The Unimportance of Individual Accomplishment:

My previous post completely demolished the theory that all races have more or less achieved equal results across time. The idea that sometimes some races do better, and other times other races do better, is a complete myth. In fact, Caucasians have been the leaders in all fields of human accomplishment across all time. Starting in ancient Babylon and leading up to the present, we've always had better government, better art, better warriors and better math/science/philosophy than our Mongoloid or Negroid competitors.

This post is going to smash the next liberal myth. According to liberalism, individual variation is more important than group variation, therefore people should all be judged as individuals instead of as members of a group. But is this actually true?

In all of African history, was there a single Negroid individual who accomplished anything? If he did, it was forgotten instantly and never made it to the next generation. The difference between the greatest Negro ever and his Negro compatriots is so small as to be invisible. They both left zero human accomplishments whatsoever behind them. Why judge Africans as individuals? They all are equally worthless. Insofar as black individuals are worthwhile people in the modern age, it's because they are no longer members of a black group, but are part of a larger, more effective whole, like the majority non-black USA. In fact, high-performing modern black individuals prove, definitively, that group accomplishment is a more powerful, vital factor than individual accomplishment.

Think about it. If there were a hundred black Einsteins in prehistory, we don't know anything about them and they left nothing behind. But if a black today is good at anything, they can become president of the United States and leader of the free world. All individual black accomplishment is, therefore, due to the opportunities given to them by their larger group, ie, the American people, not due to their own individual merit. That same level of individual merit, if it had existed in the context of Rwanda or Haiti, would've resulted in nada, zero, zilch.

Individual achievement is only made possible by the people around said individual. There is no such thing as a 'lone genius' and even if there were, his achievements would not be transmitted to the future so they would be essentially meaningless. There is, therefore, no such thing as an individual achievement. At the very least there needs to be people to observe the achievement and remember it after your death. Every achievement is a group achievement. Everyone starts off as a helpless baby, so at the very least everyone's achievements must be partially shared with their mothers who gave them suck, right?

Unless you're saying many great individuals were raised by wolves in the wilderness, never learning human language, who went directly from howling in the wilderness with their packmates to discovering quantum physics?

But if you're dependent on your family for your 'individual' success, what about the neighborhood who gave your family a job? What about the police who kept you safe? The firemen? The schools that educated you in your youth? What about the miners who got the coal that heated your home while you studied for school? Weren't they all necessary as well for your one moment of 'individual' achievement?

And then what about the past? Wasn't everything that existed in the present, from your city to your school to your laws to your economy to your language to your infrastructure, all of it due to people who lived and worked in the past? What about your genes? Didn't they evolve in the past? It's not like individuals make their own genes, or their own environment, so they aren't responsible for a single damn thing that went in to their own shaping. If you aren't responsible for who you end up being, how can your accomplishments be your own? Don't they belong to everyone who ever affected you in any way across all time? Aren't they, in fact, a shared achievement between millions, if not billions of people who all worked together to achieve this final result?

The greatness of individuals is directly correlated to the opportunities their society gave them, the inspiration other great men gave them, the financial support of outside investors or government aid, the stability of their home environments, the genes of their ancestors, etc. It has little if anything to do with the individuals themselves. Great individuals are basically the luckiest members of a group. The group churns out accomplishment at a constant and steady rate, that is determined by the group's quality. Individuals just happen to luckily be the vessels, the bearers, the custodians of these group accomplishments at any given time. If they hadn't done it, someone else would have, at around the same time. Notably in science this phenomena has occurred over and over. Two different people invented calculus, Newton and Liebniz. Two different people discovered evolution. Two different people invented the light bulb. And so on. Individuals aren't important. Groups that continuously produce great individuals ARE.

Trying to judge people as individuals is hopeless. The only fair measure of someone 'as an individual' is if he were raised by wolves. Every single wolf man we know today hasn't contributed in any way to human accomplishment. Wolf men are not known for their nobel prizes or their best selling novels. They aren't known for anything.

Why should I judge people as individuals? If a black man is doing well, it shouldn't do credit to him as an individual, it should do credit to whatever group that produced him. All high achieving blacks, for instance athletes, politicians or musicians, were given their opportunities to excel by whites. Therefore all black accomplishment actually only does credit to the white race. Sucks, huh? But blacks in their own countries do not enable great black men. So why should blacks get credit for black achievement in majority white countries? Clearly the vital factor here is the white group, not the black individual. There are black individuals in Africa and America, but they only achieve anything in America. Am I supposed to turn a blind eye to this strange fact?

Good groups produce good individuals. Every individual alive today exists thanks to the group that nurtured them and empowered them. Every great man of the past exists thanks to the group that remembered and honored him. There is no such thing as an achievement in isolation. Individuals, meanwhile, cannot produce good groups. A good person in the midst of evil is simply powerless to save even himself, much less anyone else.

Only the average worth of a group has any relevance. An evil group will tear down all good individuals. A good group will make any good individual even better. The group determines EVERYTHING.

If someone says to me that X hispanic or Indian achieved Y feat, I must first ask them, in the context of what group? If they did it by living among whites or working in a white country or using white invented technology or relying on white philosophical/political concepts, then it's meaningless. The idea that whites aren't essential because individuals from non-white groups can succeed by relying on a white group is fallacious. Once that white group is gone, the individual accomplishments of said non-whites will also disappear. Only if individuals accomplish something as a result of their own group can you say whites are unnecessary so let's go ahead and breed/demographically displace them out of existence. East Asians have shown some merit in being able to achieve on their own without us, though almost everything good about East Asia was borrowed from whites. No other culture can say even that. They're all completely incapable of creating a decent life for themselves, absent our intervention and help.

To actually prove that individual variation is more important than group variation, you would have to point out a high density of individual achievement in the midst of a dysfunctional society. To do that, you would need 'individual' achievers who emerged spontaneously from out of their OWN GROUPS. Like Athena from the head of Zeus, nuclear physicists would have to start popping out of Somalia and Zimbabwe and storming the nobel prizes and Olympics without any assistance from anyone.

You can't simply point at an individual and say, look, X individual isn't white but he's great, because said individual is transient and will be dragged down by the average worth of their group without us. Why is the NFL in America and not Africa? Because without white fans paying the big bucks, blacks can't play football, now can they? So it doesn't matter how good they are at football, their football skill only does credit to the larger society around them which gave them that opportunity -- a white society. If it were the other way around, the premier football league in the world would be in Africa, not America.

Judging everyone as individuals is a meaningless concept. Instead, we should judge people by their group affiliation. IE, what group are they for? A good group, that creates individuals of high average worth? Or a bad group, that destroys everything it touches? A black who affiliates himself with 'America,' 'freedom,' 'capitalism,' or 'football' is probably a great guy. This is because he is part of a good group. He makes the group strong, and then that group goes on to make other members of the group, the children of the next generation, even stronger. But if a black says he's a 'black,' then he's a terrible person, because he's part of a terrible group that has done nothing in history but rape, loot, and destroy.

There's no such thing as an individual accomplishment, but individuals do have free will to pledge their loyalty to the group of their choice. People are not *just* black or *just* women or *just* homosexual or *just* anything else. They can discard these innate properties and choose to join a more wholesome group spiritually and intellectually. A black who simply happens to be black, but is loyal to the white group, Western Civilization, is actually a great guy. A white who just happens to be white, but is loyal to the black group, drugs and rap, is a complete loser.

The easiest and most accurate way to judge a person by is what groups he has identified himself with. Find out what someone loves and is loyal to and you have found out his worth. Whatever he personally achieves is due to the group he loves. Likewise, the things he loves were at least partially successful due to his support. Therefore, the group's worth is his worth, and his worth is the group's worth. The strength of the wolf is the strength of the pack, the strength of the pack is the strength of the wolf. The only important decision or action any individual can make, the only time an 'individual' can be judged for anything at all, is the moment of decision, which pack the wolf joins. After that it's all just inevitable.