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 superior to an average Soviet soldier, but the Soviets made up the deficit 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 the Chinese were able to hold their own with sheer numbers.
Quality-power is preferable, but if your people at least have quantity-power, they may survive or even prevail in a conflict with quality-power. Even a tiger or grizzly bear will fall to sheer quantity. In India, there’s a wild dog known as the dhole, and while a tiger is immeasurably bigger and stronger than any 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 America don’t hang their hopes on taking over elite institutions and industries. Still, 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 birth-rates have declined and, if anything, Mexico has the danger of being inundated with poorer folks from Central America. Mexicans don’t care for them and do their best to shoe them into the US, just like Greeks 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. With their control of the media, academia, entertainment, and deep state, Jews now manipulate and control goyim as a calculus of Jewish Power. Jewish Influence has colonized the hearts and minds of countless minions via the power of tele-communications, search-engine monopoly, and social-network-domination.

So, even though most Americans aren’t Jewish, their ‘souls’ have been Jewish-infected and, unbeknownst to themselves, they think, feel, talk, and act in ways that ultimately serve Jewish Power, a demonstration of clever use of quality-power gaining control over quantity-power as its proxy. 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 explains Jewish paranoia and the agenda of divide-and-rule. If the white ‘right’ and white ‘left’ regard each other as mortal enemies across an unbridgeable divide, the Jewish ‘left’ and the 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. Ideas-serving-identity usually prevails over identity-serving-ideas.

Jews have both a modern ideological mind and ancient tribal mentality. Throughout history, ideologies come and go while 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(or idolatry, especially of the Other, namely Jews-blacks-homos), white ‘right’ and white ‘left’ hate each other, thus the white race is a house divided unto itself. Abraham Lincoln may have preserved the Union, but Jewish Power presides over the Great White Divide.

Because Jews put identity above ideology, the Jewish ‘right’ and Jewish ‘left’ are brothers and sisters behind the curtain. Throughout history, a people whose identity encompassed the unity of the elite and the people outlasted those whose identity was owned by the elites. Among the many great ancient tribes, why were Jews among the very few who survived into the future 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 and 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 militant 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 and empires came to value the lives of goy subjects. The 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. Thus, goyim could see themselves as worthy children of the just and loving God than as chattel-subjects of their worldly overlords.

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, eventually to fade from history despite its relative geographical isolation. 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 power of the Jewish elites, Jewish identity wasn’t solely invested with elite power. Even if the Jewish elites were to fall or be shipped to the 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.
It’s possible that Jewish culture came to value the average man of the Tribe 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 things out, your average Jew was more likely to question the rulers as to what’s 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 settled by 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 their problems. They figure, “Since the liberal democratic West is dying, the fault must be with democracy itself.” (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 died just the same.

In the end, it depends on WHAT KIND of democracy(or any kind of polity). Consider how democracy in Israel and Turkey turned those nations more rightist. In the case of the right-wing Franco regime in Spain, it spawned generations of wanna-be leftists and liberals. Soon after Franco died and a republic was established, the vast majority of Spaniards threw their lot with the most decadent and globalist elites one could imagine.

And, it was under rule by reactionary monarchies or autocracies that some of the most extreme leftist movements developed in Russia and Latin America. Also, 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 umbrella 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 as there is no one-size-fits-all autocracy, there is no single kind of democracy. Democracy is not doomed to become ‘decadent’ and ‘degenerate’. Democracy can be a 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 aren’t so smart and gained their wealth and influence mainly through nepotism, tribalism, and other anti-meritocratic means. And, Asians are dismissed as mere grinds who focus on acing entrance exams. There was a ridiculous site called Caste Football arguing that sports are rigged against whites, and THAT is why blacks dominate so many premier and/or most popular sporting events.

Even though the Glob and Progs denounce ‘white supremacism’ as the worst of all sins, 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 and magnanimous. A key 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 comers in just about everything. It was this gentle kind of white supremacism that made the white race(especially the elites) overly confident, indeed complacent in their dominance, resting on their laurels and not taking 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. So, what did it matter if the Rule of Law were extended to include all groups? Whites would win anyway. It’s like men do not worry about letting women into men’s sports because women are No Match against men. White Success and Power were such that white people took their supremacism for granted and became Nice Supremacists. Let nonwhites compete against whites and in the white world. What did it matter? How could nonwhites possibly win the competition against the great white race?

Had white inferioritism shaped white thinking, whites would have been less likely to take it easy and opt for fair play and competition with other races. Inferioritism is the reason why many female athletes are upset over tranny-men competing as ‘women’. Women know that they are inferior to men athletically, and the entry of wigged men into women’s sports will lead to women losing out.

Imagine if whites had thought in inferioritist terms vis-a-via the other races or peoples. 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 to allow blacks to create their separate domain and remain apart from the weaker white race. But too many whites, full of supremacism, were either too arrogant or too 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. Of course, there was the third kind who did fear the black threat but couldn’t overcome the anxiety of pride to admit as much. They couldn’t admit to their fears and feelings of ‘inadequacy’ in relation to the black threat.

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 the 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 Jewish Problem, 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 only too aware of the Jewish Question, but the others among the Anglo-American elites regarded Jews as hard-working immigrants with dreams of becoming Good Americans(or maybe useful partners of the white race). Besides, even if Jews found success in the New World, how could such a people compete with the great Anglos?

It was such supremacist assumptions that made Anglo-Americans blind to what the Jewish nature(in will, personality, and worldview) really portended. White supremacism bred complacency of security and power. It’s like a lion, as the king of the jungle, brushing aside 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, the Jews are pretty intense and intelligent too. They are pushy, driven, and have radical wills. Not only are they smarter than us, but they have stronger personalities, tougher will, deeper hatreds & resentments, shameless cunning, 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 could have spotted the dangers posed by Jews, but the 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 one another, if only because facing the music would have forced them to racial brutalism(as opposed to the genteel racial attitudes that didn’t ruffle the feathers of a society of ladies and gents), something their upbringing in manners and sensibilities hadn’t prepped them for.

White elites took their dominant position for granted as virtually eternal. It was similar to 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. Even many animals smaller than humans were ferocious or venomous and posed dangers. So, humans didn’t play around in nature. They knew that humans, being inferior in speed and strength, had to develop certain skills to defend themselves against other species.

But modern comfort made folks feel smugly superior to the animal world and take their vaunted status for granted(and even look upon nature with a fawning sentimentality, as if it’s one giant paradisiacal playground, like in James Cameron’s AVATAR movies). While civilization has given humans a huge advantage over animals, it doesn’t follow that animals aren’t dangerous or that humans aren’t relatively weak. Without the protection of civilization, most humans would be helpless against the forces of nature.

Just because the system favors your well-being 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 always change over time, especially if whites allowed nonwhites to gain power in the white world). White advantage rested 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. (The early Jews who formulated Christianity were said to have been profoundly influenced by Greco-Roman ideas and culture).

Just like the decathlon athlete is not the best athlete in every event — he will lose in events matched against the very best sprinters, shot-put throwers, javelin chuckers, etc. — , the same goes for the white race, but the general all-around talent of the European people has been hard to beat. 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 was evident among the Greeks who restricted participation in the Olympics 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, all the more troubling as the gladiators weren’t regarded as heroes like the Greek Olympians but as lowly slaves forced to pit their lives against other gladiators or animals to live another day.)

Even though the merito-competitive spirit of the Greeks did wonders for their civilization, Greeks made a clear distinction between themselves and the ‘barbarians’. The winners in the Greek world had to be Greek or sufficiently acculturated and absorbed into Greekness in order to be a part of the Power/Prestige Game. Jews understood this principle as well, which is why they came up with the Covenant that restricted Sacred Learning for the Jewish people. If non-Jews sought entry into the Tribe, they had to undergo the most grueling hazing in the form of circumcision, which was enough to keep the goyim out. Even among early Jewish Christians, it was assumed circumcision was essential for conversion among the goyim until Paul argued that the New Faith was about circumcision of the heart than of the pud. At least the Jews were circumcised as babies who had no idea what was up and had no memory of the wringer they were put through. Just like it’s far 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, the Jewish domination of finance-academia-media, the 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. They might argue, “Those nonwhites are taking over because we gave them opportunities to compete against us.”

Would it be preferable for whites to live in a stable Racial/National Aristocracy where the white ruling class, exemplifying the BEST of society, protects the interests of white folks? Some believe that aristocracy was about meritocracy, but it wasn’t. While there were surely talented and intelligent aristocrats, one was an aristocrat 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 codes to live by, the odds were equal 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 prove themselves in industry and business. Also, as capitalism bestowed the biggest profits to those involved in the production of new-and-improved items on the market, it provided powerful incentives for those with a knack for science & technology and design & engineering. While intelligence was prized all throughout history, never had it been so ‘monetized’ to produce super-profits. 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? One factor has been that, whereas the aristocracy was raised and inculcated with a sense 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 merely constituted a class, one aspiring to be dominant by More Money.
In contrast, because honor was central to the nobility, 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 their respective wealth.

The competition between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie was one between elite vs elite as neither group constituted the unwashed masses. Aristocrats ruled over the vast numbers of peasants, and the bourgeoisie ruled over the 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 that purportedly had the well-being of the peasants in mind. The Russian Tsar regarded himself as the father-figure of the nation.
In contrast, the bourgeoisie presented themselves as the agents of tireless change of great benefit to mankind granted 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 prevailed(despite the 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 the bourgeoisie grew less confrontational and more accommodating of one another, forming a kind of ‘aristogeoisie’. (The failure to bring about such a compromise in Russia may explain why it led to revolution.) 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 through the power of bourgeois capitalism. It was a force that simply couldn’t be put back in the bottle. In return, the ascendant bourgeoisie would attain ‘class’ and ‘dignity’ by emulating the aristocratic ways, marrying with aristocrats in relative decline, and purchasing titles from the aristocrats. 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 the mass 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 as the bourgeoisie also constituted an exploitative class like the aristocracy before it. Bourgeois power also meant continued Elite Domination. The ONLY way to ensure People Power was by a 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 led to pampered children raised in an entitled bubble-world. 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 inch in their climb to the top.

Thus, according to fascist ideology, their power was real and well-earned whereas aristocratic privilege was essentially soft and passionless, presented on a silver platter from birth. (Of course, such charge wasn’t entirely fair because plenty of aristo-families were 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 the nation. While Fascism recognized the economic role of the bourgeoisie and wasn’t averse to them in the way of communism, it was convinced 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 argued the People could 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 possessed of a vision of society & culture that go beyond privilege or profits. Fascism rejected communism as overly ‘materialist’, too much at odds with nature, too drab and ‘plain’ in its idealization of the Worker, and too abstract in its universalism.

One reason why the embattled fragments of the ruling class following World War I supported fascism as protection against communism was it allowed for 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 modern masses, aristocratism was too reactionary, unjust, and irrelevant to the changing times while bourgeois-ism was too materialist, heartless, self-interested, and ‘greedy’. And, 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.

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 protectors and/or tyrants, lorded over them. As modernity led to the rise of mega-cities of rootless individuals, 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 demography became concentrated in cities, there was power in sheer 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 infectious, and in Europe, even the urban poor felt freer than their ancestors who’d toiled in the fields as tenant-farmers and the like. Despite the problems of urban poverty, it was psychologically more assured to be ‘free’ and ‘independent’ than live under the power of the lords and their overseers. While bossed around on the factory floor, one nevertheless belonged to oneself after work whereas tenant-farmers, even off-work, always felt as subjects of the land-owner. Unlike farmland, every square inch of which belonged 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.

Yet, late modern capitalism is 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 the peoples of the world but is really dominated by the US as neo-empire that is, furthermore, controlled by Jews, an intensely tribal 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 paeans 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 the domination of entire spheres by just a few races or groups. The Leninist question of Who/Whom is central to globalism. Apparently, it’s perfectly fine for SOME groups to have dominance far out of proportion to their numbers, whereas the demise of certain groups, especially White Goyim, cannot be celebrated enough EVEN WHEN white representation in nations that they’ve built falls below proportionality.

For those who are understandably distraught about the state of the white race in America, meritocratism is an easy scapegoat. 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 found civilizations there and build them up. That being the case, 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 and build it? Why should America belong to MOST PEOPLES AROUND THE WORLD who had NOTHING to do with its foundation and development? Diversity-and-Inclusion assumes that whites have no autonomous worth & value and therefore whatever they did and do must be for the Others. Whites might as well be cattle. 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 implies 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 argue that the main problem is ‘affirmative action’, quotas, and other forms of statism. Some value libertarianism as a de facto 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 over the years, 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.
White libertarians assured themselves 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 it weren’t for ‘affirmative action’, wouldn’t whites win in areas that require brain power? But here, whites lost out to the 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. In areas where whites were bound to lose 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 invoked the past ‘justice’ to deny fair competition to whites.

Most of all, however, libertarianism 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 Jews and blacks in some areas, they nevertheless maintained the advantage in numbers. But, even that eroded away with the massive arrival of browns from ‘Latin America’, yellows from Asia, and various other groups from all over the world.

Even the demographic advantage was lost, but as libertarianism emphasizes individuality at the expense of unity, it couldn’t explicitly address the racial issue, the real reason why many white conservatives gravitated to libertarianism in the first place.

If the masses of browns from the south did most to reduce white demographic power, the arrival of yellows and Hindus from Asia posed yet another cerebral challenge to the whites. Prior to the massive arrival of Asians, only Jews bested the whites. Asians began to take over slots in colleges and institutions that were founded by white folks in the American Past. What began as a matter of posterity turned into a kick in the posterior, not least because, at some point, the Anglo-American elites lost confidence and prestige 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.

The rise of the West owed greatly on its dynamics of incentives. Even within the West, certain societies advanced far ahead of the others in large part due to their sense of fair play, rule of law, code of honor, and culture of dignity. Such a mind-set became more pronounced among Northern Protestant Europeans than among Eastern and Southern Europeans, such as the 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, instead of confessing and apologizing when exposed, they pulled their hair and threw tantrums(though not on the level of Negroes who are utterly destructive and can’t even maintain a corrupt version of civilization on their own; under black rule, civilization itself is lost).
Meritocracy factored even less in most non-white nations where whom-you-know mattered 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 with hardly any applicable value beyond political philosophy.

Now, if meritocracy has done 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 a sense of limits. By ‘race-ism’, it’s meant the belief in the reality of 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 a defense against Global supremacism that presses upon all peoples to favor and choose the Best even when it’s 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 hellbent on gaining domination over your group), you should 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 the enemies of your race. Globalist supremacism is the ultimate nihilism of power. How has Europe fared by surrendering to the athletic prowess of blacks and the financial-intellectual power of the Jews? If anything, Europe is falling apart.

For most of white history, meritocracy was limited to the people of the race and community. While exceptions did exist, especially concerning the whites of different ethnic origins across Europe and the Americas, meritocracy wasn’t simply a game 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 of the whole community. Also, a distinction had to be made among the various endeavors in terms of their influence. Surely, allowing someone of the Other to rise to the top as a laboratory scientist isn’t as socio-politically consequential as allowing him to rise to a key political, social, or cultural position. Elite positions in most fields are about expertise, not social or political influence. Werner von Braun made rockets for the US but had no means to shape the discourse or narrative, a power went to Jews who gained near-monopoly and power-of-idolatry in the academia and media. Therefore, allowing full meritocracy in certain fields is far less dangerous than in others.

Of course, if another race or people pulled ahead of the game and made key advances, their superior achievement should be recognized, and your people should learn from them, as the Japanese did in the late 19th century to catch up with the obviously more advanced West. Still, the trick 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.

Historically, to ensure that meritocracy would serve your people, it had to be intra-meritocracy, or fair competition and fair play among those within the Tribe. And the individuals needed a consciousness that bound them to his people. 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 a part of something bigger than merely ‘me’.

As for the entire world or 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 a family is limited to blood relations and close ones. While one can feel camaraderie 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 the globalist regimen, everyone(except for Jews) is pressured to forgo what is ethno-culturally meaningful 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 close to 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 nonwhites into Good Americans. This had always been problematic with blacks. But when massive amounts of nonwhites kept coming and coming, they went from trying to assimilate to 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 on. The great experiment is failing in the US, Canada, Australia, and across Europe(that now models itself on the Jewish-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 the official ideology insists whites may compete for success and privilege only as deracinated atomized individuals, whereas nonwhites, 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 have been so bad. But as a matter of fact, even though the white race m