/lit/ - Literature

>>17211570
So you agree it's not human nature then.
I rest my case.

You want to know why there is no racial solidarity amongst whites?
That's because the Aryan spirit is inherently meritocratic.
Picture a white owned business in need of a position as a coder. There's two applicants: a white guy with a highschool diploma and an Asian guy with a bachelor's. The business is going to choose the Asian because he is better qualified. The white guy isn't going to receive the position just because he has the same skin color as the business owner.
This is why European societies have flourished in comparison to tribalistic or nepotistic societies. Contrast the Arabs and their abysmal military performance in recent times. This is due to the fact that the generals who get promoted are brothers or cousins of the top brass. Promotion is therefore based not on merit, but familial relation. Hence why their militaries are so incompetent.
Now while the Aryan spirit might be meritocratic, it's also really naive.
Whites presuppose that we live in a meritocratic society when this is obviously not the case. They believe that everyone is "playing by the rules" when the other races are not.
You can clearly see this with Jews: unlike whites, they promote their own, at the expense of more talented gentiles. This can be seen in Hollywood, journalism, etc.
This is bad for society. Nepotism and tribalism don't select based on merit, and hence performance suffers. It leads to stagnation in the arts for example, as the endless sequels, remakes and reboots in film. The same tired themes of race and gender are rehashed in the publishing industry, for it is not on merit, but rather race or sex that an author gets published or not.
Whites have to wake up. It goes against our meritocratic instincts but they are going to have to start favoring their own because the other races are not going to play by the rules. But maybe they won't.
The Aryan spirit is too fair and noble for its own good

>>15679713
>How do you define "The System" in explicit terms?
Society

>>15528762
It cannot be claimed that spontaneous changes of such enormous scope are even possible. If they were, society would essentially be random.
What is also under doubt is that there exists (or existed) an organisation with the intent and, more importantly, capability to bring about this state by itself. That explanation is as false as the previous one.
The true issue can be found in the interplay between the market economy and old, republican liberalism. Old liberalism explicitly prided itself on republican virtue. The citizen, living for the republic, dying for the republic, the very essence of human virtue. Naturally, the real republican regimes failed to produce such a citizen, but it was nonetheless a theoretically central piece. Now think about contemporary liberalism. As old liberalism believed that the elimination of arbitrary constraints would bring about true civil virtue (which consciously connected itself to the old Roman virtue), so contemporary liberalism believes that the elimination of arbitrary constraints will allow for unrestrained arbitrariness. Because this is the way that it considers man. The part that was considered essential to it, beyond any arbitrariness, had been theoretically rejected, and what is left is nothing but arbitrariness, the pursuit of whims, desires. How had such a significant change come into being? Part of it was its connection to the market. Because the very essence of market ideology is the pursuit of wants, whims, with all other action being given an instrumental role in attaining this divine arbitrariness (as opposed to virtue, considered the greatest good). There were also other influences - the theoretical rejection of human essence, the development of social sciences, which are blind to philosophy. But I believe that this connection with market ideology was essential, because it brought about today this poisonous mixture that pervades all society.
Once old liberalism gave place to new liberalism, it is easy for you to see how development continued. Sentimentalism became all-encompassing. Marketing companies merely decided to capitalise on the way of thinking that is inherited from the American civil rights movement and the American protests of the sixties (for this is a mostly American phaenomenon, and, luckily, still evades my dear republic). First, to distinguish themselves as virtuous. Then, to avoid being singled out as the only without virtue.