> technocratic managerialism is most certainly a factor in the 21st century. why pretend otherwise? let's give it some nuance. the level of meritocracy in > liberal democracies is not only misguided, but also lesser in degree than that found in five-eyes/ngo/usd regions. for my claim on the magnitude of meritocracy, consider the well-documented fact that standards of living in america, the core of globohomo, have dropped since the 70s, when they peaked. this period coincides with several other metrics, most relevantly to /pol/tards, the fact that jewish over-representation was not a real thing until after this point. which is when the fever of standardized testing was killed, coincidentally. is it not a tell-tale sign of institutionalized nepotism the fact that recommendation letters are a core requisite in the american educational system? also, you can see other minorities starting to become overrepresented after this time other than the. the yakubian devils, the mormons in intelligence, indians in politics and 'tech', etcetera. is it not mere tribalism that somehow was given free-reign after > more holistic metrics were institutionalized to protect accumulated power? now, that last rhetorical question pertains more to the > misguided meritocracy claim. organizations triumph over others because they are faster to lay claim to key resources: tribe ugg had better spear-chuckers than tribe grugg, so the uggs won. some madlad in china invented the stirrup much later, and it extended like wildfire, because it allowed illiterate steppe riders to slam a spear with the full weight of the horse, terrorizing merchant city-states for god knows how many centuries. the anglos put copper-sheath under their ships, tearing the spaniards a new one. and it was not due to > superiority precisely, but because the organizations at the time allowed for the talent that was needed to float to the top when needed.
Mexico