rooted in the severe strains of Lutheranism, the source of much stress but also strength, the modern Swedish lost faith in religion and sought out a new faith... and found it in the figure of the holy-holocaust Jew. Swedes, regarding Jews as a wise & saintly people who’d survived the Shoah, earnestly believed that Jews would only bless them with the best advice and most wonderful lessons. Little did they realize that the Shoah, though horrific and evil, was partly the product of Jewish behavior driving goyim to madness. (The Holocaust was also the culmination of a special kind of German madness, but things got far worse in friction with Jewish radical madness.) Little did naive Swedes understand that Jews primarily favor their own tribal interests, have a special animus against Christian Europe, and harbor fantasies of vengeance against all white goyim(over the Shoah and for other reason, such as vicious envy that, for some inexplicable reason, God made the filthy ‘goy’ Aryans more handsome than the Chosen Jews). Swedes, being earnest & sincere and having been rendered respectful to higher authority under its localized version of ‘universal values’, trusted the Jews whole hog. The result was dire Diversity. And of course, decrepit decadence, supposedly a magic cure from all that dark and heavy Lutheran neurosis that must be totally expunged from the Swedish soul. (While Lutheranism had its dark side and negative as well as positive impact on Sweden, did any Swede ever study the impact of jungle ugabuga culture on black Africans? Apparently not.)
In a way, the relatively enclosed and homogeneous world of Sweden was both a blessing and a curse. It was a blessing because the shared looks and laws made for a more cogent, coherent, and consistent society, a place where higher principles of ‘universal justice’ could prevail over petty passions. But this culture of trust in societal justice made Swedes all-too-trusting of both moral and political authority. And as every Swede was so anxious to be seen as a Good Swede by other Swedes, he or she was willing to show that he/she was with the program to make for a better society, a better world.

Now, who owns moral authority and sets the cultural tenor of society? At least in traditional Sweden, there was the power of church and community. But in late-modern Sweden of atomized individuals, the moral authority and cultural hegemony were determined by academics, politicians, public intellectuals, and artists. And as the culture of the West as a whole came to be shaped largely by the US that came under Jewish control, Swedish minds from top to bottom just became putty in the hands of Jews. Even if Swedes mostly did it to themselves, their elites and intellectuals were indirectly shaped by ideas emanating from the US. Also, as Jews became the Holy Holocaust people especially beginning in the Sixties, the Swedes(like so many in the West) were largely without critical defenses against Jewish power and agenda. Jews were seen as akin to a sacred god-race, and this allowed Jews to define the taboos of the West, and the #1 taboo became Thou Shalt Not Doubt or Question the Jew... for that would be the gravest of all sins, which is ‘Antisemitism’. Because of their trusting character and anxiety-for-approval, Swedes wholeheartedly came to embrace the new gods of Diversity, Feminism, Globo-Homo-Mania, Afromania, and the Cult of White Guilt. If Swedes of the past invested their sincerity, trust, and earnestness in God, Church, and Community, the atomized late-modern Swedes committed their goodwill to Diversity, Feminism, and Globo-Homo. And since trusting Swedes have a hive-mind, they had no defenses against the expanding horror. Even now, the average Swede is most anxious about "Will other Swedes consider me as unworthy?"
This goes to show that Swedes, though smart and capable, are incapable of independent search for truth, meaning, and justice. They can be very good at devoting their energies toward certain ideals and objectives, but they(along with most of the white race) cannot find the Truth for themselves. Rather, this truth has to be provided by the Other, those with greater prophetic vision and zeal. Because the white world lacked for prophets, it adopted Christianity, the creation of heretical Jews. White Christendom worked very hard at serving the Faith, but white folks failed to come up with a faith of their own. And in the modern era that saw the ebbing away of old-time religion, white people were once again incapable of discovering their own truths and therefore fell under the sway of the ‘truths’ as revealed by Jews with the power of radical will and prophetic personality. These so-called ‘truths’ could actually turn out to be falsehoods, lunacies, or even evil ideas, but they had the power to captivate and hold sway over countless millions due to sheer conceptual grandeur, intellectual drive, moral passion, and/or iconic power. Swedes, like most white folks, despite all their intelligence and ability, failed to dream their own dreams and envision their own destiny. And so, one had to be supplied to them, and it came from Jews whom the Swedes trusted and revered as the Holy Holocaust people, indeed as if every Jew were a kind of modern Moses-Isaiah-Jesus rolled into one. But in fact, they were fooled by the satanic venality of Jews who were really seeking vengeance(against all of Christendom and Western Civilization) and hegemony over the entire world. As far as Jews were concerned, Sweden as a peaceful and prosperous homogeneous white nation might send the wrong messages to whites around the world. Whiteness = Success. Such might signal that whites do best in a world of their own. But such a world might exclude Jews as the Other. Therefore, Jews went out of their way to pathologize whiteness and homogeneity so as to persuade whites that there is something wrong with the too-whiteness of their world that must be ‘enriched’ with Diversity. And stupid whites, in moral awe of Jews as the Holy Holocaust People, swallowed the BS hook, line, and sinker.

Now, one may ask, "But if white nations fail and fall apart due to Diversity, won’t white people finally wake up and realize that white homogeneity was better and it’d been retarded to trust the Jews?" Yes, effects of Diversity may make white people realize their grave mistake of trusting Jews, but then, it'd be too little and too late as their nations would have been already lost forever to Diversity. As such, they will have to live in a world where various goy groups are constantly at each other’s throats, in which case Jewish globalist-hegemonist elites can play their game of divide-and-rule among the lost and confused gentiles. With Jews, You Lose. Swedes have long ways to go before they fully realize that they’d been played for fools, but they eventually will one day. And as they look back and wonder why they weren’t able to stop the horror in its tracks, they’ll realize it was due to their Anxiety of Trust, i.e. each Swede was most hung-up with neuroticism that fellow Swedes might regard him or her as unworthy in his/her sincere commitment to ‘goodness’ and ‘justice’. And perhaps they will even realize that their fatal error was in having allowed the vile, venal, and vicious Jews to masquerade as the Wise People bringing the gifts of reform and redemption to all white folks around the world.

The lesson to learn here is that a people with strong set of virtues but without the will of vision can be led to serious self-harm by those who control the vision thing. Indeed, we saw this with Germans and Japanese in World War II. Germans and Japanese had many virtues such as courage, loyalty, hard work, dedication, willingness to sacrifice, and honor. But as most Germans and Japanese lacked the power of personal vision, they relied on some other to supply them with the vision. If the vision was good, all their virtues went toward serving that vision. But if the vision was bad, all the virtues were wasted in service of evil. It’s like dogs. We appreciate dogs for their natural ‘virtues’ of loyalty and dedication, but as dogs lack vision, their ‘virtues’ always go toward serving the ‘vision’ supplied by the master. A dog’s ‘virtues’ can be used to save or kill a person’s life. Whether a dog is used to track down an innocent man or guilty man, the dog is only capable of the ‘virtue’ of commitment. It cannot conceive of its own vision. As Germans had many virtues, they could have done great things IF Hitler who supplied the vision was a truly good man. But Hitler was a pathological demagogue, and so, the German virtues of courage, loyalty, and hard work were ultimately put to horrible waste and evil. This is what happens when a people with virtues but without vision(let alone prophetic will) come under the spell of an evil vision. What Hitler did to the Germans, Jews are now doing to the West. As white folks lack the power of vision, it is supplied by Jews who do have it, even if it has grown satanic over the years. Jewish Power of vision elevated Holocaust-Worship, Afromania, and Globo-Homomania as the new trinity.

Ultimately, in terms of power politics, it doesn’t matter if the vision is good or evil. The fact is those without vision will always go with those with vision, even if evil, especially as even the most evil vision presents itself as true and just. Unless the evil vision can be met with good counter-vision, people will fall under sway of vision. Virtues are good but are always in the service of something. Courage is a virtue, but in the service of what? Courage doesn’t decide if it will fight and die for Nazism or Communism. Rather it is the vision that commands the virtue of courage to serve its agenda. In our times, Jews supply the vision of the world: Israel is so great, Iran is so terrible; US as globo-homo empire is so wonderful whereas Russia is evil; the West must be remade by Diversity and ‘Inclusion’, even if it means the US, Canada, and Europe are swamped by blacks and other non-whites; the Jewish vision says any white who says NO to Open Borders is a ‘racist’, the worst thing in the world; Man is a ‘woman’ because there are infinite numbers of ‘genders’ that are fluid; and so on and on. As crazy as these ideas are, they are Big Ideas, and Jews have the chutzpah to dream them up and have the financial/media power to disseminate them. Also, as the Holy Holocaust people, they have the godlike visionary power to determine what the taboos are, and of course, the main taboo is to ever doubt the wisdom and all-knowingness of the Master Jew who must be obeyed. So, white people, especially those of Northern European extraction, still have lots of virtues(of hard work, dedication, commitment, seriousness), but all such virtues are befouled and wasted in the service of Jewish Supremacist satanic craziness.

The perverse irony is that when the vision is bad, lack of virtue is better than virtue. Indeed, Germany would have done far less harm under Hitler if the German people were more like Italians in their lack of virtue. Imagine if German soldiers were lazy, cowardly, craven, clownish, dishonorable, and lacking in scruples. Hitler couldn’t have done much with such a people to cause much harm to the world. He would have barely invaded Poland and would have been soundly thrashed by France, and never mind a war with Russia, which would have been impossible with human material lacking in virtue. This is why white people must wake up and shake free of the Jewish vision that is misusing white virtues for evil purposes around the world. No, Jews are not a holy, wise, and perfect people. Blacks are not Magic Negroes or Afro-Angels. Homos and trannies are NOT our moral betters who should be celebrated 24/7 all year round. And it is perverse that entire nations and peoples must be destroyed in the name of what is good for Israel, Israel, Israel.

When we look at Sweden vs Italy today in relation to the migrant-crisis and immigration-invasion, it may seem weird that Swedes with more virtue are faring worse than Italians with less virtue. But this is because virtue, in its earnestness and commitment, is more eager to serve the currently BAD vision of Sweden supplied by venal Jews. Swedes are being goody-good agents of a baddy-bad idea, and that makes things worse. Doing bad things in a bad way is less dangerous because incompetence, laziness, or inattention messes up the plan. It is when people do bad things in a good way that the greatest harm is done. Because virtue plays by ‘universal’ rules, the virtuous tend to operate with hive minds. They know what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’, and coordinate their combined efforts in the name of the ‘good’(which could actually turn out to be ‘bad’). Why the hive mind? Because virtue becomes meaningless if everyone decides what is good or bad on his own. Rather, virtue is widely recognized only because most people agree that it is in the service of ‘good’. And yet, this is the very danger of Sweden. When the vision is bad — the current vision of Sweden is absolutely horrifying — , it would actually be better for society if people grew cynical & sardonic as individuals and began to doubt and question what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’. They need to be more ironic than iconic in their mode of thinking. But Swedes are too virtuous in their hive-mind to really question that vision that has cast an evil spell on the nation.
In contrast, the wily Italians of late have been more willing to doubt the Jewish-infected vision of the Open Borders agenda of Afro-European Union. Though the lack of virtue has led to so much corruption, crime, and inefficiency in Italy, its one saving grace has been the greater cynicism about the Vision. Also, while petty Italian egotism has often undermined civic-mindedness, it has the advantage of being less willing to get with the globalist program of what it means to be ‘Good Europeans’. In contrast, the virtuous Germans with their greater zeal to be ‘Good Europeans’ have invested their civic-mindedness toward mindlessly welcoming the Merkel Millions from war-torn countries destroyed by Wars for Israel.
If white people in the West had their own power of vision, they would condemn Jewish Power and its Wars that destroyed so many Muslim/Arab lives. White people would condemn Jews for having created the Refugee Crisis by working with Saudis to foment strife and mayhem all over the Middle East and North Africa.

But lacking their own vision, most white people just rely on Jews to supply the Vision, it being "White People stained forever with ‘racism’ must redeem themselves by taking in tons of desperate refugees, or else they are heartless evil ‘xenophobes’." Notice how the Jewish vision never touches on the fact that it was mostly JEWISH POWER that pulled strings to destroy Arab/Muslim nations and force so many millions into refugee status. Never mind the Jews turning Arabs into homeless nomads. Just focus on how white people must be good & kind and welcome all those refugees into their own countries(while Israel and Saudi Arabia refuse to take any). It goes to show that virtue without vision is like being a dog. Without the power of vision, a people will always be servants of those with vision. When the vision is bad, it’s better to be a cynical and petty Italian than a do-goody Swede. At least, you’ll be more likely to save your own hide instead of earnestly working to sacrifice your entire nation to the Other. (In a way, it’s almost as if Hitler’s wishes are coming true. Facing defeat, Hitler damned the Germans for failing him and ordered Albert Speer to lay waste to all of Germany. Germany would have to vanish with him for its ‘sin’ of having failed to live up to his dream. Alas, Germany survived. But today, Germany and other European nations seem to have an Hitlerian will for self-immolation even if, ironically enough, in the name of anti-Nazism. Hitler wanted Germany and Europe destroyed forever for having failed Nazism. Today’s cucks want the West destroyed forever for having failed the Jews in WWII.)

Blacks are So Holy that we must convince ourselves that this is Beautiful. It sure is Bootiful.

Anyway, what is the problem of Law & Order in America(and West in general)? Why are so many people troubled by Law & Order issues when it’s so obvious that Lawfulness is preferable to Criminality? It’s because the demands of Law & Order violate one of the biggest idol-worships of America: Afromania. The problem is BLACKS commit crimes and acts of violence in far greater numbers than other groups do. Now, if there were no special love or consideration for blacks in the US, calling for more law & order to suppress black violence would hardly be a problem. Furthermore, if the US especially valued white lives, the call for law & order to suppress black violence would be even greater. Indeed, when the US was a pro-white white-majority nation long ago, whites felt no compunction about meting out harsh punishment to those who harmed white people. So, when Red Savages raided and killed white settlers, white rage united white folks in their wars on Indians. When Arab-African pirates raided American ships and enslaved whites to be sold into slavery, White America used its navy to crush the darky pirates. When a black thug raped a white woman or murdered a white man, white community came together to hang the Nasty Negro from a tree. When Mexicans slaughtered the white men at Alamo, white Americans got riled up and fought even harder to crush Mexico. When the ‘Japs’ attacked Pearl Harbor and massacred 3,000 white folks, a White America got so angry that it led a semi-genocidal war on Japan. So, if the white race were still seen as the essential and archetypal folks of America and if it was well-known that nasty Negroes were robbing, raping, and murdering too many white people, White people would totally be for more Law & Order to put the vicious blacks in their place.

But the fact is white folks lost their place on the American pedestal of worthiness. Initially, the idea was whites are good but so are non-whites, so the latter should be given equal place at the table. If whites are good, they should support equal protection under the law for all races. As a morally compelling argument, whites decided to de-racialize Americanism so that whites and non-whites could both be good citizens. But then, the Jewish control of academia/media and the white elite vanity of virtue-signaling especially blamed the white race for the troubles in the West. It went from ‘whites are good and so are non-whites who should be treated equally’ to ‘whites are not-so-good while certain peoples, especially blacks and Jews, are especially good’. And then, Jewish Power began to elevate the Shoah from a tragic historic event to some kind of neo-religion that must be worshiped. And the black narrative went from morally compelling to spiritually compulsory. Every American has to worship MLK(and revere Mandela) as god-men. With such premise, every year saw greater elevation of Jews and blacks(and then homos) to higher status while whites were increasingly demoted, degraded, and defamed as more a human plague than a human race.
It got even more ridiculous, what with white women being encouraged to side with Diversity, Jews, and homos against white men. Never mind the white world gave most freedom to women. Never mind white women were there alongside white men in the imperialist conquest of the world, therefore no less guilty(if ‘white guilt’ is to be believed). Never mind Jews see white women as whores and commodity to buy and sell. Never mind white women were created by straight white men, whereas homo ‘sex’ of fecal-penetration never created a single life. If anything, white women SHOULD side with white men, and Jews feared that very unity. And so, Jews devised an ingenious strategy. If Jews attacked white men and white women equally, white men and white women would found themselves in the same camp. To drive a wedge into the crucial unity of white men and white women, Jews especially vilified white men while offering moral amnesty to white women via feminism AS LONG AS white women identified themselves as just another victim group of Straight White Males. So, white women would be spared the full brunt of accusation of ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’ IF they sided with Jews, blacks, Diversity, and homos against straight white males. And so many white women took the bait, but then, the female nature is essentially whore-ish, and women will go with the Power. As Jews held the power, so many white women became mental putty and bodily pooter in their hands. Jews are very clever. They understood that the white race would be stronger IF Political Correctness equally condemned white men and white women equally. Both would end up on the same boat and would be forced to work together as fellow moral lepers. Jews know that the most crucial unity of a people is between men and women, and that’s why Jews offered grace and forgiveness to white women IF they were to betray their own men and side with POC, blacks, and Jews. It’s like German women were offered protection IF they put out to Soviet Occupiers. Otherwise, they could be gang-raped or treated as badly as the German men. Jews pulled the same trick with Latin American whites. They knew that if they charged Anglo-American whites and Latin-American whites equally of ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’, both groups would have no choice but to form a coalition. So as to divide the white race, Jews offered grace to Latin American whites(who could pretend to be ‘people of color’) AS LONG AS they worked with Jews against Anglo-American whites. Of course, Latin American whites, being generally venal and craven, took up the offer, and it was also because of their burning resentment against White Americans as having achieved so much more than Hispanic Whites who settled the New World south of the US. Jews remembered how Italian-Americans simply became a part of White America, with many of them becoming conservative Republicans, and Jews also remembered how white Cubans who fled Castro became some of the most rock-solid Republicans. They were not going to make that mistake with future Latin American whites who came to the US. So, just when Jews went out of their way to vilify, dehumanize, and demonize whiteness, they offered an olive branch to Latin-American whites as honorary People of Color IF they were to side with Jews against American Whites. This is why we see so many whitey-white Latin-Americans in the US pretending like they have more in common with Indios and brown Mestizos than with other Americans of European extraction. Jews are so clever.

Currently, Law & Order issues in America are problematic because whites have been condemned while blacks have been consecrated. The ideology-of-idolatry or ‘idology’ of America would like for us to believe that blacks are noble-souled folks while whites are intrinsically a bunch of nasty a**holes. Indeed, Law & Order would be extremely popular in America if whites committed most of the heinous crimes while blacks were the main interracial victims. So many people would call out for more Law & Order to suppress white criminality, especially to save the Noble Negroes from Wicked Whites. Then, Law & Order would be aligned with the ‘Idology’ and PC Narrative. But the reality says otherwise. It says that blacks, despite being 13% of the US population, make up the majority of super-thugs, and black crime in most areas is way out of proportion to their population. This led to the Crime Complex of America. Under the influence of PC, so many Americans(including Conservatives) want to believe in the nobility of blacks and the need for whites to do more to bring forth a truly just society. But reality makes mincemeat of that conceit because, by and large, blacks are NOT noble and, if anything, often rude, nasty, obnoxious, vicious, savage, demented, cruel, and unscrupulous to the max.


"Montage of mainstream media spreading fake news that #JussieSmollett was attacked by white men in MAGA hats."

American reality is at odds with American ‘spirituality’ of Magic Negro Worship. Granted, due to the influence of sports and rap music, many whites admire blacks for the badass-thug-value, but even that is a kind of ‘spiritual’ worship, albeit of a demonic nature; it assumes that blacks have superhuman powers of masterfulness. It’s like the cucky-wuck Rock critic Dave Marsh and dorky-shmorky documentarian CucKen Burns babbling endlessly about how blackness is so awesome and white folks would just be lame white-bread nothings without the black prometheus having gifted them the rhythm and beat. It’s as if blacks have real souls with burning fire whereas whites only have frozen souls, and so, white ice can only be thawed by the heat of black magic. The end-logic of all this is ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs on the premise that the black dong can warm the white pooter and plant the seed to produce the New Superior Race of Afro-Europeans. Black male meat must rub with white female meat to create the heat to ‘redeem’ the white race from an Ice People to a fellow Sun People. No wonder then that EU has become Afro-European Union, what with the likes of Emanuel Macron and Boris Johnson calling for endless millions of more Africans to come ashore and take white women while white men are reduced to pathetic cuckery.

But the fantasy of black nobility crashes against the reality of black savagery. All those black Africans in Europe will only spread the kind of mayhem and chaos that defines Sub-Saharan Africa. Even in North Africa and Middle East, the infusion of black genes among the Arabs and Egyptians hasn’t done any good. Indeed, the darker Arabs are generally far less accomplished than lighter Arabs. Consider the Arabs of Sudan or Yemen. And the black genetic material among southern Italians, Portuguese, and certain Latin Americans hasn’t turned them into Magical Sun People. If anything, North Africans would rather move to the White West than stay put in their own nations and, for sure, they do NOT want to move to Sub-Saharan Africa. Only in the silly fantasies of brainwashed white cuck minds are scum like Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey the Hope of Mankind. Obama and Oprah have been nothing but ultra-grifters and egomaniacs who hustled white minds(turned into mush by Jewish control of academia and media) to grab the crown or to rake in the millions. Their status as national phenomena would not have been possible in a sober, serious, and sane nation grounded in reality, truth, and honesty.

Though there have been great religious movements in American History — beginning with the Great Awakening —, the dark side of mass-mentality set off by such events was the preference of Hope & Fantasy over Truth & Reality. Even secular America has carried on with this tradition. Since God and Jesus are no longer so relevant, people fall over themselves in rapture over Israel-Israel-Israel, Magic Negroes, Globo-Homos, and Jewish advertising campaigns. Such blind and gushing mind-set has a hard time processing reality, especially as ‘spiritual’ thought comes with powerful taboos. Since Jews-and-Israel are so sacrosanct, anyone who speaks truth to Jewish power must be a Vile ANTI-SEMITE. Since Negroes are so noble and wonderful, anyone who sees the dark side of blackness must be an Evil RACIST. Since Homos are so fabulous and sensational, anyone who sees the degeneracy of globo-homo worship must be a Despicable HOMOPHOBE. It’s virtually impossible to have a sane, sober, and/or serious discussion with people under such a spell. It’s like trying to convince a person infected with rabies that water isn’t harmful. Rabies isn’t called hydrophobia for nothing. It’s like trying to discuss the verity of religious claims with a True Believer. No matter how much you try to convince him or her that there is no evidence of miracles, they will insist on faith and, furthermore, condemn you as not just a non-believer but an agent of the Devil.

Blacks are like cows in India. To any rational mind and fairminded observer, it's obvious that letting cows run loose is bad for traffic, costly to society, and endangers many lives. But but but, Hindus in India believe cows to be sacred, and there isn't much that can be done about all the troubles they cause. Spiritual-thinking comes naturally to humans, but the downside is it can override reason and honest assessment of reality. Because cows are thought to be sacred, too many of them have been allowed to roam freely in India and wreak havoc in crucial sectors of society. Likewise, because blacks are regarded as holy, too many are allowed to romp and stomp around freely, and if they get way out of hand, we mustn’t blame 'blacks' because blackness is sacred; instead, we must focus on some other aspect of the perpetrators, such as their status as 'youths' or 'teens'. (And holy homos are allowed to take over entire cities in June and celebrate degeneracy, and of course, holy Jews have the license to mess up entire areas of Middle East with Wars for Israel[as the Neo-Crusades] and use Wall Street to rape entire economies. As we mustn’t badmouth the holy, we must just keep chanting 'Israel is our closest ally' and ‘God blesses those who bless the Jews’.)

It’s not enough to timidly assert, "It’s Okay to be White". People must wake up to reality and grow a pair and say the obvious: "Blacks are not sacred, blacks are not holy, blacks are not magical." Just because a people were treated unfairly in the past and because their story has been turned into a fairytale doesn’t alter the fact that, IN THE REAL WORLD, blacks are especially problematic and more prone to violence & psychopathy than the other races because of 200,000 yrs of evolution in the Dark Continent than 200 yrs of slavery in the New World. A myth that would have the most savage race be the most saintly race is worse than foolish. It is fatal to civilization.