Why is ‘white liberation’ preferable to ‘white nationalism’? Fairly or unfairly, people associate ‘white nationalism’ with aggression and conceit of superiority. It gives the impression that whites got the power and want to show it off by rattling their sabers.
But the West is now under Jewish control like India was under British control, like Algeria and Vietnam were under French control. So, the emphasis must be on the need for whites to free themselves from Jewish Power. The theme of liberation is more appealing and justified than theme of mere power. After all, the great theme of the post WWII era was NATIONAL LIBERATION all across Asia, Africa, Middle East, and Latin America from European Imperialism or American Hegemony. And as the theme of WWII was the ‘free world’ vs the aggressive imperialism of Germany and Japan, it was difficult for the great powers after the war to justify their rule over others.
So, ‘white liberation’ is preferable to ‘white nationalism’, at least for the time being. Now, if skeptics ask, ‘liberation from what?’, whites can say from Jewish Supremacist Power, which can be amply demonstrated with data and facts. Jews do control the West. Jews not only got money power but made themselves into the new messiah-race. It’s one thing to remember the Shoah as a great tragedy but quite another to permanently affix Jewish Identity with that event. Such implies Jews are always a race of ‘holocaust victims’ no matter what they do. So, even if Jews act like Nazis toward Palestinians, we are supposed to see them as a bunch of poor poor Anne Franks.
Anyway, ‘white liberation’ will highlight the fact of Jewish Power, an absolute must for real change to take place. (How can there be any reform if the most powerful group is not identified and criticized? Can a cancer victim be properly treated without acknowledging the cancer?) ‘White Nationalism’ can mean the need for white unity & power. Or it can mean white power as the basis for world domination. Nationalism need not be imperialist but often took an imperialist turn in the past when a nation became very powerful.
In contrast, ‘liberation’ emphasizes the need for whites to seek emancipation from the current power that dominates the West and the World… which is Jewish Power. (Even ‘white national liberation’ sounds better than mere ‘white nationalism’.) White Politics that only focuses on whites and white power is less likely to be appealing than White Politics that seeks freedom from the actual tyranny that rules the world: Jewish Supremacist Power or JSP.
Also, whites can argue that White Liberation will lead not only to white emancipation from Jewish Evil but will save the world. Why? Because Jewish Supremacist Power would dwindle overnight if white folks chose WGTOW or whites going their own way. If whites refused to serve the Jews, no more Wars for Israel against Arabs and Muslims. No more support for Zionist ‘genocide’ of Palestinians. No more ‘new cold war’ with Russia. No more whites acting like dumb dogs who bark and bite whatever their Jewish Masters hate. When whites say NO to Jewish Supremacism, peace will prevail around the world as whites will no longer do the bidding of hateful supremacist-imperialist Zionist Jews. And far less need for ‘yellow peril’ hysteria about China-China-China to distract Americans from the fact that Jews are the main enemy of the white race and goyim in general. Just ask the Palestinians about the nature of Jewish Power.
Think of ‘Israelis’ and ‘Palestinians’ as meta-memes. ‘Israelis’ would be the winners and tyrants, and ‘Palestinians’ would be the losers and the tyrannized. It is the dream of many whites to be ‘Israelis’, fellow winners alongside rich and powerful Jews. Jewish identity/pride united with white identity/pride. But this is a dumb dream. Jews will NEVER accept whites as equals. Even as white praise and acknowledge Jewish identity & pride, Jews will denounce white identity and promote white shame/guilt. Thus, the ONLY way whites can rise in the Jew World Order is by turning race-traitor and cucking as collaberals or cuckservatives. All the Bidens and Romneys of the world. And Jared Taylor the deluded fool isn’t much better.
Given that Jews regard whites as ‘Palestinians’ than fellow ‘Israelis’, whites should identify with Palestinians, that is unless they enjoy being race-traitor cuck-collaborators. (There are, of course, Palestinian collaborators who get rich while serving Zionists.) While Jews are free to gain power as an identity and group, whites can only gain riches as individuals, ones that cravenly collaborate with Jewish Supremacists. No white man with any self-respect and dignity should choose this path.
Now, the key to the success of White Liberation will be the emphasis on humanism & justice than nihilism & supremacism. (Kurosawa Way than Mishima Way.) The problem with people like Greg Johnson and Richard Spencer is they oppose Jewish Supremacism by associating themselves with forms of White Supremacism. Johnson wrote glowing things about Adolf Hitler who brought upon unprecedented disaster for the white race with his Aryan-Germanic supremacism, and Spencer blabbered endlessly about his vision of a new world-white empire. How stupid is that? You get zero moral points by opposing one form of supremacism in defense of another. It’s like denouncing a robber just so you could steal yourself. The only convincing argument is NO ONE should steal — indeed, the dirtiest secret of Jewish Power is that it denounces white supremacism not as a principle against supremacism per se but to make browbeaten whites serve Jewish supremacism, a bait-and-switch; this is the dirty secret that needs to be exposed by the White Liberationist Project.
Unfortunately, David Duke, Greg Johnson, and Richard Spencer all soiled themselves with association with KKK, Neo-Nazism, or Anglo-Imperialism. (Of course, it should be acknowledged that imperialism has long been a part of human history, and it did good as well as bad, spreading ideas and expanding trade routes along with the violence and tyranny. So, to the extent that Western Imperialism united the world and spread modernity all over, it did a lot of good that balances out the bad. However, as the world has been so thoroughly united via technology, there should be no reason for further imperialism and supremacism. And it seemed all the world was agreed, except that American triumphalism and Jewish ascendancy after the Cold War led to a new age of empire, one that has been utterly worthless except as conduits for Zionist madness, Afromania, Globo-Homo and mass deaths across the Middle East and North Africa, as well as mass migration into the West from the Third World.)
David Duke could have done so much more without his KKK association. He will forever be smeared as a former-KKK member. Greg Johnson of late seems to reject Hitlerism in his personal formulation of ‘white nationalism’, but the Hitler-stain is like the Mark of Cain. Spencer is proof that smarts isn’t enough. Lack of character, emotional imbalance, and megalomania(personal and racial) spell disaster.
This is why white liberation or white national liberation should be founded on humanism and justice. Universal Nationalism is justice because it acknowledges that all peoples deserve their rightful portions of history, heritage, and territory. Globalism wages war on this sense of justice EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ISRAEL — Jewish Exceptionalism as always. According to Jewish-controlled globalism, all the world should support Jewish-Israel’s right to exist BUT every goy nation should be remade with mass-migration and mass-miscegenation, especially with the Negro.
Too often, ‘white nationalism’ has been associated with neo-nazis, skinheads, KKK, and overly paranoid militia movement types. (True, whites have much to worry about, but more guns are not the solution when most of the culture war, idol war, and ideological war are done with the pen, mikes, and cameras than with guns and bullets. Militia movement emphasizes guns than lenses.) ‘White Liberation’ can be associated with humanism that acknowledges the worth of all races and groups.
And even though White Liberation would mostly be about freedom from Jewish Supremacism, it should also address the need for white independence from black supremacism. The problem with white folks who opposed the Civil Rights Movement was they spoke and acted as if blacks were not good enough for whites. A far more effective argument would have been that blacks are superior in certain attributes, and these make blacks arrogant and aggressive against whites, the weaker and slower race who, upon racial integration, often fall victim to black supremacist thuggery; and white men get jack-johnsoned into wussy cucks as tougher blacks kick their butts, and that means the white race loses its human right to manhood, its right to have its own heroes and idols. And this argument is something that other non-black races may understand as well, as most interracial violence is not only black on white but black on brown, black on Asian, black on Muslim, black on etc. Even black on Jew despite all the money Jews give to blacks to hate on whitey.
White Liberation should also argue against non-white mass-immigration into white lands as a perverse form of non-white white-supremacism. Why would it be non-white white-supremacism? Because mass migration of non-whites from their own nations to white nations implies that non-whites see whites as superior and prefer to live with and under whites than with their own kind. This is bad for whites and non-whites. It’s bad for whites as it leads to the Great Replacement and violates the right of white folks to have their own homelands. But it’s also bad for non-whites because, instead of using their energies and abilities to improve their own nations, they just run off to white nations to leech off whites as short-cut to success. It’s especially bad as it leads to brain drain from non-white world to white world. This is why White Liberation will save the world.
As for race-ism, why is it conducive, indeed essential, to American-style Conservatism? First, race-ism isn’t to be confused with ‘racism’, a comprehensive slur slung in every direction: “Republicans are racist” and “Democrats are the Real Racists” or “We support BLM against racists” and “BLM is the real racism because it leads to more dead blacks.”
‘Race-ism’, in emphasizing ‘ism’, simply connotes, “Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences, as well as the need for racial consciousness.” Race is most important because it is a biological definition, and humans, as lifeforms, are primarily biological. Before cultures arose and mankind learned to record history, humans had already existed as a species and as races for a very long time, dwarfing even the longest recorded histories. From biology arose culture, spirituality, history, and society. Spiritualists prefer to believe God came first and created humans by breathing into clay or mud. And maybe He made woman out of a man’s rib or something.
But by all factual evidence, biology came first. This means the European race existed for tens of thousands of years before the emergence of complex cultures and civilization. While Northern European history is perhaps about 1,500 yrs old, European race inhabited its lands for tens of thousands of years.
The notion that any culture or idea is more important than race is imbecile — it is why smart Jews in Israel prefer atheist-communist Jews over non-Jews who ‘converted’ to Judaism; even a non-believing Jews is Jewish by blood whereas a goy’s Jewishness is only in the mind, the realm of fantasy. Seriously, would you prefer a Europe that goes communist but remains white or a Europe that is taken over by non-whites but practices capitalism and ‘muh democracy’? Would you prefer a Europe that remains white but turns to Islam or a Europe that remains Christian but turns mostly black African? A true race-ist puts race first and foremost, always. While ideas can come and go, once a race is gone, it is gone for good. A Europe that is communist can one day go capitalist, like happend with former Warsaw Pact nations. A Europe that goes Muslim can conceivably turn back to Christianity. But a Europe that goes brown or black is forever lost.
Consider Russia and China. Russia went through the communist phase but remained Russia because Russians remained dominant on their land; and post-communism and the globalist period, it is re-emerging in a more traditionalist form. Before communism, during communism, and after communism, Russia was Russia because Russian people remained the bulk of the population. Same goes for China. It was China before the Maoist phase, during the crazy Maoist phase, and after the Maoist phase.
It’s a platitude among the ‘educated’ that ‘race is just a social construct’, but nothing can be further from the truth. (But then, what do you expect from people who now believe that sexes are also a social construct, so that a wigged man with penis and balls can claim to be a chick-with-a-dick while a butch woman with a womb can claim to be a ‘pregnant man’.) It’s not race that is a construct. Constructs are notions such as ‘democracy’, ‘liberalism’, ‘free markets’, ‘socialism’, ‘diversity-as-prescription’, ‘capitalism’, and etc. Now, some of these constructs may be useful, but they are based on ideas formed by or constructed from the human mind. The mind constructs philosophical ideas. However, races existed for eons before mankind began to categorize and classify the world. And even though certain aspects of racial science proved false in the past, no science has ever progressed without mistakes. Darwinism itself has been revised with new discoveries, but that hasn’t invalidated the essential truth of evolution.
Race-reality or ‘raceality’ is for a people what personhood is to an individual. The real comes before the ideal. Before a man chooses to be a socialist, capitalist, communist, libertarian, conservative, Buddhist, Christian, or whatever, he must first exist biologically. A man can change his ideology or creed but he can’t change himself, or biological essence. (As if to undermine the very nature of reality itself, the tranny movement would have us believe biological reality is also ‘fluid’, i.e. we can change back and forth between manhood and womanhood depending on our moods or whatever is fashionable in the Current Year.) The mind go in myriad ways, and a person can choose between religiosity and atheism, between socialism and capitalism, between this-ism and that-ism. But the mind itself is really a part of one’s biological makeup. Whatever the mind makes of the world, it cannot make itself into anything other than what it is: a mass of brain tissue. No set of brains ever came into existence by thinking itself into being. That sort of thing only happens in mythology or religion where some mysterious spirit exerts itself into being and creates the world by some mystical cosmic will. The religious will insist God or gods made the universe, but the oldest religion is 6,000 yrs old(and Jewish religion, the oldest of the living faiths, is around 3,000 yrs old). Long before mankind dreamed up such things, they existed as races in different parts of the world. Race came before everything. We rely so much on language to make sense of things, but races existed before the first word was spoken. A man would be a fool to put his ideas before his being, as in “I’m libertarian before I’m a living person.” But, a person is born and matures before he adopted certain ideas and postures. And those ideas can change as what happens in the mind isn’t immutable. A person can go from religious to irreligious or vice versa. Some communist Germans became Nazi Germans, and after the war, became liberal-democratic Germans in West Germany or Soviet Germans in the East Germany. What is immutable is the mind itself, and the mind is part of the biological body.
Consider: If a man who believes in A is threatened(with a gun to his head) to say that he believes in B, he will most likely comply with the demand. Why? If one’s belief or conviction is of paramount importance, he should remain true to A even if it means possible death. So, why go with B instead? Because his life force senses that his primary duty to oneself is to preserve life. Whether he really espouses B or reverts back to A when things are safe, he must first live and existing. Being before believing. His biological existence must be secured before all else is possible. And even if he is sincerely persuaded to switch from A to B, at the very least, he will remain himself regardless. It’s like a white person is still white even if he converts to Islam or turns communist. And Bob is still Bob regardless of his chosen ideology, be it libertarian or socialist. White Christians believe their most important identifier or creed is Christianity, but it ignore the fact that the white race had existed for 40,000 yrs before the coming of Christianity to Europe. Of course, Christians can claim that God is eternal and infinite, but that very idea of God is, at best, around 3,000 yrs old, and it is merely a conviction, a ‘meme’ in the mind, not a demonstrable fact. Without humans existing biologically and using their minds to ponder the godly, what is religion? Nothing. Mind is where the gods live rent free. As for Marxists, they claim a scientific law to history that progresses through a series of class struggles, but whatever historical processes are at work, humans are a biological fact independent of history and ideology. Long before the coming of written language, recorded history, complex spirituality, and philosophical ideas, mankind existed and diverged into separate races like so many rivers.
And even if all the cultures and civilizations were to be lost to wind and fire, they could rise once again from the ashes as long as mankind exists biologically. But imagine a world where all the cities and books and artworks are preserved intact but all the humans are gone. A man without art can create art, but art with no man has no purpose. This is so obvious, but modernity has created so many people who place ideas, attitudes, fashions, and material objects over life. Of course, when it comes to self-preservation on the personal level, they will do anything to live and live well. But lacking a racial sense, they have no sense of a larger and deeper reality, that they are part of a biological river, from which they sprung and to wish they must contribute if their kind is to go on existing after their moment in time has come and gone.
Anyway, how can it be argued that race-ism is an essential element of American Conservatism? To answer that question, we must distinguish American Conservatism from the Old World kind. Traditionally, conservatism meant to conserve or preserve things as they are and to look to the past for wisdom and guidance. Conservatives in the traditional sense feel there is something sacrosanct to the status quo(as part of a continuum), especially if religious authority is involved, and fear upsetting the balance in the pursuit of something new, which may be antipathic to the prevailing harmony maintained through the ages. Also, even as such conservatives concede some change is good and necessary, they believe mankind, over long history, had already attained most of what there is to know and understand. So, new ideas and proposals are good only in increments and small doses, not whole hog radical administration.
In contrast, American Conservatism is committed to change and progress(though there have been Old-World style conservatives in the US as well). Even Bill Buckley, who claimed to stand firm against History and say ‘NO’, was happy with Reaganite and Thatcherite ‘free market’ policies(that were bound to accelerate change) and often made libertarian arguments. Thus, American Conservatism has been less about conserving the way-things-are than about conserving the very engine of historical progress and change, mostly in science, technology, economic growth, and expansion of personal liberty. Thus, American Conservatism is less about applying the brake than revving up the engine. Its main argument against Liberalism, Leftism, and other related ideologies is that, for all their talk of revolution and progress, they impede freedom and enterprise that do most to change the world for the better. Old World Conservatism favored Duty over Liberty, but American Conservatism argues that it’s the left-leaning ideologies that stand in the way of liberty that makes for true progress. (Of course, the American Conservatism inferred here is one of principles and ideas, not the actual kind in politics and punditry that usually toes the Jewish-Supremacist Neocon line. Nor, is it to be confused with the flaky conzo-ism of the likes of David French whose idea of ‘liberty’ is drag-queen reading hour at the public or pubic library.)
If we take American Conservatism at its word, then it should accept the truth of race-ism, especially white race-ism, or white racial consciousness. If indeed American Conservatism is committed to preserving the engine that brings about the most dynamic advances and improvements through science, technology, growth, and organization(as well as creativity), then its main focus should be the preservation of white dominance because history has shown that nothing is as creative and productive as white people with the right ideas and attitudes. The greatest progress in history came about as the result of the white race + right ideas. Of course, the white race with bad ideas isn’t the answer, but neither is non-whites with good ideas. Blacks have all the access to good ideas of progress and civilization that emanated from the West, but they don’t care to use them or figure out what to make of them. Their modus operandi has been and always will be, “Sheeeeeeeeeiiiit, ya honkeys be racis’ and gots to gib me some mo’.” Rand Paul once wore a shirt with the words, “Detroit Republican” or some such, but that hellhole, like so many urban areas with lots of blacks, has proven beyond a doubt that black genes are essentially antithetical to civilization, and furthermore, blacks wouldn’t know what to do with good ideas even if handed to them on a silver platter — whites are likely to achieve more through communism than blacks through capitalism, i.e. would you rather be a whitey living in communist East Germany or a blacky living in capitalist Nigeria? And let’s face it, one reason for Latin America’s lagging achievement owed to Too Many Non-Whites, made worse by Too Many Blacks in places like Brazil. And the reason for Europe’s mounting problems and dooming demise(if things continue as they are) owes to Whites + Bad Ideas(and Idolatry), such as Diversity-as-Prescription, Holocaust-Worship(that makes criticism of subversive Jewish influence taboo), Negrolatry(when blacks are the most anti-civilizational force the world has ever known), bitch-wench-skank feminism, hedonistic cult of youth, and globo-homo nuttery. So, whiteness alone won’t save anything. Whites with bad ideas will make for a terrible future, as is the case with current Europe(and Canada, Australia, and much of America).
urthermore, pride of achievement in material and intellectual areas isn’t enough to sustain civilizational confidence as people feel righteous and justified through themes of morality and justice. Material well-being feels nice, but moral well-being feels good. This is why Harriet Tubman, MLK, and Nelson Mandela loom larger than the great scientists, scholars, and inventors of white history. Science is amoral and technology only as good as the people who use it. Gun technology may be amazing, but a gun itself lacks moral meaning. Wars are fought with weapons but justified through causes. Then, it’s hardly surprising that Jews and white cucks(Christian and secular) worked so hard to elevate blacks as moral and spiritual voices so that whites, however accomplished in the arts, sciences, and business, are reduced to grovel emotionally, morally, and spiritually at the feet of the haloed ones.
Now, pseudo-conservatives like Niall Ferguson will say race or biology had nothing to do with the rise of the West over the Rest, but he’s just fooling himself under peer pressure or just playing careerist-cuck(or coward) because any discussion of racial differences is radioactive(unless it’s about listing the ways in which blacks are superior to whites, therefore, white women should have ‘cool’ mulatto babies than squishy white ones). One thing for sure, race alone guarantees nothing, just like even a smart person achieves nothing by sitting around drinking beer all day. One thing for sure, East Asians, despite decent IQ, missed out on so much because of their overly conservative attitude about change and foreign influences. Ability doesn’t guarantee activity.
Still, blacks are going to win more in sports IF they apply themselves, just like the Chinese have proven to be adept at building modern infrastructures with proper will and direction. But despite all their effort, Chinese don’t dominate sports, and blacks have failed repeatedly at building self-sustaining civilizations. So, Ferguson’s theory of the ‘killer apps’ that explains Western domination is somewhat lacking. What he says of the cultural, social, political, economic, and geographic factors, though instructive and illuminating, doesn’t seem complete without the racial factor of intelligence + temperament. Blacks not only lack the requisite intelligence but evenness of temperament to maintain complex societies, and East Asians, though sufficiently intelligent to learn and execute the proper lessons, seem relatively deficient in individual spark and initiative so necessary in bringing about crucial paradigm shifts that allow for new visions and potentials. After all, despite the astounding achievements of Japan and China, they were mostly about catching-up and, at best, complementing Western advances than surpassing them. Despite all the talk of China’s sudden rise, it was an application of science and technology developed in the West. If the West carries on with its suicidal agendas, one wonders if East Asia could continue with self-generated and self-sustaining progress on its own without constantly looking to the West for cues. Will East Asia gradually revert to its old rigid ways? Or, will East Asia, ever so imitative, follow the West in suicidal tendencies, already evident in the American satellite puppet states of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore.
Anyway, if American Conservatism is committed to positive progress and change that lead to more knowledge, more understanding, more science/technology, more possibilities, more liberty, and more power, and therefore seeks to conserve the very engine that ensures such outcomes, it should adopt the race-ist position because History has proven that the West is the product not only of certain ideas and methods but WHO conceived of them and carried them out. Democracy has spread far and wide all over the world, but a black democracy has more in common with a black autocracy than with a white democracy. And a white autocracy is more comparable to a white democracy than a black autocracy. Post-War Japan was democratic while South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore were autocracies, but all developed in modernity and catching up to the West in part. Great Britain was democratic while 19th century Germany was autocratic, but their industrial achievements were comparable. Of course, ideas do matter, and capitalism is more productive than communism, as proven in China as it shifted away from Maoist economics to a market-driven one. Still, if China had one billion black Africans than one billion Chinese, would it have become the second biggest economy in the world? African population is exploding, but the Dark Continent’s well-being is largely dependent on the foreign investment and aid.
While the Eurocentric(and especially Anglo-centric) policies and norms of the US had their dark side, what honest person could deny that race was crucial to America’s dramatic rise and achievements? Would America have accomplished as much if, like most of Latin America, the white population had been a minority from the outset? And in the long run, wouldn’t the American South have been better without the large black population that, though useful as slaves, saddled the modern economy? Blacks have long been a net drain on society. Their impact on the American North(and currently all across Europe) show that their problem wasn’t limited to Jim Crow. If anything, blacks + freedom in a civilizational setting has been rather like drinking and driving. The fact that blacks have done better in the military than in civilian life suggests they operate better in a system of control, structure, and hierarchy than one of freedom and individuality, which only stokes black egomania, made worse by black realization that they can kick whitey’s ass, which precludes any black respect for whites because nothing is more prized among blacks than ‘ass-whupping’ prowess. If Northern European Americans, especially Anglos-Germans-Scandinavians, had enough problem with Italians and the like(who still share much of European genetics and heritage), is it any wonder that the Black Problem just got worse and worse? It’s so obvious but as the West’s sense of justice(which is mostly mindless worship of Jews, blacks, and homos) is so disconnected from any honest assessment of reality, one wonders what is to be done, or what can be done? White America’s understanding of racial reality as opposed to racial myth is as deluded as the belief in bumper crops in the Soviet Union just when Stalinism was starving millions.
For all of its shortcomings and drawbacks, didn’t America rapidly rise due to its white majority population led by Northern European types? And, haven’t problems grown worse in the US(and the West in general) due to ever increasing diversity? While non-black minorities are comparable to whites in ability and attitude and don’t cause the problems unique to blacks — one thing for sure, a browning America is preferable to a blackening America, just like an Islamizing Europe is preferable to an Africanizing one — , growing diversity only leads to more divisions, confusions, and the like. Just among whites, there’s now an acrimonious political split between those calling for more diversity and those calling for less. Diversity is certainly making a mess of US education. Money wasted on educating blacks is scandalous enough, but even among the non-blacks the over-representation of Asians in colleges has led to host of new problems.
In all this confusion, what are now supposed to be the unifying themes for Americans of all stripes? Ideology is dead but for the mindless mantras about ‘diversity, inclusion, and equity’, which mean absolutely nothing in a country that routinely trounces on the rights of Palestinians at the behest of Jews, the most powerful and privileged group in America. As it happens, the official unifying themes of all Americans are ‘Muh Israel'(in a country where only 2% is Jewish), Negrolatry(when blacks cause by far the most social problems and commit tons of crime), and globo-homo(even though what society gains by celebrating sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting is anyone’s guess).
The American Formula went from White Rule + Right Ideas(of which race-ism was crucial) to White Grovel + Wrong Ideas(such as the notion that ‘diversity, equity, inclusion’ and mindless reverence for Jews, blacks, and homos are going to solve future problems). Without a solid white majority and ideas that embody and embolden such a population, the conditions necessary for progress and advancement will be lost. And by progress, I mean real progress, the kind of achievements in America(and the West) from the 17th century to the 1960s. Those advances were so remarkable that the West was able to weather even the worst storms and upheavals, from the American Civil War to World War I and World War II to the Cold War. For every loss and setback, there were many more gains.
The current West still has the best scientists and remarkable new technologies are on the horizon, but the social, political, cultural, moral, and spiritual problems are nearly irreparable. Mania for Diversity reduces the white share of the population all across the West, and ‘wokeness’ as the official dogma of G.A.E(or Global American Empire) has infested much of modernity with the stupidest and most demented attitudes and values one can imagine. Race-ism made America and the West, and its demise will unmake them despite all the Politically Correct pontifications. Does anyone think current problems facing the West can be solved with broken borders, importing more of the Third World(especially Africa), sucking up to corrupt venal Jewish supremacists, singing paeans to scum-suckers like George Floyd(and pretending innocent blacks are being mass-murdered by systemic-racists), waving more ‘rainbow’ flags at ‘gay pride’ fests, and turning on more children to tranny-penis-cutting and breast chopping? Just compare the achievements of Historically Race-ist America to that of the newly minted ‘anti-racist’ America, and there’s no comparison. White America, the only true America, went from triumph to triumph, whereas the white race has been going from humiliation to humiliation since the so-called ‘End of History’ that supposedly proved once and for all that the ‘liberal rules-based order’ is the best. And what are its ‘rules’? All the social, political, and cultural trends that brought us to the current mess.
There is no doubt. One of the key components of the True Engine of Western Progress has been Race-ism. Without it, the engine simply won’t run right or at all.