Having standards is not conducive to the, shall we say, natural mathematics governing material transactions.
Standards are bad because they presuppose a value to the individual, or to the group of individuals. Consider this one's recent material flaw in the Utility of Football post: posit that this one recognizes Nu Euro society as less expensive, less offensive, less risky, et cetera, than any other society now feasible on a large scale on modern Terra. Contrasted with a self-consuming Semitic society that burns out once it has nothing else to burn, a Mongoloid hegemon settling into tyrannized ritual based around overperceived past forms, or an African stasis of casual violence, et cetera, Nu Euros provide, despite their many extreme problems, the least painful environment of any Terran group. What remains of their sense of individuality might be frequently sufficient to limit conformists' revenge to a rotating cycle of social slights and percentile subsidizations--annoying, to be sure, but providing a less painful stay than the barren wastes, mob attacks, or un-self-aware reeducation camps of available alternatives.
Trapped here, therefore, it is stupid to complain about Nu Euros' sundry stupidities. We've seen this in all ("most") nationalisms, whereby Nu Euros themselves often fracture pragmatic material movements based on some level or another of standards, such that a "less capable" but unified Balrin group is able to triumph. Terran "Blacks" are, for example, able to demonstrate sufficiently tribal behavior that they will engage in concerted action on behalf of the very same stupid and violent males who represent their lowest theoretical and actual aspirations. E.g., Africoids might demand national policy favoring Africoids on behalf of a fatherless drug-user who has randomly killed three Africoid infants, one of whom might've otherwise, in a climate free of people like his killer, raised aggregate test scores and/or fostered a talented future with reduced violence and inherent technology. This behavior does not limit itself to within the confines of Nu Euro societies; we may perhaps more closely remember the actions taken on behalf of Martin Luther King or Freddy Gray, wherein Africans fought for group benefits on behalf of men who exemplified the opposite of their theoretical aspirations. E.g., to note details not particularly currently controversial, Gray the planned suing frequently shooting drug dealer, or King the philandering devotee of worshiping the slavers' god-child, for being abused and/or killed by a military empire no less. Besides devaluing the actually educated, stable members of some future society that might provide medicine or food or technology, these individuals took years, or lives, away from infants, whether by random gunshot or plausible recrimination or mass protest.
And yet, the collective response to rally around the social scion, irrespective of personal qualities, proved to be materially beneficial to the group. King further inculcated complaining for stuff rather than achieving stuff, which produced a certain kind of material (genetic) gain at the expense of another--say, selecting for agitating for tithes based on ancestral wrongs versus selecting for inventing devices or performing labor. Whether King or Gray were effective or not, chance will tell. A meritocratic future may eliminate people who adopted their acted passion for weakness and sloth, but more likely, an extractive future will, in the short term, vindicate them, proving that slothful wastrels are more efficient growers and reproducers in certain ages. Not only slothful modernity, but long millennia of history, have vindicated these perspectives, for hypothetical societies of isolated, hard-working Africans would, even had they been known to achieve commensurate reproductive or technological success since the 300s A.D., have been swarmed by interested outsiders in the modern European fashion, and be seeing similar effects. Indeed, the ancient destruction of more-proximate Terran Balrins ("blacks") by today's university-proven African may be at least as profound, archaeologically speaking, as that of pre-Christian Europeans. Ergo the Gray/King platform may really be more effective.
In a pre-robotic present or near future, we may see an even greater selection for Kings and Grays, as distracting laborers through the process of "freedom to work more" becomes, like feminism to the hapless female, a legitimately beneficial occupation for extractive overseers, who would as before provide substantial rewards, both pecuniary and historically, for the great distractors. Terra's 2017 Bank("s") may regularly evict Africans, who often do not view their encumbrance by "property taxes" with any better understanding than they do that of their historical slavery. As in 1765, 1865, or 1965, honest secession could have proven ultimately beneficial to the transmaterial character of the African; King may well have arrived at such a conclusion himself, had he not been executed by his handlers for crossing the Vietnam boundary. Of more material benefit, though, was to compromise principles real or imagined and stay, extracting as long as there was something to extract.
Within Nu Euro societies, of course, the Gray/King platform is hyper-effective, permitting growth and/or survival in pseudo-meritocratic environments which would otherwise eliminate or marginalize non-conforming groups. We mentioned earlier that, as regards Africans, the Gray/King method has not been recently adopted. It was the willingness of assuming tribal identity, whatever the cost, that has colored African politics from record-available history to the present, taking with it any dreamers who might've otherwise charted a different course. Ergo Africa. Millennia of petty warfare, fruitful loyalty to child-killers and mass-rapists, et cetera, produced strains that would survive, and do so by sticking together, being unwilling to critique traits--such as mass murder of cousins--which would, at first glance, seem to be material losses.
This returns us to Nu Euros and American football. One of the many material failures of Nu Euros is the ability to self-criticize and self-analyze, to self-harm, and to cast out insiders who have betrayed ideals beyond the group. We see corresponding differences in the modern African feminist's critiques of, say, Michael King's behavior toward women with Donald Trump's, based on their perception of each individual's group membership. And Nu Euros are hurt by this, because they are mostly willing to not only look down on the idiots who watch professional football, but imprison them for thoughtcrime, while most Africans advocate for the unrestrained action of the crack dealer whose stray gunshots killed one African infant and three miscellaneous African children (and thereby affected the lives of X others, et cetera). Whether or not the thoughtcrime in question is just or unjust is irrelevant; what is important here is the material effectiveness of the willingness to persecute members of one's own group. To win the material war, one has to be willing to protect, condone, and even embrace one's own group members, even as perceived by outsiders, and even when such theoretical members are harmful to one's own group. Ergo "Black Lives Matter" protects Africans who beat and kill African women and infants, at the expense of outgroup police officers who, on their own, would statistically eliminate killers while providing increased welfare to otherwise-surviving women and children.
(Imagine a hypothetical future where cornfed "White" cops investigate and shoot without fear of lawsuit, cutting down every "Black" male who is randomly shooting or raping or robbing from his kin, and the effects that would have, both genetically and socially, on Africans in America. Eliminating all such Whites would produce, of course, a South Africa filled with shot and starving and raped Black infants, while giving the Whites free rein would necessarily produce a segregation that would shortly favor Blacks who read, wrote, calculated, spoke, consent-sexed and random-gunshotted and time-managed better, producing the less-violent Black societies that should, in theory, be better for Blacks.)
Is, then, support for people who shoot at local enemies and kill a nearby community member, babies included, a foolish strategy? No--successful strategy. Protecting one's foulest improves group cohesiveness, reassuring every possible supporter that one is serious about material victory. African politics since before colonialism, and after resulting African introduction to Europe, have been defined in part by this principle, where people are willing to follow, worship, and/or vote for a leader who slaughters the most babies from his own village. In seeming defiance of "genetics" and "evolution," the result has been strongmen forging and reforging societies which have survived, waxed, waned, ad infinitum as it were, and may yet eat up societies which attempted to make villains of kinslayers.
It at first seems foolish to worship ones who rape and kill their own people. How many Afros did MLK roughhouse before he broke through to paid Nu Euros? How many rape-murders happened in the Middle East before the rapefugees arrived in Sweden? How many children never knew their fathers, mothers, relatives, or years past the fourth because of this or that warlord? A population greater than or less than a Microsoft-funded immuno-camp? However the math might have worked out in any given series of cases, the (material) social benefits are significantly higher than the costs. As Jenome has lectured us many times, having changeless flexibility in imagining the newfound existence of ever-present and well-classified tribes is necessary to win. You have to think not only double, but be able to go back to the first version without realizing you've been there before.
It is not only outside funding to Africa that motivates such successful behavior, for centuries of baby-killing embracing has caused Africa to thrive. Not comparatively as to Europe for some time periods, but successfully as to others. Nu Euros, feeling insulted when one of their own is merely rude, cast him out; their concern for some kind of honor, gentile-ness, or a "higher standard" causes them to ultimately fail against groups who work to free members who rape their own children or embarrass their own kind among materially superior others. We see, therefore, Semites embracing exposed spies, or protecting the boy-diddlers of Tel Aviv, from international scrutiny or fitting punishment, and thriving for it, whether domestically or via diaspora. This is not because it serves a higher truth, or even results in more healthy children and communities in the short term, but because it results in more successful genetics in the long term: group identity is coalesced in a way successful to the destruction of other groups. Long-term planning without scruples, even for the self, proves materially successful. Any planning for scruples, though, ruins the effect, for what is true today may be changed tomorrow, and be then fully and completely true, as was today's truth, therefore it has proven foolish to establish enduring standards of good, evil, right, wrong, et cetera. As Christians have been correctly, if with disgusting motive, reminded frequently for the past hundred years (c. 2017 Terra now), what people believe to be good or healthy then and now, here and there, has ever changed.
Nu Euro benevolence and forgiveness--as displayed in Hugo, Dickens, or Dumas--seems to create a "better man." And indeed it does, but it is a better terminal man, ultimately so convinced about the meaning of transmaterial goodness that material failure results. This one reminds us again of Components of Material Superiority, wherein we discussed the impossibility of good materially besting evil. Part of this rationale is what we've discussed here, wherein trying to improve one's own self (or one's own "racial stock") through the elimination of traits harmful to others (or "lowest-common-denominators" in society, such as by bogging child-rapists), whether moral or intellectual, is based on transmaterial ideals which will mandatorily fail here.
It's rather an unpleasant material catch. If Nu Euros suddenly became united in their support of sitting in front of the Talmudvision watching game shows and professional sports et cetera, they might take stupid, yet successful, actions in ultimate service to their group. They'd end up ceasing to produce as many, then any, non-televised deviants, and the result would be their destruction by one or more means. Alternatively, splitting themselves in the name of transmaterial ideals--"we should be better than the NFL"--will also result in their destruction. Play by the material rules, or lose. Take a corporate job or be homeless; refuse Fed-tied donations and starve, leaving only hypocrites behind, or be a hypocrite yourself.