I have come to realise recently that Civic Nationalism for White people is a massive compromise, and in fact -- in a way -- is admitting defeat. For me: genetics, race, ethnicity are primary. Ideology is secondary, and something that we can argue about later.
We should all know that ethnic diversity harms social cohesion, and the worse the conditions, the more the will to tribalism is deepened and enforced. For Europeans particularly, to accept Civic Nationalism as an ideological basis to manage our continent under would lead the end of European civilisation itself -- as we are seeing its degeneration since the flood-gates from The Third World have been very intentionally flung-open.
I am a big supporter of the America First movement, but felt the entire movement's previously coherent, pro-White, European, nationalistic character was... at least harmed by the whole Ye24 period. It lead to a lot of media attention, but at what cost? The ideological coherence of past expressed beliefs, and a move toward a type of civic nationalism, where your White, nationalistic movement all of a sudden is worshipping muh' based black guy, and having him represent their movement -- when interracial crime stats are what they are and most black people are not likely to ever support your movement (while what it stands for becomes increasingly unclear). Call me prejudiced, but I don't think it is good for the movement, nor is promoting rap/black culture to White people generally.
I am all for making allegiances, but how do those allegiances affect what your movement represents. For Europeans especially, it is literally a biological imperative that we do not concede, nor take the L of accepting Civic Nationalism as an acceptable doctrine for Europe -- as it would literally be our undoing.
Well, I will put a comment here. I used to think Keith could be a good leader for the anti Jewish supremacy movement but now I am doubtful, as he's liking "moving certain populations out of itself".
That's just white supremacy instead of Jewish supremacy. And hypocrisy too, with the "meritocracy" in title. (I have no problems moving the illegals out.)
The Jewish idiots said that "even the best non-Jew should be killed". And now what you are inferring is that the best of "some-minority-you-hate" should not live well and be moved out.
You just put that supremacy tag on yourselves with much less techniques than the Jewish supremacists.
I am not ashamed to say that some black people, like Candace Owens, Kanye, Dom Lucre etc seem better than many white people. The South Africans in ICC too. The country has very bad apples, but what are the Irish politicians doing in ICC? And you just keep bashing them because of some whatever sampled averages? Should Jews and Asians endlessly bash you too? If you justify moving them out of countries because of whatever sampled averages, should the Jews justify the replacement they are currently doing on you too?
What’s missing from this discussion/debate is the fact that, as long as the current trajectory of mass immigration continues (Great Replacement), Whites will have no other choice but to define themselves by their race. Once Whites become just another minority among other minorities, the other minorities (POCs) will join together to form the majority opinion. As ultimate arbiter, they will decide who is what. What classical liberals intentionally ignore is the fact that the individual is not the sole decider of what reality is within the context of society. Progressives certainly get this though, evinced by Pronoun Usage laws, which basically state that it’s insufficient to simply allow the individual to self-identify, in order for it to be real and legitimate, we must authenticate it collectively. So, sometime in the near future, the argument about White identity will be irrelevant. Whites will have no other choice but to recognize their race, because they will be defined that way anyway. As it stands, it’s a luxury belief (of privilege, perhaps) to assert that White identity is a nonstarter.
“Meritocratic” societies end up being dominated by mid-wits and normies anyways, not based geniuses or supermen. The real issue is reviving genuine Aryan/European culture, without which any white society is doomed to failure.
"To get over the taboo of talking about racial differences, White conservatives need to get over the taboo of talking about race as something deeper than skin colour, and that means also acknowledging that they, as Whites, have interests."
Whites are not one big homogeneous group with one big homogeneous interest. The fact that there are white leftists Cofnas hopes to convince is evidence of that.
This is not any kind of *prescriptive* individualism either, but simply descriptively correct. One may wish to assert a big homogeneous shared interest among all whites, but that's what it would be, a wish. Not, as suggested here, some cold, mere description of reality.
This is a tiresome non sequitur that is often repeated ad nauseam by centrists.
Ideological alignment is immaterial to the reality of nature's existential primacy; our core existence and essence precede and transcend such transient posturing. The fact that it’s possible for minorities to achieve collective action advancing their standing in western society is evidence of that.
In similar vein, you have those that will argue that Israel cannot be described as a homogeneous monolith since they possess a left and right politics, this is obviously existentially irrelevant to the state, but without the ethnic basis, it would fall apart.
"Core existence and essence" is mystical-sounding bullshit. Nature's "existential primacy" does not even remotely manifest in "white interests." White identity is as much an act of social construction and story-building as a liberal identity.
You know how it sounds silly when somebody prefaces with, "speaking as a black woman..." and then goes on to say something some other black woman disagrees with? It's no less silly and useless if coming from a white person. If said, they're only speaking as a particular white person with a particular interpretation of "white interests."
Arguments from incredulity are staples of the ignorant. It’s the opposite of abstraction and construction, biology is the concrete foundation of our nature.
You would make no hesitations in realising this if the question were posed in terms of sex, speaking as a “male” or speaking as a “female” have never been understood as delusional or mystically construed forms of identification, because they aren’t chosen.
The fallacy in this form of thinking comes from conceiving the world as one entered into by pure individuals bereft of a priori properties, of course this conception doesn’t represent the actuality, since individuals don’t exist independently, they are instead predicated on their biology, environment, etc.
"Arguments from incredulity are staples of the ignorant." So in other words, "I can't believe that that isn't Santa Claus and his reindeers flying in the sky" is a sign of ignorance? (Or what would you put in the category of Santa Claus here?)
Male and female categorical slots are far more concrete than racial classification; I submit that racial classifications cluster around something categorically meaningful, but the complexity and granularity of discrete cultural and individual expectations shatters any kind of essentialist or reifying aspect of such race categories.
There is a biological drive to make and female that suggests certain life strategies that are nowhere near as open-ended as racial classification.
This isn’t an argument of nominalism vs platonism - despite myself belonging to the latter - we can presuppose the nominal perspective and still find no reason for your disregard.
For one, it’s special pleading to claim that one form of natural distinction is exempt from categorical validity by your justification, since the application of the continuum argument - note that this itself is a fallacy - wouldn’t discriminate between different expressions of biology, be it sex or race.
If you want to make an argument from degree, once again you would not find grounds to instrumentally privilege one over the other, since racial variabilities - morphological metrics as an example - can and do exceed sexual ones.
If you were to apply scientific predictive validity as justification for categories, then sex and race would both meet this criteria.
However, this is tangential to the issue, and I believe this is intensional on your part since you avoided the previous contention against your worldview. Whether you consider something categorically valid or not, says nothing regarding the fact that there exists non-arbitrary and relevant natural differences that are consequential in the world, and this is true whether it offends ones sensitivities. Biological disparities as they relate to ethnicity/race have always played a pivotal role in the unfolding of history and societies.
Well said. As usual anti-Identitarians oppose Identitarianism mostly on the ground that it offends their liberal individualistic sensibilities, and not because they have some genuine coherent moral or even scientific opposition to it.
It's actually not silly at all that people experience life through their identities. Would you make this assinine assertion about male and female identity? Probably not because it's obvious that men and women have different life experiences on average.
You know what's in the interests of all Whites? Not getting demographically replaced by non-Whites. That's called a collective racial interest.
Hey . I think you correct I think my right wing solution. To police brutality will help . I think only air cops guilty of brutality not departments caused covers ups . I think two be able to fire and ended union correct g protecting bad employees . I think have rival police agencies investigate for budgetary conpetition . I think babe quota cause incentives to arrest not based on quality . I think our mandatory city statics based on race on crinmal and linked to crime not to population . I think population of law abiding minorities than crinminal population . I think track police brutality for cities and counties .I think ban police . I think add something to this . I saw poll 33 of blacks support repealing Obamacare 30 percent repeal food stamps ,30 percent social security reform ,38 more police the rest keep the same to 82 percent , many favor school voucher , and moderate pro business policies up to 60 percent . The same for Korean 33 and jap 31 percent .
"The more fundamental problem with endorsing colourblind meritocracy is that ignoring racial differences means we are unable to offer a credible explanation for the consistent gaps in achievement across races."
You goofed up prescription and description here. One can use race realism to deconstruct Disparate Effect arguments, but it doesn't follow from that that one should become a White Nationalist.
You'll need a different argument, one that surveys history and tradition and appeals to abilities and proclivities. Even that won't work on everybody, nor should it necessarily, but it would be closer to the target.
For borderlanders it is their history, tradition, ability, and proclivity to be more tribalistic. For lowlanders it is their history, tradition, ability, and proclivity to be more corporatist (meritocratic). Both groups should be free to develop as continues and evolves these sets, and of course any individual from either group elect to move where they see fit.
Finally, you say that White identitarianism will roll back Wokeism. Certainly there can be groups identifying and organizing, but what Wokeism really is is the resentment of Power, which WN does not fix and in most circumstances is an iteration of itself.
What's the point of this article? You want "Colourful" meritocracy? If so, that's not meritocracy, but nepotism.
Of course there can be differences if you sample some "averages", but that doesn't deny the probability and reality of exceptional individuals who can define their own identity and life. Or do you just deny yourselves because of samples of Jewish and Asian average IQ scores?
You say 'Mere concern for fairness will not mobilise the right to match the fervour of the woke left, overlooking glaringly obvious truths about race will leave our explanation of the world incomplete."
And the "glaringly obvious truths" you focus so much about are mainly just the average sampled IQ scores and the crimes etc. But here we are talking about meritocracy, which is judging a person based on his merits. So are those relevant? Putting "colorless" or "colored" before "meritocracy" is already an oxymoron. Are you talking about denying all the people regarding their competency just from some whatever samples? Or you need those to gauge an individual's merits? If so, you are incompetent.
"Whites will need collective action"
OK, you may help yourselves. You are pushed around left and right in Europe by Jewish collective actions anyway. But that's not meritocracy, that's mimicking Jewish nepotism.
I think the article sounds more like "We do not need clourblind meritocracy, we need collective white action to advance the white interests and for white interests only." The candidness would save my time.
On the point of structural racism: in short, it simply means that a society delivers for those people who devised it, and other peoples living in such a society will get differing outcomes on average; ofttimes, though not necessarily, inferior ones.
Put like that, why not? If when the battle is fought upon these lines, our countries find their constitutions, societal structures, and social fabrics have insufficient defenders because they serve our people too well, then we have simply failed ourselves.
Supposing this is not inevitable, then 'structural racism' may well be a useful, and perhaps even in some wise accurate, concept. If so, it is a baby that should not be thrown out with the grimy bathwater of 'equality'.
The apparent drive towards colorblind meritocracy style solutions seems to be the same old "defeat liberalism with this one simple trick" style thinking that leads people on the old quest for the silver bullet. If we can win an academic debate in one critical area then the whole system will come crashing down, or at least it will temper people's expectations about achieving equity between population groups. To me it all seems like a kind of refusal, an expression of a wish to "step over" decades (or centuries) of criticism directed at right-wing beliefs because we can't hope to make a moral case for our positions. They have hundreds of movies, thousands of books, tens of thousands of papers, critiques, studies, hell plenty even say that history itself is on their side. That's why a simple solution, even if it is directed properly towards refuting the central premise of egalitarianism, will never be accepted. This is because people did not arrive at egalitarianism by intellectual error but rather due to moral commitment.
On another point, it seems like many of the people pushing the pivot back towards colorblind meritocracy fall into the so-called racist liberal faction. Let's have a national revolution but without the nation and without the revolution. It's always a tad difficult to trust the intentions of guys like that, it really reminds me of the infamous Elves & Hobbits essay by Yarvin where he seemed to say the quiet part out loud. "The hobbits can only win by taking power from one group of elves, then giving it to another group of elves...Like any conceivable regime, the new regime will be largely staffed with elves; by definition, these elves will be dark elves". I think what we're seeing with Cofnas, Hanania, BAP etc. is a push in that direction and they want the so-called hobbits to shut up with their wacky identitarianism and unpalatable takes while they lead us to MeritocracyLand. The issue is, that isn't really the proper end goal, or at least not the one we had in mind. This is because it's based on that same avoidance tactic mentioned earlier, where they basically assume that liberalism can't be overcome theoretically or morally so they decide to be content with winning a smaller victory in the sphere of race realism (and even then people like BAP say this victory shouldn't even be acknowledged).
If a majority of white people end up abandoning radical egalitarianism would it matter to a system that is entrenched by its zealots though? I mean they've already largely been handed the reigns of power and as we've seen liberal democracies treat popular will as at most a triviality: leveraged when beneficial and ignored when it's not, as though it's a mild nuisance. How do we change this?
I have come to realise recently that Civic Nationalism for White people is a massive compromise, and in fact -- in a way -- is admitting defeat. For me: genetics, race, ethnicity are primary. Ideology is secondary, and something that we can argue about later.
We should all know that ethnic diversity harms social cohesion, and the worse the conditions, the more the will to tribalism is deepened and enforced. For Europeans particularly, to accept Civic Nationalism as an ideological basis to manage our continent under would lead the end of European civilisation itself -- as we are seeing its degeneration since the flood-gates from The Third World have been very intentionally flung-open.
I am a big supporter of the America First movement, but felt the entire movement's previously coherent, pro-White, European, nationalistic character was... at least harmed by the whole Ye24 period. It lead to a lot of media attention, but at what cost? The ideological coherence of past expressed beliefs, and a move toward a type of civic nationalism, where your White, nationalistic movement all of a sudden is worshipping muh' based black guy, and having him represent their movement -- when interracial crime stats are what they are and most black people are not likely to ever support your movement (while what it stands for becomes increasingly unclear). Call me prejudiced, but I don't think it is good for the movement, nor is promoting rap/black culture to White people generally.
I am all for making allegiances, but how do those allegiances affect what your movement represents. For Europeans especially, it is literally a biological imperative that we do not concede, nor take the L of accepting Civic Nationalism as an acceptable doctrine for Europe -- as it would literally be our undoing.
Thanks for writing this Keith. Personally I can’t see America putting an end to its problems without moving certain populations out of itself.
If the DR admits colorblindness it admits defeat.
Well, I will put a comment here. I used to think Keith could be a good leader for the anti Jewish supremacy movement but now I am doubtful, as he's liking "moving certain populations out of itself".
That's just white supremacy instead of Jewish supremacy. And hypocrisy too, with the "meritocracy" in title. (I have no problems moving the illegals out.)
The Jewish idiots said that "even the best non-Jew should be killed". And now what you are inferring is that the best of "some-minority-you-hate" should not live well and be moved out.
You just put that supremacy tag on yourselves with much less techniques than the Jewish supremacists.
I am not ashamed to say that some black people, like Candace Owens, Kanye, Dom Lucre etc seem better than many white people. The South Africans in ICC too. The country has very bad apples, but what are the Irish politicians doing in ICC? And you just keep bashing them because of some whatever sampled averages? Should Jews and Asians endlessly bash you too? If you justify moving them out of countries because of whatever sampled averages, should the Jews justify the replacement they are currently doing on you too?
Let me guess... SS22 is not White? :o
What’s missing from this discussion/debate is the fact that, as long as the current trajectory of mass immigration continues (Great Replacement), Whites will have no other choice but to define themselves by their race. Once Whites become just another minority among other minorities, the other minorities (POCs) will join together to form the majority opinion. As ultimate arbiter, they will decide who is what. What classical liberals intentionally ignore is the fact that the individual is not the sole decider of what reality is within the context of society. Progressives certainly get this though, evinced by Pronoun Usage laws, which basically state that it’s insufficient to simply allow the individual to self-identify, in order for it to be real and legitimate, we must authenticate it collectively. So, sometime in the near future, the argument about White identity will be irrelevant. Whites will have no other choice but to recognize their race, because they will be defined that way anyway. As it stands, it’s a luxury belief (of privilege, perhaps) to assert that White identity is a nonstarter.
“Meritocratic” societies end up being dominated by mid-wits and normies anyways, not based geniuses or supermen. The real issue is reviving genuine Aryan/European culture, without which any white society is doomed to failure.
Good time for builders. We are White but have to be born again: ethnogenesis thickens the air. Let's build.
"To get over the taboo of talking about racial differences, White conservatives need to get over the taboo of talking about race as something deeper than skin colour, and that means also acknowledging that they, as Whites, have interests."
Whites are not one big homogeneous group with one big homogeneous interest. The fact that there are white leftists Cofnas hopes to convince is evidence of that.
This is not any kind of *prescriptive* individualism either, but simply descriptively correct. One may wish to assert a big homogeneous shared interest among all whites, but that's what it would be, a wish. Not, as suggested here, some cold, mere description of reality.
This is a tiresome non sequitur that is often repeated ad nauseam by centrists.
Ideological alignment is immaterial to the reality of nature's existential primacy; our core existence and essence precede and transcend such transient posturing. The fact that it’s possible for minorities to achieve collective action advancing their standing in western society is evidence of that.
In similar vein, you have those that will argue that Israel cannot be described as a homogeneous monolith since they possess a left and right politics, this is obviously existentially irrelevant to the state, but without the ethnic basis, it would fall apart.
"Core existence and essence" is mystical-sounding bullshit. Nature's "existential primacy" does not even remotely manifest in "white interests." White identity is as much an act of social construction and story-building as a liberal identity.
You know how it sounds silly when somebody prefaces with, "speaking as a black woman..." and then goes on to say something some other black woman disagrees with? It's no less silly and useless if coming from a white person. If said, they're only speaking as a particular white person with a particular interpretation of "white interests."
Arguments from incredulity are staples of the ignorant. It’s the opposite of abstraction and construction, biology is the concrete foundation of our nature.
You would make no hesitations in realising this if the question were posed in terms of sex, speaking as a “male” or speaking as a “female” have never been understood as delusional or mystically construed forms of identification, because they aren’t chosen.
The fallacy in this form of thinking comes from conceiving the world as one entered into by pure individuals bereft of a priori properties, of course this conception doesn’t represent the actuality, since individuals don’t exist independently, they are instead predicated on their biology, environment, etc.
"Arguments from incredulity are staples of the ignorant." So in other words, "I can't believe that that isn't Santa Claus and his reindeers flying in the sky" is a sign of ignorance? (Or what would you put in the category of Santa Claus here?)
Male and female categorical slots are far more concrete than racial classification; I submit that racial classifications cluster around something categorically meaningful, but the complexity and granularity of discrete cultural and individual expectations shatters any kind of essentialist or reifying aspect of such race categories.
There is a biological drive to make and female that suggests certain life strategies that are nowhere near as open-ended as racial classification.
I will shelve everything else for now...
This isn’t an argument of nominalism vs platonism - despite myself belonging to the latter - we can presuppose the nominal perspective and still find no reason for your disregard.
For one, it’s special pleading to claim that one form of natural distinction is exempt from categorical validity by your justification, since the application of the continuum argument - note that this itself is a fallacy - wouldn’t discriminate between different expressions of biology, be it sex or race.
If you want to make an argument from degree, once again you would not find grounds to instrumentally privilege one over the other, since racial variabilities - morphological metrics as an example - can and do exceed sexual ones.
If you were to apply scientific predictive validity as justification for categories, then sex and race would both meet this criteria.
However, this is tangential to the issue, and I believe this is intensional on your part since you avoided the previous contention against your worldview. Whether you consider something categorically valid or not, says nothing regarding the fact that there exists non-arbitrary and relevant natural differences that are consequential in the world, and this is true whether it offends ones sensitivities. Biological disparities as they relate to ethnicity/race have always played a pivotal role in the unfolding of history and societies.
Well said. As usual anti-Identitarians oppose Identitarianism mostly on the ground that it offends their liberal individualistic sensibilities, and not because they have some genuine coherent moral or even scientific opposition to it.
Well said sir 👏🏻
It's actually not silly at all that people experience life through their identities. Would you make this assinine assertion about male and female identity? Probably not because it's obvious that men and women have different life experiences on average.
You know what's in the interests of all Whites? Not getting demographically replaced by non-Whites. That's called a collective racial interest.
Hey . I think you correct I think my right wing solution. To police brutality will help . I think only air cops guilty of brutality not departments caused covers ups . I think two be able to fire and ended union correct g protecting bad employees . I think have rival police agencies investigate for budgetary conpetition . I think babe quota cause incentives to arrest not based on quality . I think our mandatory city statics based on race on crinmal and linked to crime not to population . I think population of law abiding minorities than crinminal population . I think track police brutality for cities and counties .I think ban police . I think add something to this . I saw poll 33 of blacks support repealing Obamacare 30 percent repeal food stamps ,30 percent social security reform ,38 more police the rest keep the same to 82 percent , many favor school voucher , and moderate pro business policies up to 60 percent . The same for Korean 33 and jap 31 percent .
"The more fundamental problem with endorsing colourblind meritocracy is that ignoring racial differences means we are unable to offer a credible explanation for the consistent gaps in achievement across races."
You goofed up prescription and description here. One can use race realism to deconstruct Disparate Effect arguments, but it doesn't follow from that that one should become a White Nationalist.
You'll need a different argument, one that surveys history and tradition and appeals to abilities and proclivities. Even that won't work on everybody, nor should it necessarily, but it would be closer to the target.
For borderlanders it is their history, tradition, ability, and proclivity to be more tribalistic. For lowlanders it is their history, tradition, ability, and proclivity to be more corporatist (meritocratic). Both groups should be free to develop as continues and evolves these sets, and of course any individual from either group elect to move where they see fit.
Finally, you say that White identitarianism will roll back Wokeism. Certainly there can be groups identifying and organizing, but what Wokeism really is is the resentment of Power, which WN does not fix and in most circumstances is an iteration of itself.
What's the point of this article? You want "Colourful" meritocracy? If so, that's not meritocracy, but nepotism.
Of course there can be differences if you sample some "averages", but that doesn't deny the probability and reality of exceptional individuals who can define their own identity and life. Or do you just deny yourselves because of samples of Jewish and Asian average IQ scores?
You say 'Mere concern for fairness will not mobilise the right to match the fervour of the woke left, overlooking glaringly obvious truths about race will leave our explanation of the world incomplete."
And the "glaringly obvious truths" you focus so much about are mainly just the average sampled IQ scores and the crimes etc. But here we are talking about meritocracy, which is judging a person based on his merits. So are those relevant? Putting "colorless" or "colored" before "meritocracy" is already an oxymoron. Are you talking about denying all the people regarding their competency just from some whatever samples? Or you need those to gauge an individual's merits? If so, you are incompetent.
"Whites will need collective action"
OK, you may help yourselves. You are pushed around left and right in Europe by Jewish collective actions anyway. But that's not meritocracy, that's mimicking Jewish nepotism.
I think the article sounds more like "We do not need clourblind meritocracy, we need collective white action to advance the white interests and for white interests only." The candidness would save my time.
On the point of structural racism: in short, it simply means that a society delivers for those people who devised it, and other peoples living in such a society will get differing outcomes on average; ofttimes, though not necessarily, inferior ones.
Put like that, why not? If when the battle is fought upon these lines, our countries find their constitutions, societal structures, and social fabrics have insufficient defenders because they serve our people too well, then we have simply failed ourselves.
Supposing this is not inevitable, then 'structural racism' may well be a useful, and perhaps even in some wise accurate, concept. If so, it is a baby that should not be thrown out with the grimy bathwater of 'equality'.
The apparent drive towards colorblind meritocracy style solutions seems to be the same old "defeat liberalism with this one simple trick" style thinking that leads people on the old quest for the silver bullet. If we can win an academic debate in one critical area then the whole system will come crashing down, or at least it will temper people's expectations about achieving equity between population groups. To me it all seems like a kind of refusal, an expression of a wish to "step over" decades (or centuries) of criticism directed at right-wing beliefs because we can't hope to make a moral case for our positions. They have hundreds of movies, thousands of books, tens of thousands of papers, critiques, studies, hell plenty even say that history itself is on their side. That's why a simple solution, even if it is directed properly towards refuting the central premise of egalitarianism, will never be accepted. This is because people did not arrive at egalitarianism by intellectual error but rather due to moral commitment.
On another point, it seems like many of the people pushing the pivot back towards colorblind meritocracy fall into the so-called racist liberal faction. Let's have a national revolution but without the nation and without the revolution. It's always a tad difficult to trust the intentions of guys like that, it really reminds me of the infamous Elves & Hobbits essay by Yarvin where he seemed to say the quiet part out loud. "The hobbits can only win by taking power from one group of elves, then giving it to another group of elves...Like any conceivable regime, the new regime will be largely staffed with elves; by definition, these elves will be dark elves". I think what we're seeing with Cofnas, Hanania, BAP etc. is a push in that direction and they want the so-called hobbits to shut up with their wacky identitarianism and unpalatable takes while they lead us to MeritocracyLand. The issue is, that isn't really the proper end goal, or at least not the one we had in mind. This is because it's based on that same avoidance tactic mentioned earlier, where they basically assume that liberalism can't be overcome theoretically or morally so they decide to be content with winning a smaller victory in the sphere of race realism (and even then people like BAP say this victory shouldn't even be acknowledged).
Great article Keith and I agree with you.
If a majority of white people end up abandoning radical egalitarianism would it matter to a system that is entrenched by its zealots though? I mean they've already largely been handed the reigns of power and as we've seen liberal democracies treat popular will as at most a triviality: leveraged when beneficial and ignored when it's not, as though it's a mild nuisance. How do we change this?