Intra-Meritocracy vs Inter-Meritocracy — The Fall of the White Race can be traced to the ‘Anti-Racist’ Principle of Inter-Meritocracy — Rise of Inter-Meritocracy explains why the White Race has become a Total Disgrace

Power can be understood in terms of quality vs quantity. If you don’t have quality-power, you must rely on quantity-power. In World War II, the average German soldier was better than an average Soviet soldier, but the Soviets made up for deficiency in quality by sheer quantity. In the Korean War, the US military was far superior to the Chinese military that had nothing approaching modern logistics and air power. But Chinese were able to hold their own with sheer numbers. Quality-power is preferable, but your people at least have quantity-power, they may survive or even prevail in a conflict with quality-power. After all, even a tiger or grizzly bear will fall to sheer quantity. In India, there’s a wild dog known as the dhole. While a tiger is immeasurably bigger and stronger than any single dhole, a huge pack of dholes have been known to bring down a tiger. And while a single wolf is no match for a grizzly bear, a wolf pack can bring down the biggest bear. Some peoples mainly rely on quantity-power. Mexicans in American don’t expect to take over elite institutions and industries. They know they don’t have the skills to do so, but they do have the numbers to take over entire SW territories and form voting blocs. If the mantra of the Civil Rights Movement was "We Shall Overcome", Mexicans figure, "We Shall Overwhelm"(though, to be sure, Mexican birthrates have declined and, if anything, Mexico has the danger of being inundated by poorer folks from Central America. (Mexicans don’t care for them and do their best to shoe them across Mexico to reach the US, just like Greeks have been known to urge their non-white migrant population to move to greener pastures of Northern Europe.)

Jews, as we know, are all about quality-power as they are a tiny minority in all nations except Israel. As Jews can’t rely on numbers, they rely on number-crunching. Over time, their wits and smarts have made them the richest people in the US by far in per capita terms. (Though only 2% of the population, Jews are well-poised to owning more than 50% of all wealth in the US.) With their control of media, academia, entertainment, and deep state, Jews have turned huge numbers of goyim into calculus of Jewish Power. Jewish Influence has colonized the hearts and minds of so many people via power of tele-communications, search-engine monopoly, and social-network-domination. So, even though most Americans are not Jewish, their ‘souls’ have been Jew-infected and, unbeknownst to themselves, they think, feel, talk, and act in ways that ultimately serve Jewish Power. This goes to show that a clever use of quality-power can lead to a kind of proxy control over quantity-power. As most goyim in the US rely heavily on Jewish-controlled media for news and ideas, their minds are essentially molded by the Jewish Hand. Of course, there is always the possibility that goyim may shake free of these controls — become ‘red-pilled’ — , and this is why Jews are paranoid all the time and so eager to set one bunch of goyim against the other. One thing for sure, if the white ‘right’ and white ‘left’ really hate each other, Jewish ‘left’ and Jewish ‘right’ are Jews First and Ideologues Second. If anything, both ‘rightist’ Jews and ‘leftist’ Jews manipulate ideology mainly to increase and secure Jewish supremacist power.

Oppenheimer in the movie FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY

Jews have both a modern ideological mind and ancient tribal mentality. Throughout history, ideologies tend to come and go, whereas identities tend to be more resilient. People who put ideology above identity will eventually lose out to those who put identity above ideology. Because whites now care more about ideology, white ‘right’ and white ‘left’ hate each other, thus the white race is a house divided unto itself. But because Jews put identity above ideology, the Jewish ‘right’ and Jewish ‘left’ are brothers and sisters behind the mask. Also crucial is the general truth that a people whose identity encompasses the unity of the elite and the people will outlast a people whose identity is owned mainly by the elites. Among the many great ancient tribes, why are Jews among the very few who survived intact as a people and culture? Because the Covenant made every Jew, even a poor wretch, feel that he was the favored of God. Thus, Jewishness belonged equally to every Jew, and the Jewish Prophets(who spoke for the entire community, rich and poor) had more prestige than Jewish kings, merchants, and diplomats. Even though rich Jews surely exploited poorer Jews, there was the sense that all Jews, rich or poor, are one people: All Jews are the subjects of God, not of other Jews.
In contrast, the goy civilizations were mostly elite-centric and regarded their peoples mostly as subjects, fodder for work and war. Because they were more militaristic than mindful, they needed lots of expendable soldiers. And as they ruled over vast territories, they came to regard ordinary folks as mere subjects and tax-payers than as Our Folks. In contrast, the smaller and more close-knit Jewish tribe/civilization could focus on preserving the worthiness of Jews. As the result, Jews weren’t the best warriors or great conquerors, but Jewish culture came to value Jewish lives more than goy civilizations came to value the lives of goy subjects. Of course, Jewish concern for their own kind didn’t mean they gave a damn about the lives of goyim, whom the Jews mostly despised. (Still, the fact that Jews regarded fellow Jews as blessed in the eyes of God provided the moral foundation that eventually led to the arrival of Jesus and Apostles who preached that Jews should regard goyim in the way they do fellow Jews: Brothers and sisters equally beloved by God through Jesus as the great mediator. As for goyim, they should see themselves primarily as worthy children of the just and loving God than as chattel-subjects of their lords.) Because goy civilizations were so elite-centric, when the elites fell to ruin, the people were scattered to the winds without much in the way of identity or culture. Among Jews, it was as if every Jew had a mind/soul that made him equal in the eyes of God, whereas the mind/soul thing among the goyim was hogged by the elites. Thus, even if Jewish elites were toppled, Jewish people survived because every Jew still had the mind & agency to be Jewish; in contrast, when goy elites fell, the goy masses were lost and confused as to what they were about and what they should do. The meaning and direction of their lives had been wholly controlled and defined by the elites. Every lowly goy looked to the ruling elites to define what his culture and civilization were about. This is why Japan is now falling. Japanese-ness was always defined by the elites, and in the past, Japan was ruled by the proud samurai caste who upheld the mythological underpinnings of Japan. But after the defeat to the US, Japan has essentially been ruled by the soulless merchant-class that will do just about anything for money. As the elites have failed Japan culturally(especially since the 80s), Japanese today are deracinated idiots whose idea of culture is anime, video-games, and pornography.

In contrast, despite the great power of Jewish elites, Jewish identity is not solely invested with elite power. Even if the Jewish elites were to fall or be rounded up & shipped to Gulag, ordinary Jews would still retain a powerful sense of Jewishness that is defined mainly by spirituality, history, and blood than the matter of who-rules-over-us. Of course, it’s possible that Jewish culture came to value the average person more than other cultures because Jews-as-individuals have been more troublesome, demanding, and argumentative. Consider the hard time Edward G. Robinson’s character gives to Charlton Heston’s Moses in TEN COMMANDMENTS. He's an incessant pain in the ass. If most peoples were either dumb or timid and left it up to the elites to figure everything out, your average Jew was more likely to question their elites as to what was up. Such an argumentative culture would have had to settle things either by constant internecine warfare or by the development of the Law where issues are to be settled by the power of the word that applies to everyone, including the king.

Many white people(especially on the ‘right’) are increasingly frustrated with meritocracy, mostly for fallacious reasons. It’s the same reason why they blame ‘democracy’ for all their problems. They figure, "Since the liberal democratic West is dying, the fault must be with democracy itself." (But then, if aristocracy is so superior, why did it so easily lose out to democracy?) But there are plenty of kingdoms and aristocracies that declined and faded away just the same. In the end, it depends on WHAT KIND of democracy(or any kind of polity). After all, democracy in Israel and Turkey turned those nations more rightist. And apparently, the right-wing Franco regime in Spain failed to mold Spaniards into dutiful rightists. Soon after Franco died and a republic was established, the vast majority of Spaniards decided to support some of the most decadent and globalist elites one could imagine. And it was under rule by reactionary monarchies or autocracies that powerful leftist movements developed in Russia and Latin America. And, it was often the reactionary forces that were either imperialist or collaborationist-with-imperialism, whereas the leftists stood for defiant national independence and sovereignty. The Russian Tsar was too involved with matters outside Russia to focus on the needs of his people, and the ‘right-wing’ Latin American juntas maintained their grip under the umbrellas of US neo-imperialism. In the 60s, it was the leftist Cubans, North Vietnamese, and Algerians who symbolized the nationalist struggle against American or European Imperialism. So, just like there is no one kind of reaction or autocracy, there is no single kind of democracy. Democracy is not doomed to become ‘decadent’ and ‘degenerate’. Democracy can be friend or foe to nationalism. It all depends on who controls the hearts and minds, the themes and narratives, the icons and idols, of a nation.

Same goes for meritocracy. To revile meritocracy as the reason for the White Demise would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Granted, there are some who argue that, in fair competition, whites would beat all comers. According to this view, Jews are not all that smart and gained great wealth and influence mainly through nepotism, tribalism, and other nefarious means. Asians are just grinds who mainly focus on acing entrance examinations. There was a ridiculous site called Caste Football that argued that sports are rigged against whites, and THAT is why blacks dominate boxing, football, basketball, running, and etc.

Oddly enough, even though the Glob and Progs denounce ‘white supremacism’ as the worst thing, they should credit it as one of the main reasons for the White Demise. Granted, not all expressions of white supremacism were the same. Some were overtly hostile and aggressive. But other forms were enlightened, magnanimous, and generous. Indeed, the reason why white elite power loosened its grip and turned to fair play was because it assumed that, all things being equal, whites would beat all the other races in just about everything. It was this gentle kind of white supremacism that made the white race(especially the elites) feel so confident in their dominance, rest on their laurels, and not take the competition too seriously. All over the world, whites gained such power and renown via science, technology, trade, war, and know-how that they thought they were destined to rule the world for all eternity no matter what. So, what did it matter if the Rule of Law was extended to include all groups? Whites would win anyway. It’s like men would not worry about letting women into men’s sports because they know women are No Match against men. White Success and Power were such that, at some point, white people took their supremacism for granted and decided to be Nice Supremacists. Let non-whites compete against whites and in the white world. What did it matter? How could non-whites possibly win the competition against the great white race?
If white inferioritism had shaped white thinking, whites would have been far less likely to loosen their grip and go for fair play and competition with other races. This is why so many female athletes are upset over tranny-men playing as ‘women’. Women know that they are inferior to men athletically, and entry of wigged men into women’s sports will lead to women losing out. Indeed, imagine if whites had thought in white inferioritist terms vis-a-via the other races or peoples. Actually, it would have made them even more race-ist, and their descendants today would be in a much better situation. Suppose a hundred years ago, a white guy said to another white guy, "You know, those blacks are tougher and more aggressive than us. They are superior as athletes and more powerful in masculinity. They got more muscle and bigger dongs, and that means they will kick our white butts, rob us of our manhood, and then our womenfolk will lose respect for us as a bunch of cuck-losers. And then, blacks will take over as the new symbols of American Manhood, and our daughters, granddaughters, and great granddaughters will become a bunch of jungle-feverish mudshark skanks." Such white inferioritism would have sobered up the white race, and white folks would have done everything possible to allow blacks to carve their own nation and remain separate from the weaker white race(that is inferior in thuggery). But too many whites, full of supremacism, were either too arrogant or generous. The arrogant ones were too busying shouting, "We can beat up any nigger" to wake up to reality. And the generous ones were sure that whites would not lose out in fair competition to the blacks and called for equal rights for the Negroes.

Enlightened White Supremacism was also the reason for whites losing out to Jews. Anglo-Americans were too full of themselves to see the danger posed by Jews. As the great conquerors and masters of America(and with the mighty Imperial Brits as their racial brethren), Anglo-Americans thought they were the kings of the world forever. Instead of soberly assessing the threat posed by Jews, too many Wasps rested on their laurels and saw no great danger in letting in lots of Jews and trusting them. Sure, there were Anglo-Americans like Henry Ford who were all-too-aware of the Jewish Question, but too many Anglo-American elites regarded Jews as hard-working immigrants with dreams of becoming Good Americans. And besides, even if Jews found some success, how could such a people compete with the great Anglos? It was such supremacist assumptions that made Anglo-Americans blind to what the Jews really represented. White supremacism could breed complacency of security and power. It's like a lion, as king of the jungle, not worrying about threats posed by other animals. Now, imagine if Anglo-Americans were mostly in inferiorist mode vis-a-vis Jews and said among themselves, "You know, those Jews are pretty intense. And intelligent too. They are pushy, driven, and have radical wills. Not only are they smarter than us, they have stronger personalities, greater will, deeper hatreds & resentments, and bigger ideas, the kind with prophetic power to cast a spell on our young ones. If we let them in and offer them equal opportunity, they will not only take over elite institutions but use them to destroy us because they are driven by arrogance, hatred, and hostility." White inferioritism would have seen the dangers posed by Jews, but too many Anglo-American elites, being so full of wealth, pride, and privilege, took it for granted that their kind would be on top forever. Enlightened White Supremacists thought, "Sure, in open competition, some Jews will do better than dumb whites, and some blacks will do better than weaker whites, BUT all in all, smart whites will prevail over Jews, and strong whites will prevail over blacks." Or so the white elites, so full of themselves, assured themselves. White elites took their dominant position for granted as virtually eternal. In a way, it’s like the naivete that many modern people have about nature and animals. It wasn't always thus. When mankind struggled in nature, they understood all-too-well that humans were inferior to animals in many ways. Other species could do things humans couldn’t, like swim under water and fly through the air. And big animals were many times stronger than humans. Indeed, even many animals smaller than humans were stronger and posed a danger. So, humans didn’t play around with animals. They knew that humans, being inferior in speed and strength, had to find and develop certain methods to defend themselves against other species. But modern comfort made so many people feel so smugly superior over the animal world that they take their vaunted status for granted. While it’s true that civilization has given humans a huge advantage over animals, it doesn’t follow that animals aren’t dangerous or that humans aren’t weak. Indeed, without the protection of civilization, most humans would find themselves utterly helpless against the forces of nature. Just because the system favors your well-being and power over the Other, never assume that your advantage is natural or eternal. Likewise, the white race gained tremendous advantage over other races due to many factors(which could change over time, especially if whites allowed non-whites to rise too high in the white world). White advantage and power relied on the system. Lose the system, lose the advantage. Just because the white race was on top, it didn’t mean that whites, as individuals, were naturally superior to other races in just about all endeavors. That was fatally fallacious thinking.

In some ways, one might argue that the white race is the most talented all-around race. It is not the toughest race, but it is tougher than most peoples and bested only by black Africans. It is not the most intelligent race, but only Ashkenazi Jews(who are at least 50% European) are more intelligent, and only East Asians are comparable in cognitive abilities. It may not be the most creative in certain areas — like ‘funk’ & ‘boogie' dominated by blacks and the kind of wit, humor, & strangeness Jews are known for — , but it has been, by and large, the most creative race in many areas of arts, culture, philosophy, and technology. It may not be the most profound race as one could argue that the Semites, Hindus, and East Asians came up with greater/deeper spiritual concepts, but the white race came up with the greatest myths(especially among the Greeks), and it has explored and achieved great things under the influence of Christianity. (Furthermore, the early Jews who formulated Christianity were said to have been profoundly influenced, directly or indirectly, by Greco-Roman ideas and culture). Just like the decathlon athlete is not the best athlete in every particular event — he will lose in events matched against the very best sprinters, shot-put throwers, javelin chuckers, etc. — , the white race will lose in particular endeavors to other races, but the general all-round talent of the European people has been hard to beat. And in order to preserve this all-around-excellent-but-not-the-very-best advantage, the white race has had to resort to intra-meritocratic competition while being wary or even downright hostile toward inter-meritocratic conflicts. Indeed, such wariness went back to the Greeks who restricted participation in the Olympics only to Hellenic folks. As the Greeks warred with hostile tribes(and even enslaved them), what would have been the point of letting non-Greeks participate, kick Greek butt, and hog prestige as the top hero-idols of the Hellenic World? (Roman Gladiator spectacles did allow non-Romans to beat all competition and win great glory, but this had the impact of making the Romans lionize stronger Africans and bigger Germanic barbarians, with the effect that Roman women, even from elite backgrounds, lost respect for Roman men and went off to have sex with barbarians and savages.) Even though the merito-competitive spirit of the Greeks did wonders for their civilization, it was also well understood that the Greeks had to make a clear distinction between Greeks and ‘barbarians’. The winners in the Greek world had to be Greek or sufficiently acculturated and absorbed into Greekness in order to be part of the Power/Prestige Game. Jews understood this principle too, which is why they came up with the Covenant that restricted the Sacred Learning of the Jews to the Jewish people. If non-Jews wanted to join the Tribe, they had to undergo the most grueling hazing in the form of circumcision. Most Jews never wanted non-Jews to join the Tribe, and even Jews who were open to the idea of goyim converting to Judaism insisted that Gentiles had to get their foreskins cut off, which made most Gentiles run like a mothafuc*a. Even among early Jewish Christians, it was assumed circumcision was essential for conversion until Paul argued that the New Faith was about circumcision of the heart than the pud. At least Jews were circumcised as babies who had no idea what was up and had no memory of the agony they were put through. Just like it’s much more difficult to learn a new language in adulthood, it was obviously much more difficult for grownup Gentiles to go under the Jewish Knife.

When white people see black domination in sports, the spread of jungle fever, the black takeover of pop music, Jewish domination of finance-academia-media, East Asian & Hindu gains in college enrollment & high-tech jobs, and etc., some are apt to blame meritocracy per se, but that's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Such whites might argue, "All those non-whites are taking over because we gave them opportunities to compete against us." Then, would it be preferable for whites to live in a stable Racial/National Aristocracy where the white ruling class, as the BEST of society, protects the interests of white folks? Some might argue that aristocracy was about meritocracy, but actually it wasn’t. While there were surely talented and intelligent aristocrats, one was an aristocrat mainly by birth, not by achievement. The most intelligent child born of a serf was a serf, whereas the dumbest child born to an aristocrat was an aristocrat. Though all aristocrats were raised with certain principles and codes to live by, there was equal chance that an aristocrat could be smart or dumb. The true emergence of a meritocratic elite began with the rise of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the aristocracy. The bourgeoisie, being men of enterprise in production or trade, had to have business sense. Also, as capitalism made the greatest profits by offering new-and-improved items on the market, it provided huge incentives and rewards for those with knack for science & technology and design & engineering. While intelligence was prized all throughout history, never had it been so ‘monetized’ to produce super-profits. Today, consider the billions upon billions made by the ‘geeks’ at companies like Google and Apple.
Given that the bourgeois order has been infinitely more meritocratic than the aristocratic order, what has been its downside? A key factor is that, whereas the aristocracy was raised and inculcated with notion of honor and dignity(notwithstanding the fact that many aristocrats neglected their obligations and abused their privileges), the bourgeoisie expanded mainly with wealth and profits in mind. Aristocrats had class, whereas the bourgeoisie were merely constituted a class, one aspiring to be dominant by More Money. (In contrast, because honor mattered so much among aristocrats, even the richest aristocrat might have to face off squarely against a poor aristocrat in a duel where the two men had to meet on equal terms independent of wealth.) The competition between aristocracy and bourgeoisie was one between elite vs elite as neither group constituted the huge swaths of unwashed masses. Aristocrats ruled over vast numbers of peasants, and the bourgeoisie ruled over vast numbers of factory-workers. As both groups constituted elites by blood or money, they were held in distrust by the masses. Therefore, both elite groups appealed to the masses in different ways. The kings & aristocrats spoke of the Divine Right to rule & the noblesse oblige of the aristocracy that supposedly had the well-being of the peasants in mind. The Russian Tsar wanted his subjects to see him as a father-figure of the nation. In contrast, the bourgeoisie presented themselves as agents of tireless change and progress of great benefit to mankind with more rights, freedom, and goods. The aristocratic types argued that the greedy bourgeois merchant-class only cared about more money, whereas the bourgeois types argued that the haughty aristocratic snobs only cared about protecting their own privilege. It all came to a head in the French Revolution. In the US, the bourgeoisie vs aristocracy conflict erupted in the American Civil War where the bourgeois North of industrialists and factory-workers locked horns with the South of plantation owners and black slaves and white farm labor. Even though the bourgeoisie eventually won out(despite setbacks that restored the reactionaries in Europe after the fall of Napoleon), the problem remained that the new ruling class of bourgeoisie was really the ‘new boss’ who took over from the ‘old boss’. Furthermore, following the trauma of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, the aristocracy and bourgeoisie grew less confrontational and more accommodating of one another, forming a kind of ‘aristogeoisie’. Why spill more blood when both sides could come to an understanding? The aristocracy would allow the progression of history whereby the West would be transformed by the power of bourgeois capitalism. It was a force that simply couldn’t be stopped. In return, the rising bourgeoisie would try to attain some ‘class’ and ‘dignity’ by emulating the aristocratic ways, marrying with aristocrats(who were in decline), lending money to aristocrats, and buying titles from aristocrats for a good price. This accommodation more-or-less held firm across Europe until World War I, and then the implosion of the Old Order and the weakness & ineffectiveness of the new democratic order led to mass frustration and dissatisfaction that led to a powerful communist movement that many feared would take over all of Europe.

Communists argued that the rise of the bourgeoisie, though inevitable and necessary, could NOT be the End of History since the bourgeoisie also constituted an exploitative class like the aristocracy. Bourgeois power also meant continued Elite Domination. The ONLY way to ensure People Power was by communist revolution that would ensure the dictatorship of the proletariat. A counter-argument for People Power came from Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. While, contra communism, fascist ideology argued that elites were not only necessary but natural, it also argued that true People Power could be secured and protected by inspired national leaders who stood for something other than received privilege or more profits. Fascist ideology believed in the need for struggle(as the very essence of life), and the problem with the aristocracy was that it eventually led to pampered children raised in an entitled bubble-world of plenty. The appeal of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler had much to do with their modest and ‘humble’ origins. Unlike aristocrats who were born into power and privilege, men like Mussolini and Hitler had to struggle for every ounce of power to climb to the top. Thus, according to fascist ideology, their power was real and well-earned whereas aristocrats were essentially soft and passionless because everything had been handed to them on a silver platter from birth. (Of course, such charge wasn’t entirely fair because, even though aristocrats were BORN into privilege, plenty of aristo-families were strenuous and demanding in the way their children were raised. At its best, the aristocracy stressed upon the young the need for dignity, honor, arts & culture, and virtues such as courage and commitment, and plenty of aristocrats proved their mettle in battle and other endeavors.) Fascism also distrusted the bourgeoisie, at least as the ruling elites of a nation. While Fascism recognized the economic worth of the bourgeoisie and wasn’t murderously averse to them in the way that communism was, it thought the bourgeois class was unfit to rule and/or define the culture because capitalism was mostly about profits, individualism, and greed. The bourgeoisie should be relegated to the business world, and their ‘values’ should not define the essence of the nation, people, and culture. If communism said the People can have justice ONLY BY getting rid of the ruling class of elites, fascism argued that the People as members of a nation can lead meaningful lives ONLY BY being ruled by the right kind of elites who are inspired — a notion rooted in Romanticism — and possess a vision of society & culture that aren’t mainly about received privilege or more profits. Fascism rejected communism because it was regarded as too ‘materialist’, too much at odds with nature, too drab and ‘plain’ in its idealization of the Worker, and too abstract in its universalism.
Part of the reason why the embattled fragments of the ruling class following World War I decided to support fascism as protection against communism was it had elements of both aristocratism & bourgeoisie-ism — fascism valued elitism in ways that communism did not, though one can argue that communism-in-actual-power was just rule by party elites as the new boss — , and the reason why fascism gained such mass appeal in certain nations had to do with more than social crisis & hunger for order. For the masses of the modern world, aristocratism was too reactionary, unjust, and irrelevant to changing times while bourgeois-ism was too materialist, heartless, self-interested, and ‘greedy’. Also, even many among the working class felt that communism was too radical and fanatical in its ideology and vision. For the elites and the masses, fascism was like the great mediator among the plurality of forces from top to bottom, between the past and the future.

Anyway, the old aristocratic order is long gone, and it could only have existed in an agrarian society where most people toiled in the fields while the noblemen, as either protector and/or tyrant, lorded over them. As modernity led to rise of huge cities and with the dwindling of the agrarian class, the days of the aristocrats were numbered. (In the US, aristocracy was out-of-favor even among the agrarian folks because there was enough land that allowed landless people to move to greener pastures and own/run their own farms than for their lords.) As people became concentrated in cities, there was power in numbers, and this led to democracy and electoral politics, as well as socialist measures to ensure certain basic dignities and rights for the Worker. Freedom is an infectious thing, and in Europe, even the urban poor felt freer than their ancestors who'd toiled in the fields as tenant-farmers and the like. Even if their freedom didn’t lead to riches or fame, it was psychologically reassuring to be ‘free’ and ‘independent’ than live under the power of lords and their overseers. While one didn’t have much say on the factory floor, one truly belonged to oneself after work whereas tenant-farmers, even off-work, always felt like subjects of the land-owner. Unlike farmland that always belongs to Someone, urban spaces belonged to anyone and everyone. While private property could be excessively expensive and valuable in the city, urban spaces were organized so that all the streets, parks, and squares belonged to The People. Thus, while city life could be alienating and disorienting, it could also be liberating and exciting. And so, there was no way modern people could accept a reactionary return to aristocratism.

And yet, late modern capitalism is now exposing the dire consequences of what has come to be known as ‘globalism’, a massive contradiction in terms, rules, and management, not least because it purports to be about equal justice, opportunity, and freedom for all peoples around the world but is really dominated by the US as neo-empire that is, furthermore, controlled by Jews, an intensely tribalistic and supremacist people.Furthermore, even as globalism champions meritocracy and equal competition for all peoples and all the world(in the spirit of libertarianism), it violates its own principles of individualist meritocracy with calls to Diversity, Inclusion, and Identity Politics(especially geared against whites). In addition, even as it demands respect and appreciation of all cultures, it seeks to replace every faith, tradition, and culture with globo-homo degeneracy, rap music, dumb Hollywood blockbusters, video-games, and pornified pop culture as One World Consensus. It promises equal hope and dreams for all people regardless of race, color, or creed, but the result is domination of entire fields by just a few races or groups. And the matter of who/whom means everything to globalism as currently practiced, especially among Jews, fruitkins, Afro-Jivers, and the dotkins(aka Hindus). Apparently, it’s totally okay and just for SOME peoples or groups to have dominance far out of proportion to their numbers, whereas the demise of certain groups, especially White Goyim, cannot be welcomed enough EVEN WHEN white representation in nations that they'd built falls below proportionality.

For those who are understandably distraught about the state of the white race in America, meritocratism is an easy scapegoat. Even if it’s fair play that opened up competition in America to all the races and peoples, many white people feel, "Why should we hand over what our ancestors built to OTHER peoples?" Even if Jews and Asians do better in colleges, why should they take over and dominate the very institutions built by Europeans and Christians? There’s a saying, "finders keepers". The white race didn’t only find the New World but did most to build it. Then, why should they allow OTHER Peoples to take over America EVEN IF it is by fair play? (And exactly WHO gets to decide that America belongs to ALL THE WORLD even though ALL THE WORLD didn't found it and build it? Why should America belong to MOST PEOPLES AROUND THE WORLD who had NOTHING to do with its foundation and development? Such a view assumes that whites have no autonomous worth & value and therefore whatever whites do must be for the Others. It's like humans make sure that cows produce milk and chickens produce eggs for HUMAN consumption. On farms, cows and chickens have no self-worth. They exist ultimately to serve Others, the humans. The rejiggering of Americanism can only imply that everything whites have done, do, and shall do must be for the Good of the Other. But in a way, with notions such as the "White Man's Burden", whites brought it upon themselves. Conquer the world, then you must feed the world.) The more libertarian-leaning white folks are convinced that the main reason why so many white people lost out in the New Order is due to ‘affirmative action’, quotas, and other forms of statism. They regard libertarianism as defacto white-power-ism because they believe, all things being equal and under fair play, the Great White Race has most to gain and win by a combination of intelligence, creativity, ingenuity, inspiration, and individualism.
But as the years pass, libertarianism-as-virtual-white-power-ism is wearing thinner by the day. In sports — powerfully important in American mythos, idol-making, hero-worship, and symbol of manhood, for good or ill — , libertarianism is obviously a total bust. Under fair play, the black race has totally defeated and humiliated the white race into a bunch of bench-warming cucky-wucks. But white libertarians comforted themselves with the conviction that whites would outperform blacks in all endeavors other than sports. But then, rap became mainstream, and it spread jungle fever far and wide, and white males began to lose sexually as well as athletically. Still, if not for ‘affirmative action’, wouldn’t whites win in areas that require brain power? But here, whites lost out to Jews. Still, whites told themselves that Jewish success isn’t a bad thing since Jews are also white people. But as Jews gained more power, they didn’t act pro-white but anti-white, using their vast resources to chip away at white advantages by any means necessary. So, in areas where whites lost out to other groups by meritocracy, Jews promoted fair competition. But where whites did better than blacks and browns, they were hamstrung by the ‘social justice’ ideology of ‘affirmative action’ that forever invokes the past to secure permanent advantages in the future.
But, libertarianism really failed with mass non-white immigration. After all, even if blacks beat whites physically and Jews beat whites mentally, both groups remain minorities, esp with Jews being only 2% of the population. So, even as whites lost out to them in some fields, they had the advantage in numbers. But even that eroded away with massive arrival of browns from ‘Latin America’. Even the demographic advantage was lost, but as libertarians only care about the INDIVIDUAL and ignore the power of UNITY, they ignored this most crucial fact. And if masses of browns from the south reduced white demographic power, the arrival of yellows and Hindus from Asia posed another cerebral challenge to the whites. Prior to massive arrival of Asians, only Jews bested the whites. But now, so many Asians are taking slots in colleges and institutions that were founded by white folks in the American Past. They did it for posterity but got kicked in the posterior... mainly because, at some point, the Anglo-American elites lost confidence & pride and silently transferred their ruling power over to the Jews. Given all these challenges, it’s understandable why so many whites aren’t so keen about meritocracy.

But the White World couldn’t have risen without the principles of meritocracy. Even within the West, why did certain societies make advances far ahead of others? It had a sense of fair play, rule of law, sense of honor, code of conduct, and culture of dignity. Such mind-set became more pronounced among Northern Protestant Europeans than among Eastern and Southern Europeans, such as Sicilians and Greeks who represented the bottom of the barrel when it came to ethical outlook and behavior. Southern Italians, Greeks, and certain Eastern Europeans were utterly shameless in their pettiness, self-interest, boorishness, and/or clannism. Also, given their temperaments, even upon being exposed they didn’t confess and apologize but just pulled their hair, threw tantrums, and went into hysterics like in all those Italian and Greek movies. But then, meritocracy factored even less in most non-white nations where whom-you-know mattered far more than what-you-did. East Asia, with its Confucian culture, did have some sense of meritocracy, but as the Sino-centric civilizations defined worth and merit in a very rigid and narrow way, so much of brainy talent was wasted on memorizing Confucian texts that hardly had any applicable value outside politics and family.

Now, if meritocracy did such wonders for the West, especially Protestant Northern Europe, why has it been so problematic in recent years? It’s because Western Meritocracy lost its race-ist foundation and sense of limits. (By ‘race-ism’, I mean belief in race & racial differences and the necessity for racial/ethnic consciousness. It’s not meant as an epithet as is commonly used in our idiot PC discourse. In a way, globalism is the ultimate supremacism as it is obsessed with victory and domination of all the world by the very Best. What is called 'white supremacism' is actually defense against Global supremacism that presses upon all peoples to favor and choose the Best even against the interests and integrity of their own people. According to globalist logic, if a bunch of tougher blacks beat up members of your race in sports, you should idolize the victorious blacks and disregard your own kind because all that matters is the raw prowess of the Best. According to globalist logic, if Jews are the richest & most powerful group and even if they're doing everything to harm your group, you should still admire and obey the Jews because they've demonstrated via inter-meritocracy that they are the most awesome race when it comes to intelligence, drive, radical will, and cunning ruthlessness. Race-ism, in urging you to favor your kind even when it is inferior vis-a-vis other races, is actually counter-supremacist against globalism that says all races and all peoples should bow down to the best of the best EVEN WHEN the globalist victors are clearly enemies of your race. Globalist supremacism is the ultimate nihilism of power.) For most of white history, meritocracy was limited to the people of the race and community. While exceptions were plentiful, especially with OTHER whites across Europe and the Americas, meritocracy wasn’t simply a means of ‘let the best man win’, but "May the best of us rise to the top to do great things for All of Us." It wasn’t only the triumph of the best atomized individual(regardless of race) but a kind of heroic endeavor whereby the best of the community was allowed to rise to the top to use his ability, skills, and knowledge for the good for the whole community. (Of course, if another race or people were ahead of the game and had made key advances, their superiority should be recognized, and your people should learn from them, as the Japanese did in the late 19th century to catch up to the obviously more advanced West. But, the thing was to learn from the Other to strengthen your own people. Jews certainly learned a lot from non-Jews, but at the end of the day, it was to boost Jewish Power, not to serve the goyim simply because they happened to be ahead of the Jews in certain areas.) To assure that meritocracy will serve the community, it had to be intra-meritocracy, or fair competition and fair play among those within the Tribe. In any classic tale of the hero, the extraordinary individual ventures beyond the norms to attain something higher, but it is for his people than merely for the self. Ethno-Nationalism is the Goldilocks middle between the self and the world. While individualism is important(and a key factor in the rise of the West), it must be part of something bigger than merely ‘me’. As for the entire world and all of humanity, they are TOO BIG and TOO MUCH to constitute any kind of viable community. While one can feel a spiritual or philosophical camaraderie with large swaths of humanity — like among Catholics or Muslims or Communists or Liberal Democrats around the world — , such can hardly serve as an organizing principle for a meaningful community. It’s like family is limited to blood relations and close ones. While one can feel brotherly love for those outside the family, the family constitutes those living under the same roof. National community is much bigger than a family, but its sense of community simply cannot include all the world filled with peoples of different races, cultures, and customs. Under such circumstances, everyone must forgo too much that is meaningfully particular in order to accommodate the Other or to assimilate into the Other. America has gone past the limit beyond which a meaningful sense of Americanism is all but impossible. Initially, America went from an Anglo nation to Anglo-Germanic-Celtic nation to one where Other Whites sought to assimilate to Americanism. Because, at the very least, all those whites were part of the same race and sprung from the same continent, Americanism as accommodation/assimilation was doable. Next, America became a massive laboratory of turning non-whites into Good Americans. This had always been problematic with blacks. But when massive amounts of non-whites kept coming and coming, they went from trying to assimilate into white norms to demanding that whites accommodate to ever increasing numbers of newcomers and their relatives and so on and so on, as if the white race/nation was nothing but teats on a dairy cow for all the world to suckle from. If the numbers of non-whites had been controlled by gradual immigration, it might have worked, but it is failing in the US, Canada, Australia, and across Europe(that now models itself on the Jew-run US as a Continent of Immigrants).

Under such conditions, meritocracy for all peoples, or Inter-Meritocracy, can only hurt the white race, not least because current PC says whites must only struggle for power and privilege as deracinated atomized individuals, whereas non-whites, especially Jews and blacks, may invoke their pride of identity and call for tribal solidarity in their competition for wealth, power, and resources. That said, if whites had natural advantages over all other races in every endeavor, it might not be so bad. But as a matter of fact, even though the white race may well be the all-around most capable race, it is not the best in every endeavor. In the specialized fields of athletics, blacks beat whites, and in the specialized fields of finance, media, and brainy fields, Jews beat whites. And all those yellows and dotkins offer stiff competition in test-taking and the rush to enroll in elite colleges. Jews and blacks are especially threatening because they beat whites in the most important areas in American Life either by power of influence or idolatry. To own the media and finance is like controlling all the rivers and channels of a country. And to win in sports(and command attention as bad boy gangstas) means to control idolatry that is so important because, in any given society, most people are faceless and only a handful of 'celebrities' and idols serve as the Face of the People. White race is not only be deracinated but de-faced. Jews in Hollywood and BBC go out of their way to make the Black Man the new archetype of Western Manhood, and white girls grow up looking up to the Negro as the Gangsta Hero. But as if that isn’t bad enough, many whites cannot even hope to have decent white-collar careers because of feminism and mass immigration. Too many women take jobs from men who need jobs more than women because, whereas women without jobs can still get married to men with jobs, men without jobs(or good jobs) will have a difficult time attracting women with jobs(and esp good jobs). There is also the factor of mass immigration. If globalism robbed too many white working class folks of blue-collar jobs, it is now robbing educated white middle class individuals of good jobs that are being taken by hordes from Asia. Globalism ships blue-collar jobs to other nations and ships over white-collar workers from other nations via H1B program. And there is the real danger of the children of immigrants doing better than white kids and taking slots in colleges that could have gone to whites. Thus, Inter-Meritocracy has been a total disaster for the white race. It should have stuck to race-ist Intra-Meritocracy.

Now, one could argue that Inter-Meritocracy is better at picking the best-of-the best from around the world than Intra-Meritocracy ever could. After all, a society that welcomes the very best(regardless of race or nationality) from around the world will likely have the best of everything. Think of traditional Sweden and then imagine two exact but divergent versions of them. These two Swedens would be exact copies of one another. However, a bold experiment makes Sweden A go with Intra-Meritocracy whereas Sweden B implements Inter-Meritocracy as its iron policy. Being Intra-Meritocratic, Sweden A has a system of fair play and rule of law that allows the most intelligent, ingenious, and inspired Swedes to excel and reach the top. These special Swedes are expected to exert themselves to do remarkable things of great benefit to all Swedes. The great advantage of Sweden A is that it will remain an organic and cohesive community as the best of the Swedes will gain the most wealth and power to rule as Swedes over the Swedes. As Intra-Meritocracy applies only to fellow nationals, Sweden A need not worry about non-Swedes taking over and using their power in nefarious ways to harm Sweden’s survival and security. And yet, the downside of Sweden A is that it cannot be the center of the world’s best talents in many areas of competition. It will not be the land of super-smart Jews nor a world of blacks who win most sports trophies. The best minds of Sweden will generally not be as bright as the best of Jews, and the best athletes of Sweden, though considerable in talent, will be no match for the blacks. Therefore, Sweden A will never be able to think in terms of "Sky’s the Limit". Still, even if it doesn’t have global champions, it will be a world of local heroes. Swedes can rest assured that, at least in their own homeland, they are the kings of the hill. And as a nation of Swedes ruling over Swedes, it is a genuinely organic nation where people are part of a larger family.

In contrast, Sweden B decides to open up to the entire world in the hope that the very best will come to compete in and for Sweden. As Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than Swedes, as blacks are tougher & funkier than Swedes, and as there are many millions of talents who can best the native Swedes, the future of Sweden B is one where the best around the world come to Sweden and out-compete the natives. The result is that Sweden comes to be dominated, ruled, and represented by non-native ‘Swedes’, aka the New Swedes. Obviously, the advantage of this is that Sweden B has attracted many individuals from the world who are better than native Swedes in many endeavors. Thus, Sweden B has more talent than Sweden A. In business, sports, science, and the arts, Sweden B could be said to have the kind of wide-ranging and hyper-talent that Sweden A doesn’t have for the most part. Also, with such talents, Sweden B is better poised than Sweden A to win in the global competition in sports, pop music, science, technology, finance, and etc. One might argue that because Sweden B has more talent than Sweden A, its people, whether native or invasive, are better off than the ones in Sweden A who are limited to and by the native talent pool. From a purely libertarian and anti-historical & anti-cultural viewpoint, this may well be true. But IF one cares about preserving the identity, heritage, culture, history, and territoriality of one’s own people, Sweden B is a total disaster. For one thing, there is no guarantee that the rich & powerful Jews, tough & aggressive blacks, and studious & high-achieving Asians will care much about the native culture, history, or heritage of the Swedes. Indeed, in order to consolidate their claim on Sweden, they may use their power and influence to spread the idea that Old Sweden was a ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘drab’, ‘dull’, and ‘white supremacist’ hell-hole. Also, tougher blacks may come to feel contempt for weak and wussy white Swedes and look upon Swedish women as their harem to sexually colonize, thus leading to ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs; indeed, consider how a single African Simon Mol nearly turned Poland into Moland as jungle fever spreads rapidly among the white ‘thots’). There is always a trade-off. Sweden B gains something by losing something.

Now, if Swedes no longer care about their race, culture, and history, it doesn’t matter. But if they do care, Sweden B is a total tragedy. It’s like Palestinians in Israel. If they don’t care about their identity and culture, they can seek comfort in the notion that they are materially better off under Jewish rule, which is probably true. Who cares if Palestine is now Israel as long as individual Palestinians still remaining in Israel are pretty well off compared to Arabs in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa? But if Palestinians DO care about their own identity, culture, and territoriality, the Zionist transformation of Palestine has been most tragic. Given that man doesn’t live on bread alone, national-humanist neo-fascists such as myself prefer Sweden A to Sweden B. Jews surely understand this. Though they yammer about how Israel is so neat because it’s modern, democratic, and prosperous, what they really care about is the ethno-national integrity of Israel. For example, if it could be demonstrated that Israel has much to gain economically and scientifically by taking in tons of white goyim, Chinese, & Hindus and much to gain in sports by taking in tons of black Africans, would most Jews in Israel agree to mass goy immigration into Israel? Of course not. It’s because Jews prize what has become their homeland for reasons other than materialism or abstract idealism. They regard it as their sacred territory rich in history and heritage(though, to be sure, Palestinians and certain other groups can make similar claims on the land, just like Serbs have a legitimate claim on Kosovo and Greeks have one on Constantinople, which is now Istanbul). For Jews in Israel, Intra-Meritocracy is all that matters.

But then, notice how Jews spiritualize and tribalize their own claim to Israel while materializing and idealizing the national concepts of other peoples. So, while Israel has sacred blood-and-soil(and soul) meaning to the Jews, goy nations are to be judged purely on their adherence to ‘universal ideology’(distorted by the Jewish-controlled Globo-Homo US as the sole superpower) and material gains. So, if massive immigration might boost the economy, goy nations MUST welcome massive immigration EVEN IF there is a chance that the natives will be overrun by the newcomers. What does it matter when 'muh restaurant' trumps all other considerations? Or, the richer goy nations have a moral and political obligation to take in ‘refugees’ and poor migrants from all over the world. Materialism and idealism. But these rules do NOT apply to Israel, the priority of which is to preserve the spiritual-and-historical bond between the Jewish people and their land. Thus, Jews are mono-nationalists who believe that ONLY JEWS have a history, culture, blood, and heritage worth preserving for reasons above and beyond the call of abstract idealism and materialism(for profit or compassion). Just like Jewish monotheists disdained all gods and religions other than their own as ‘idolatry’, Jewish mono-nationalists disregard all goy identities, nations, and cultures as unworthy to defend and preserve. Down with poly-nationalism, say the Jews. Only Jews are magic whereas goyim are just matter. Only Jews have blood worth keeping, whereas goyim have the kind of blood that should be drained like with animals slaughtered in the Kosher Way. Indeed, it’s incredible that Jews have even made themselves the Only Sacred People of America. One might think that title should go to Anglo-Americans who founded and settled the New Nation. Or, it might go to the American Indians who'd lived on the land for tens of thousands of years before they met tragedy at the trampling feet of mass-invasion-immigration from the Old World. But NO, Jews figure that the ONLY truly Sacred People of America are themselves via the prophetess Emma Lazarus who turned the Statue of Liberty from a beacon of freedom to one of mass-immigration of Jews and others(who are to serve as the minions of Jews against the Anglo-Germanic-Celtic Americans). While Jews insist that their support for Immigration is out of compassion and concern for All of Humanity to make their dreams come true in America, the only Immigration Narrative that Jews really care about is their own. Jewish Immigration is seen as the modern Exodus. It was when the ocean was split open so that Jews could flee from the Tsar-Pharaoh to find freedom and happiness in the New World. (In time, white Americans may increasingly realize WHY the Russians and other Eastern Europeans came to hate Jews so much. White Americans thought Jews, finding unprecedented freedom and opportunity in the US, would stop acting like stereotypical Jews and become good decent Americans. How wrong they were. Give Jews an inch and they take a mile. The Old Narrative that Jews turned nasty and vicious mainly because they were forced into poverty and traumatized by ‘antisemitism’ now seems like a pile of manure. In America, Jews had it so good, but look at the nature of Jewish power in the US, and it has only gotten uglier and nastier than ever before.) If Jews really intend for the Holy Immigration Narrative for ALL GROUPS, why do they insist that All Americans, white and non-white alike, all get behind Israel, all support Zionism, all remember the Holocaust as the only great World Tragedy, and all turn a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians? Notice how Jews bitch about Donald Trump as Literally Hitler, but they are utterly silent about one area where Trump is indeed most Hitlerian: His blind and fanatical support of Zionist tyranny and brutality against Palestinians who are now poised to lose even the West Bank. How nasty and clever these vicious Jews are. They are in the process of erasing West Bank as the last remaining Palestinian homeland, BUT they coach their whore-puppet-politicians to mutter platitudes about how they are all for a ‘two-state’ solution. It is incredible what these vile and vicious Jews can get away with.

In a way, the first half of American history is roughly that of Sweden A while the second half has been of Sweden B. Even though the US had a variety of groups from the outset, Anglo-Americans were the most prominent and numerous, and furthermore, the Germanic populations were so racially close to the Anglo-Americans that, sooner than later, they became sufficiently Anglo-Americanized. This was also true of the Celtic Irish despite their Catholicism at odds with the predominant Protestantism among the Anglos and Germanics. This Anglo-and-Northern-European America was about freedom, liberty, and meritocracy BUT for the founding stock that comprised Core America. Thus, it was about Intra-Meritocracy. The Constitution, Rule of Law, Protestant Ethics, Enterprise, and Individualism all favored demonstrable merit over personal privilege by inheritance or connection(though reality didn’t always subscribe to principle). This foundational American had a clear sense of its racial & cultural composition and how America’s destiny was to grow as a Great White Power. Whites understood that Indian savages would have to be swept aside, and blacks must be relegated to physical labor in order for White America to be viable. One could say it was unfair to blacks and downright tragic for the Indians, but there was no other way America could have been created. Had Indians been allowed to hold onto the land, America would have remained a world of wilderness and savagery. And if blacks had been given equality at America’s foundation, they would soon have realized they could beat up whitey and gone on rampages and reverted to their jungle-jive nature. Slavery and white rule prevented blacks from going wild and acting totally destructive(as they now do all over Baltimore and Detroit); the post-Civil-Rights Era has proven that the ‘racist’ whites were more right than wrong. While their suppression of blacks was unjust from a purely sociological point of view, given what we now know about the black nature it now seems that social equality with blacks doesn’t work because whites and blacks are biologically so unequal in so many regards. Whites are better in brain work, and blacks are better in brawn force. So, whites out-earn blacks, and blacks beat up whites and rob white men of manhood and colonize the wombs of white women who’ve lost respect for their men as a bunch of cucky-wucks. In that sense, the suppression of blacks throughout most of American history was both unjust and just. It was understandably unjust to a black man who was told, "Hey nigger, why don’t you pick some cotton and dance like Uncle Remus?" Naturally, he would have wanted to kick the whitey’s ass. But precisely because the black man can so easily whup the white man, whites had sound reasons to deny equal rights to blacks. It would have been like chimps offering equal rights to bigger/stronger gorillas.

Anyway, roughly the first half of American history was like Sweden A. But there was gradual shift toward something like Sweden B, a inter-meritocratic society. It didn’t happen overnight but gradually, especially with the massive influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. Unlike Germanics and Irish, these people looked somewhat different, and it was more challenging to turn them into ersatz Anglo-Americans. Even so, they weren’t the real problem as, over time, most of them did become Good Americans. The real problem was the half-white and half-Semitic Jews, a people of immense talent, keen intelligence, monstrous chutzpah, raging hatreds & resentments, and limitless lust for white wealth and white women. It was the Invasion of the Portnoys(and then Portnettes as, once unloosed, the Jewish women were just as ‘crazy’ as the men). Unlike most Southern and Eastern Europeans who struggled but eventually became part of Anglo-Germanic America, Jews remained apart because of their religion, unique sense of historical consciousness, and burning passion to take over as the new elites of America.
Jews quickly realized that they could easily rise above the ‘dumb Polacks’, ‘childish Italians’, ‘drunken Irish’, and such ilk(indeed as they'd done so in the Old World, at least economically). Having risen above them, they would have to compete with the Wasps. Then, as the Wasp elites constituted the only real ruling class in America, Jews would have it ALL once they bested the Wasps. That was it. It was a two-step approach and made rather simple & all-too-possible under Wasp principles of meritocracy that gradually but dramatically went from intra- to inter-. In a corrupt and chaotic society, Jews would not have been able to rise so quickly above the white ethnics. As white ethnics came from clannish and tribal parts of the world, they had few qualms about fighting dirty and resorting to all sorts of corruption to ‘get what is ours’. The reason why Jews were able to rise about the ethnics with such ease was because the Wasps, not the ethnics, held the most power and had the final say in the US. So, while Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans pulled a lot of dirty tricks with the mafia or the machine, the ultimate power and say were with the Wasps. While Wasps were no angels and had their own long history of dirty tricks, they(along with other Northern European folks) were nevertheless the most honorable and principled peoples on Earth, relatively speaking of course. (Indeed, compare Anglos and Germanics in modern times with Hindus, Arabs, Chinese, Latin whites, and etc., and it's no contest as to which people were more trustworthy and honorable.) Because Anglos had the ultimate say in matters of power and principles, Jews could appeal to the Rule of Law and get justice from Anglo-Americans that they couldn’t get from the Italian-American mafia, the Irish Machine, ‘dumb Polaks’, the icky Greeks, and etc. So under the protection of Anglo Rule of Law, Jews were able to rise above the ethnic rabble. But did this make Jews appreciative and grateful of what the Wasps had provided for them? To have thought so was to know NOTHING about the Jews. Unlike the Japanese and Germans who were grateful for having been allowed to survive and rebuild their economies following World War II, Jews simply don’t have ‘gratitude’ in their vocabulary. By ways of Jewish culture and genetics(innate personality traits), Jews have less of softer & kinder characteristics, and if anything, when they see goyim being nice to Jews or doing them a favor, Jews think, "What a dummy!" Goy niceness is seen as weakness and vulnerability to exploit than a virtue to admire and reciprocate in kind. Also, fueled by their powerful personality and supremacist concept of ‘Chosen-ness’, Jews believe they should rule and dominate all the world, and that means taking over all societies.
Early on, Jews understood that the US would be a great nation, the most powerful in the world, and if Jews just took over the US, they could use it like how the small kid used the big kid in the movie MY BODYGUARD.


But if the kid in the movie finally came to realize the human side of the big guy and learned to fight his own fight, the cunning and conniving Jews will always seek to tame one bunch of goyim to fight other goyim. Jews are king mixers(like Paul McCartney's 'grandfather' in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT) as their advantage often relied on the divide-and-rule strategy of making goy fight goy, just like the Romans and Chinese resorted to tactics that encouraged barbarians to fight barbarians. To Jews with their ancient pedigree, all other groups are just barbarians. As Jews see it, there is real culture, there is barbarism, and there is modernity. Real culture is rooted in ancient civilization, and among all the ancient cultures, it’s arguable that the only ones to have survived intact are those of Jews, Chinese, and Hindus. These are peoples who founded and created their own cultures. Among the Europeans, the Greeks were the only real culture-creators, but they lost out to the Roman barbarians whose civilization owed to stealing so much from the Greeks. Thus, whereas Greeks truly civilized themselves by founding a culture, Romans were barbarians who put on cultural pretensions by stealing from others. At any rate, the Romans fell apart, and their culture was lost. Then, Central and Northern Europe began to rise, but as far as Jews are concerned, peoples in those parts are also barbarians who, being unable to form their own high/deep culture, stole from the Greeks and Jews. Thus, unlike Jews, Chinese, and Hindus who created cultures of their own, the Western Europeans, as great as they became in power and wealth, don’t really have cultures of their own as they'd mostly rejected their own indigenous barbarian cultures in favor of high/deep cultures created and shaped by Greeks and Jews.
As for modernity, it is essentially anti-cultural as it favors individualism, universalism, materialism, libertinism, consumerism, and hedonism. Modernity has opened up lots of possibilities and created all kinds of opportunities, but its overall effect has been to weaken, degrade, and destroy cultures around the world. Under the onslaught of modernism, Jews, Hindus, and Chinese are poised to weather the negative effects of rapid changes better than Europeans and especially White Americans. Northern and Central Europe did not have ancient high/deep cultures. Rather, they were barbarian folks who became civilized 'too fast' by borrowing the ideas, visions, and inspirations of other peoples. Because their ‘core’ culture is really a borrowed culture that doesn’t really belong to them in terms of origin or creation, it is easier for them to lose it under the assault of modernity. Jews are like a great tree with deep roots. Even if the tree is damaged by wind and storm, the roots remain deep in the soil. Western Civilization is like a huge tree with shallow roots. It grew too-big-too-fast with tons of borrowed fertilizers but hadn’t the time to allow its roots to penetrate deep into the soil over a long period. Thus, it can easily be toppled by external forces, and we are now seeing the impact of modernity on the West. Indeed, it’s amazing how easy it’s been for Jews to persuade white folks that ‘whiteness’ is just a social construct and that Western Civilization isn’t something that white folks can claim. If Jews tried to convince the peoples of China and India that their cultures and histories don’t belong to them, the Chiners and Dotkins would laugh in the Jews’ face, but whites seem totally captivated by the Jewish BS. It’s as if white people aren’t truly civilized but remain essentially as barbarians who only took on the outward appearance of civilization.
It’s no wonder that Nassim Nicholas Taleb has such contempt for Northern Europeans who think so highly of themselves. While Taleb is most certainly wrong about I.Q., there is a kernel of justification in his derision of Northern European pride because success up there came too-much-too-fast without the requisite transformations that allowed peoples there to truly form meaningful identities. And this is true enough with the Swedes who were once ruthless Vikings but then became devout Protestants with their heads bowed low. How could a people change so fast from point A to point B? A people with real culture would not be so easily persuaded to take on another culture, but that is what happened to the Swedes in the past and is happening to them now. (If Europeans could so easily be persuaded to abandon their own indigenous cultures, accept 'Jew on a stick' as their main God, and accept Judaic scriptures as their own Narrative, it then makes sense why current Europeans can so easily be persuaded to abandon traditional morality for globo-homo and to exchange European identity for Afro-Globalist one. In a way, what they are doing now is in keeping with what they did in the past. Lacking foundational vision and imagination, they easily fall under the spell of those with bigger visions.)

While it may well be true that Northern Europeans have higher IQ, they don’t have very deep understanding of culture. As their IQ is mainly devoted to materialist search for ‘more stuff’, it hasn’t done much for a sense of culture. Europeans failed to come up with anything like a Covenant, Karma, or Familism. IQ is a tool, not a meaning. One thing for sure, if Jews and Nassim Taleb have anything in common, it is their cultural and even racial disdain for Northern Europeans as childish upstarts, a people with spirit and inspiration but no sense of longevity and direction. Indeed, the main reason for the longevity of European Civilization as a continuing process has been Christianity, a religion that was taken from the Jews. (Some European thinkers see continuity as a bad habit learned from Jews and call for a return to cyclicalism of rises and falls that are supposedly more in tune with nature and the organic way of things. In a way, such thinkers embrace barbarism as a vital element of the European soul. It is the necessary fire that burns away the accumulated dry wood of civilization that extends life way past its expiration date. As tragic as the fall may be, the new can be birthed only from the demise of the old. It's rather ironic that Western Europe that suffered the Fall of Rome experienced the Renaissance whereas the Byzantium that extended the life of the Roman Empire fell into stasis and stagnation. In both ZARDOZ and EXCALIBUR, John Boorman takes the Jungian view that mankind must not separate itself too far from the Way of Nature.) And, with the rediscovered fire of the ancient world during the Renaissance, parts of Northern Europe began to change dramatically and then rapidly, and indeed, the rise of Modernity(as most people understand it) must be credited mostly to France and Northern Europe.
And yet, did Northern Europeans have the sufficient sense of roots-and-home not to get lost in their adventurous lunges forward? Could it be that the people who were most instrumental in bringing about modernity are also among the ones most endangered by it? Suppose there are adventurers with the drive, courage, and curiosity to venture into the unknown but without much in the way to redirect themselves homewards(much like the children in THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA who, once they become immersed in the fantasy world, forget all about the real one until they are brought back almost by accident). They may be the most pioneering people but also the most lost people, and in a way, America has been a world of lotus-eaters where everyone forgets where they came from and who they are, especially as the meaning of 'American' has become pretty useless as anything but mindless consumer, shallow fashionista, and worshiper of Jews, blacks, and homos as the Holy Three. The only exceptions of late seem to be Jews and Hindus. (Even the Chinese cannot maintain their sense of culture and history in the US and Canada because Chinese-ness is rooted in learning & cultivation than blood and spirit. Only Hindus and Jews have something like a consciousness that emphasizes the unity of blood and spirit. For the Chinese, the highest value is education, learning, & status, and that means their priority in the West is to go to good schools and say/do anything to earn them the right kind of status among the right kind of people. In contrast, even as Jews and Hindus are also obsessed with success and status, they still have a sense of who they are that is more important than worldly success. Thus, their ancient consciousness is more resilient in the West. In contrast, almost all other groups have become hapless lotus-eaters in America that might as well be called ‘Amnesia-rica’.) Jews look upon white people in the way that older people look upon younger people. Young people have more spirit and energy but almost no sense of roots and hardly any sense of direction. They are mainly enamored of the New and Now.
Granted, Jews and Hindus of modernity also share in the white obsession with the New — no one can escape from modernity in our world — , but there is MORE to Jewish and Hindu consciousnesses with their deep sense of ‘home’ and roots that are historical, ancestral, and cultural. Their sense of future, ambitious and modern as it is, comes with a map and compass that also remind them of whence they came and what they are with identities that are bigger than any idea, movement, or trend. White consciousness has become like blooming flowers. So fixated on highlights that it overlooks the fact that a flower isn’t just the bloom but the stem, leaves, and roots. And so, HBD community goes on and on about higher white IQ and greater white originality compared to most peoples, but such talk is all about the flowers and overlooks the deeper sense of whiteness that has value regardless of IQ.

At some point in US history, America as big Sweden A gave way to big Sweden B. Jews took over from the Wasps(whose children increasingly came under the intellectual influence of Jews and cultural influence of blacks) and decided to open the flood-gates so that white America could never constitute an effective united force against Jews as the new ruling elites. Thus, America became a World Nation, and as such, it was to absorb all the best talents from all corners of the globe. And in a way, one could argue the US has benefited from this. Because of its large black population, US often produces the best athletes around the world and grabs lots of gold at the Olympics. Also, because of black prowess in funky music, US pop music dominates the world scene. And because of Jewish business smarts and enterprise, US Hollywood dominates global cinema. And US has attracted the best scientists and engineers from the world over, which is one reason why the US leads in high-tech. Not only does the US have a core white population with lots of talent but it has attracted many of the best minds from Asia and Latin America who would rather work in the US and make more money than remain ‘stuck’ in their own nations where they earn less and have to deal with more corruption. US, corrupt as it is, is still not as bad as most major nations around the world.

But what has this done to the white race as a whole? It’s been utterly disastrous. While one could argue that Jews, blacks, and others contributed much to America with their special talents, their success also led to the degradation, humiliation, and ultimately even dehumanization of whites. If Jews had taken elite power and showed gratitude to white goyim as fellow racial brethren, it wouldn’t have been so bad. Instead, Jews used their great power to undermine the white race as much as possible. And what has black music and black sports really led to? Humiliation of the white male, decline in white manhood, and jungle fever among white women. A race cannot survive when the women of the race lose respect for the men. That is a historical truth, and so, while one can admire black achievements in athletics as a form of inter-meritocracy, the effect has been utterly dire for the white race. If whites had kept with intra-meritocracy that excluded blacks, they may not be the best athletes in the world but they could still be the best among their own kind... like the Ancient Greeks were the best in their Olympic events that was open only to Greeks. Isn’t it better to have local heroes for every people/nation than to have one set of global champions for all peoples? According to globo-logic, all nations should have and celebrate blacks since blacks can beat all races. France won the World Cup with mostly black players, but is it really a triumph for France or a symbol of its utter humiliation & defeat? When black Africans are the new face of French manhood and when even white Frenchmen cheer for blacks against whites of other European nations, it is double-cuckery: French bowing down to blacks as their new masters and then cheering on the blacks to beat OTHER whites as well. It's bad enough for French men to resign themselves to defeat and humiliation under black African athletic prowess, but it is downright disgusting when the whites of France hang their 'national' hopes on blacks as New French defeating all the white teams of Europe. Such is the distressing consequence of Inter-Meritocracy that, in favoring the Supreme-Best over Our Team, leads a people to even welcome defeat and humiliation at the hands of the Other as long as the Other has demonstrably superior talents over one's own kind. Now, it's one thing to admire the talents of the Other if indeed they are superior, but it's quite another to replace one's own with the Other simply because the Other is better. While in global competitions, all peoples should acknowledge the top winners, they should protect their own people AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL from the threat posed by the superior other. It's like the US has by far the most powerful military, a fact that must be acknowledged and even admired by all nations. Still, the role of every nation is to protect its own people and military from the Other that could very well be neo-imperialist US. It'd be stupid for all nations to put out and cuck to US power simply because it is the most powerful. Globalism says all the world should put out to US as the lone superpower, all the world should put out to blacks as the sole champions, all the world should put out to Jews as the sole wizard-masters, and all the world should put out to globo-homo as the new faith for all the world; and all of the Middle East and North Africa should put out to Israel as the region's only superpower. I rather admire Syrians and Iranians for saying NO to such hegemonic and supremacist conceits of Jews. Naturally, all people are fascinated by power for power's sake, but the most important question should be, "What is the implication of this power on my people, culture, and land?" It's one thing for coyotes to admire the power of wolves but quite another thing to invite wolves to coyotes' lair.

According to supremacist globo-logic, all nations should serve Jewish finance-capitalism since Jews are most adept and cunning in their mastery of money and trade. It’s like blacks should be champions for all the world, Jews should be money-lenders for all the world, China should be manufacturers for all the world, Hindus should be computer engineers for all the world, and etc. Under inter-meritocratic pressures, the state of the white race has been chipped away from all sides. Smarter Jews took elite institutions away from whites. Stronger blacks took sportsman pride and manhood from whites. East Asians and Hindus are taking college slots and white collar jobs from whites. And even the mediocre browns from south of the border are chipping away at white majority advantage in demographics. And even though America as World Nation is idealized as the place that attracts the best from the world, the current Open Borders madness also attracts many mediocrities and criminal elements. It’s even worse in Sweden where most newcomers, far from being people of skill/talent, are the dregs of society. Current Sweden isn’t even the hypothetical Sweden B that, for all its problems, still benefits from attracting top talent from all over the world. Most people of talent would rather move to the US than to a place like Sweden. Most people who are attracted to Sweden are moronic leeches from Africa and the Muslim World. Thus, Sweden gets the worst of both worlds. The natives lose to newcomers who are utterly without talent or worth as individuals. Meanwhile, the Best of Native Sweden are too brainwashed by PC, corrupted by globalist prizes(handsomely rewarded to cuck-elites who betray their own people and serve the Jews), and earnest in their do-goody national character to smell the coffee and finally wake up and do something about what amounts to White Nakba that will do to native Swedes what Zionist immigration-invasion did to the Palestinians.

Anyway, a healthy nation is about leaders, elites, heroes, and idols who stand up for their own people, and this can be assured ONLY THROUGH Intra-Meritocracy. While it is theoretically possible that the Other, upon gaining the top prizes of society, may commit itself toward serving the good of the native or majority people, it’s usually not the case. Do the white elites of Latin American nations really give a shit about the masses of browns on the bottom? Did Jews who streamed into Palestine one hundred years ago really hope to take control to do nice things for Palestinians? No, they were just laying the groundwork for massive expulsions of the Palestinian peoples. And while one could argue that the British Imperialists did some good for their non-white subjects around the world, their main priority was to make the non-whites serve the British overlords than vice versa. Same goes for the Jewish elites of America. Of course, the many Jewish contributions in science, medicine, technology, finance, media, and etc. have had positive benefits for white Americans. But what is the ultimate ambition of the Jews? To use their power and wealth to do what is good and right for ALL AMERICANS OR to manipulate the system and to mold minds so that ALL AMERICANS will be obedient dogs of Jews. Jewish masters make goy dogs bark at one another but command all goy dogs to roll over before the Jew.
This is why this thing called ‘inclusion’ is really invasion. For a nation to maintain its integrity and viability, it must exclude most foreigners and restrict the competitive field to the nationals. Now, there may be a complicated and arduous process whereupon by foreigners can be absorbed into the national mainstream and allowed to become full citizens, but this must never be easy; it mustn't be like the crazy American way of turning foreigners into full-fledged citizens after only five years whereupon they have voting powers equal to that of Americans whose ancestries go back centuries(and stretch back into millennia into Europe, the civilization that discovered the Americas and birthed the American Civilization). When citizenship is made that easy, the nation is amnesiac than historical, and the amnesiac will always lose out to those who cling to the historical. The fact is the Jewish immigrants with their radical will and tribal resilience had no intention of just assimilating into Anglo-Americanism and becoming Good Americans. Just ask yourself. When all those Jews moved to Palestine, were they trying to become New Palestinians or Good Palestinians? No, they went there with the express purpose of taking over and re-defining Palestine into what they envisioned as the Jewish Nation.

Now, Palestinians and Anglos couldn’t have been more different as the former were small in number and weak whereas Anglos had conquered much of the world and were the most advanced/powerful people in the world. But it didn’t matter to Jews for whom both groups were merely goyim to conquer and control. If Jews saw Palestine as the base for Jewish Nationalism, they saw America as the base for Jewish Imperialism. Thus, Zionism was devised to be against assimilation. Jews moving to Palestine would NOT assimilate to Arab-ism, Islam-ism, or Christian-ism(as many Palestinians were Christian). Rather, Jews would go there with a powerful sense of tribalism and eventually expel the native Palestinians and take over as the New Natives(albeit with ancient historical claims of their own). As for Anglo-America, it reeked too much of Gentile-Nationalism to the Jews. Until relatively recently, to become an ‘American’ meant to become Anglo-Americanized. Not only did newcomers learn to speak English but they were instructed, informed, and entertained with images and words that made Anglo-American history at the center of the national narrative. Thus, even though America expanded with imperial ambitions, it had a certain national core in its self-definition, i.e. in order for newcomers to become American, they must essentially become Anglo-Americanized. That Anglo-element had a nationalizing impact on all Americans, Anglo or not. But with Americanism defined in such manner, how could Jews take over as the New Elites and overlords? It would mean Anglo-Americanism has primacy over Jewish-Americanism. In order for the US to go from an Anglo/American super-nation to a Jewish Globalist-Empire, the Anglo-American element had to be demoted, degraded, and disgraced as much as possible. (And of course, by this time, the English language, especially American English, has become the ‘lingua franca’ of the world, and therefore, many peoples everywhere feel that they own it just as much as Anglo people do. It is one of the dangers of cultural imperialism. While your culture may gain hegemony over the Other, the Other can claim your culture as their culture since it has become second-nature to them. The Jewish God sure became a World God fast enough with the rise of Christianity. And all the roads that the Romans built to conquer other lands became useful routes by which others invaded Rome.) Now, how could Jewish power supersede Anglo-American power? Jews, as relative late-comers, don’t have the foundational claim on America that Anglo-Americans(and some Germanic-Americans) have. Besides, Jews are only 2% of the US population, and furthermore, unlike Christian Civilizations, Jews never wanted to share Jewishness with others. Anglos didn't mind others learning English and emulating Anglo ways, but Jews weren't happy with non-Jews mastering Yiddish or Hebrew or doing Jewishy things. Therefore, Jewishness could never serve as the basis of Americanism like Anglo-Americanism could. If Anglo-Americanism allowed non-Anglos and even non-whites to take on Anglo-ish ways and become good Anglo-ized Americans, Jewish-Americanism demands that non-Jewish groups all get on their knees and bow down before Jewishness. Jewish-Americanism, unlike Anglo-Americanism, doesn’t welcome non-Jews into Jewishness. Instead, non-Jews must merely serve and honor Jewishness. Jewishness lacks the genericism of Anglo-ness and Christianity that allows some degree of acceptance. So, even though Wasp country clubs may have excluded non-Anglos, the modes and manners of Waspiness were open to all. Wasps had no problem with others trying to be waspy, and if anything, were flattered by it in places like India and Hong Kong where the Asiatic natives aspired to be like English gentlemen and ladies. In contrast, Jews really don’t like non-Jews to think, feel, and act like Jews. They only want non-Jews to worship at the feet of Jews.
For that reason, Jewishness could not become the new template of Americanism. While all Americans were to honor, serve, praise, and worship Jewishness, they were always to be reminded that they are NOT Jewish, therefore inferior. Now, if Jewishness could not supplant Anglo-ness as the basis of Core Americanism, what could? Jews settled on Immigrationism because the Jewish-American experience is more about late-immigration than conquest, founding, settling, and building. By making immigration the centerpiece of Americanism, Jews made themselves(and other immigrant-groups) the people with the MOST claim to call themselves Core Americans. Now, one may wonder how this is good for Jews when MOST immigrants, then and now, are NOT Jewish(and many have been even wary of or hostile toward Jews). It’s because Jews became the kingpins of immigration, the most successful group with the most power. A conquering army may be made up of diverse peoples, but the only thing that really matters is the question of WHO are leading the hordes. Romans, Mongols, Turks, and the British used mercenaries and foreigners. As Alexander the Great conquered more territories, he recruited new warriors among the conquered tribes. But in the end, the power was with the Greco-Macedonians because they were the commanders. Likewise, Jews know that most immigrant groups cannot hold a candle to Jewish intelligence, drive, and radical will. Most will never rise very high and will end up serving the Jewish neo-imperialist elites hellbent on finally transforming the US from an Anglo-American(and Anglo-Americanizing) Nation to a Jewish Globo-Homo Empire.

Despite the imperialist aspects of Anglo-Americanism, there was something like American nationalism when immigrant groups were pressured to become Anglo-Americanized. It instilled them with the sense that the US, as powerful and great as it is, is not the world or a World Nation. Rather, it is a nation in which many people from around the world did their best to fit into a pre-established National Mold. In time, they could add to Americanism with stuff like pizza and taco, but there was a Core Americanism that was decidedly Anglo(and Germanic) in origin. But once Anglo-Americanism is degraded and discarded, America will no longer have a national core to bind it together. Instead, it will become a full-fledged World Empire headed by Jewish overlords who look upon America not as their national home but as their prize imperial possession, their Jewel in the Crown. America is to Jews what India was once to the British. The real spiritual national home of the Jews is Israel. Many Jews prefer to live outside Israel, just like so many Brits chose to live outside humdrum England in one of their imperial possessions. Even so, all Brits felt that Britain was their Mother Country, their true home. Likewise, Jews feel nationalist only about Israel. As for the rest of the world, Jews go into imperialist mode as they seek hegemony and dominance over all the goyim. Notice how Jews in Great Britain insist that all Brits support Israel as the sacred homeland of the Jews BUT also insist that UK must be ‘welcoming’ and become part of the globalist empire that is to be controlled by Jews at the top and filled up with Muslims and Africans from the bottom. With Jews, you lose.

Theoretically, it’d be nice if Jews weren’t like this and if they just regarded themselves as ‘different’ white people with much to gain by becoming part of white society. But this is nearly impossible with Jews because of their nature. Due to problems of ‘antisemitism’, it was thought that Jewish nastiness was just an overreaction to gentile mistreatment of Jews, but if we regard post-WWII West as a grand social experiment in Being-Nice-to-Jews, it’s become rather obvious that Jews act even WORSE when they are indulged and allowed to do as they please. But then, this raises the question of whether the main culprit of Jewish Evil is Philosemitism or Jewish nature. We saw with Hitlerism and Maoism what can happen to a nation when radical elements are allowed to run riot and act on their whims with blind support of the masses. Could it be that Jews went crazy after WWII for the same reason the Nazis went crazy with too much power and adulation? Could Jewish Power have developed more sensibly and responsibly IF it had been criticized like Wasp power once was? But then, the taboo of ‘antisemitism’ made it nearly impossible to honestly criticize Jewish power. Anti-antisemitism led to Philosemitism that led to Jews being allowed to indulge all their perversions, sickness, and dementedness.... like with Roman Polanski who is still protected and lionized by powerful Jews as ‘one of us’.

Or, is the problem much deeper? Philo-Semitism or not, is there something about Jewish nature that is innately vile, venal, ugly, and demented? In some ways, Jews developed many positive traits in their devotion to learning and trade, and yet, their immersion in mind and money also made them develop overly fanatical and cunning personalities. And some Jews are so extreme in their mental makeup that they seem utterly lacking in self-awareness of how ludicrous they can be. Andrea Dworkin was a living caricature of such Jewish mind-set but hardly an exception as too much of media, academia, and deep state are crawling with fanatical Jews with extreme personalities and worldviews. Generally, fanaticism, for all its dangers, at least comes with the virtue of earnestness and sincerity of devotion, but what is truly appalling about Jews is how they can be utterly fanatical and devious at the same time. It's like being totally honest with absolute lies. Jews are atrocious in their utter lack of honesty and honor. Even though they claim to stand for Inter-Meritocracy in the name of fairness and equality for ALL peoples, they don’t want to be equal with humanity but above it. They only pretend to care about blacks and non-whites(aka Diversity) to use them against moral, political, and demographic cudgels against whites. Indeed, especially damaging to whites has been the moral weapon of bleating about ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism’ all the time. This isn’t really about justice but merely to silence whites(and other goyim) on the subject of Jewish Power by conflating any anti-Jewish feelings with the Shoah. As for the slavery narrative, why do Jews fixate so much on Anglo-American use of black slaves when slavery had been common all over the world at the time, and besides, Latin America, especially Brazil, imported many more blacks than the US did? And Jews also played a big role in the slave trade, directly or indirectly, as Jews or cryto-Jews. It has nothing to do with Jewish concern for justice. It’s just a power play to instill Anglo-American whites — the most successful and powerful whites around the world — with ‘white guilt’ so that they won’t possess the pride and confidence necessary for independent white interests. Thus enslaved morally, emotionally, and ‘spiritually’ to the dogma of White Guilt, whites will be putty in the hands of Jews, not least because the Holocaust Narrative has elevated Jews to the status of god-men through whom(and only through whom) the rest of humanity can be redeemed.

For Jews, there are two kinds of justice: One for themselves as the Master Race and one for the rest of humanity. There are times when Jews will especially favor one bunch of goyim over others, but it’s all about "Is it good for the Jews?" than for any genuine concern for justice. Granted, there are exceptions among Jews, but they are few and far between. Remember the time when World Jewry were simultaneously allied with Apartheid South Africa and working to undermine white power there? Jews bitch about the bad ole days of Jim Crow but enforce racial policies in Occupied West Bank that are many times more severe than anything in post-slavery American South and South Africa under Apartheid. IDF death squads even mow down women and children in Gaza who want to return to their homeland.
According to Jews, Africans and Muslims who have NO ROOTS in the West have the ‘universal human right’ to invade and take over European nations, but Palestinians who’d lived in what is now Israel for 1,000s of years have no Right of Return. When Jews yammer about ‘universal morality’, it applies only to goyim, never to themselves as they live by the Master Morality of Jewish supremacism. If Jews are really about equality in the US, why do they pressure all politicians of both parties to favor Jews and Zionists over Muslims and Palestinians? How come no politician even raises the question of hypocrisy?

Anyway, Inter-Meritocracy has been a total disaster for the white race. To smarter Jews, whites lost most elite positions. To tougher blacks, whites lost most positions as cultural icons and sports idols that are so rich in symbolism. (Today, white men as cucky ‘white boys’ grow up in the US, Canada, France, UK, and Netherlands to admire black guys in sports and pop culture as their idols, heroes, role models, and representations of Western Manhood. With white males reduced to such embarrassing cucky-wuck status, white women have naturally been infected with jungle fever and welcome ACOWW as it’s part of female nature to go with the ‘winner’, and in our vulgarized and debased culture of thuggery and open sexuality, victory is measured in terms of who can holler loudest, punch hardest, and hump longest.) Having lost elite positions to Jews and manhood symbolism to the blacks, can whites at least look forward to dominating most white-collar jobs that offer job security and decent livelihoods? No, because endless mass-immigration from China and India will mean that whites will have to compete for those white-collar jobs with yellows and dotkins who, though not brighter, are more committed to studying night and day to make the exams.

Your EMPATHY

and COMPASSION

have been EXPLOITED pic.twitter.com/VotAZtZ3WZ

— Battle Scarred Russian Bot (@AggroRussian) August 9, 2019

And whites even lose out to competition of quantity and economy. As browns keep pouring into the US from the south and as American jobs can be shipped off to nations with cheaper labor, working class whites lose to what might be called Inter-Mediocrity. Naturally, the working class is about mediocrity. It’s about people with average intelligence and limited knowledge. Thus, they cannot win in the game of meritocracy. Still, they can perform many tasks that don’t require advanced skills. True nationalism protects the Mediocrities as part of the national family, and traditionally, the working class of nation-states were favored, protected, and taken care of by the state and its elites. But no longer under globalism. If American mediocrities can be replaced with cheaper mediocrities, globalism says JUST GO AHEAD to boost the profit margins of the elites. So, just like Intra-Meritocratism is preferable to Inter-Meritocratism, Intra-Mediocritism is preferable to Inter-Mediocritism; the former protects the national working class from mediocrities from all over the world who may be willing to work for pennies than for dollars, for beans than for burgers.