The West IS White Supremacist

Anyone who has been following the recent cultural movement by SJWs and People of Colour™ to undermine the last vestiges of traditional Western civilisation in both Europe and in the Anglosphere has seen the attempt to discredit our remaining institutions by declaring them “white supremacist.”  Building upon their efforts to use Charlottesville, Richard Spencer, and “Neo Nazis” as a foil, practically everything related to the history, institutions, traditions, religion, and heroic mythology in the USA and other Western nations has now been morally reprobated by our modern day Puritans on the radical Left.  America’s police and criminal justice system is white supremacist since blacks and browns find themselves disproportionately caught up in its clutches.  America’s educational system is white supremacist for not granting Harriet Tubman equal time with Thomas Jefferson.  Christopher Columbus has been relegated to the status of mass murderer and genocidal Nazi for merely discovering the American continents.  Figures and institutions in European nations are similarly condemned.  Even such abstractions as logic and reason are openly ridiculed and condemned as white supremacist by anti-white PoCs spearheading the cultural marxist movement to destroy Western civilisation.

On many levels, one cannot blame the white nationalists for reacting as they do.  When someone is – literally – trying to destroy your culture and civilisation and people, it is natural to want to fight back and to expel the intruders, especially when the intruders have a much greater tendency to be socially dyscivic criminals, rapists, welfare mooches, and general troublemakers.

As much as it pains me to agree in any way with the SJWs, however, they are correct in their bare assertions about the white supremacist nature of our institutions.  It is in their reaction to this, in their efforts to undermine and overthrow these institutions, that they are grossly negligent and worthy of our condemnation.  Allow me to explain what I mean.

Let me begin by dispensing with the ridiculous civic nationalist notion that the West, while built by white Europeans and their descendants, could have been done by anyone.  This is not at all the case.  Whites – Europeans and their child stocks – are different people from others.  The fundamental reality about human biodiversity as it relates to whites vis-à-vis everyone else is that they are generally higher IQ than most everyone except for the northeast Asians, and they are generally more aggressive and inventive than the northeast Asians.  Whites combined these and other traits – intelligence, aggressiveness, individualism, inventiveness, speculativeness, and others – to develop a unique set of cultures (Western civilisation) which is really quite different from every other civilisation that this world has produced.  Western civilisation, and by derivation the cultures of its various substituent clades and subclades, is the product of this broad genetic group of people whose inborn traits acted in synergy with their religion and culture and languages.  It could only have been created by these unique combinations, and it cannot be maintained without any or all of the components of these same combinations.

As such, it IS fair to say that institutions in white countries were built by white people and FOR white people.  Hence, they ARE white supremacist in the sense that they operate on essentially white, European-derived norms and assumptions and were created as a result of centuries, and even millennia, of experiences and the agglutination of successful traditions.  White cultures were made for white people, and as recent history continues to show, they only work for white people.  The SJWs and racial grievance-mongers in the radical progressive movement are not incorrect in recognising these facts.

Where they are incorrect is in asserting that there is anything wrong with this.

In point of fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong – not a single, solitary, blessed thing – with whites developing institutions that work for them, even if it leaves other peoples (at least those who refuse to assimilate to white standards of behaviour and mindset) at a disadvantage when trying to navigate within white-originated societies.  The same can be said for any other group of people.  It is equally legitimate for east Asian cultures to structure their societies in ways which reflect their traditions, preferences, and assumptions, even if whites or blacks or browns may often find themselves mystified when trying to manoeuvre their way through.  The same goes for the Indians, for the Muslims, for the Africans, for the Latin Americans.  This is why we have different cultures, and (generally speaking) different countries to go with them.  A place for everyone, and everyone in his place, and all that.

Not surprisingly, this fact has been recognised widely even within this planet’s long history of imperialism.  While conquerors always assert political dominance over their weaker enemies – assessing tribute or slaves or territorial concessions – it is rather rare for imperialists to actually try to eliminate the cultures of their prey and replace them with their own.  The Romans did not do so.  The British did not do so.  The Romans were content to let the Gauls continue to be Gauls, and to operate under their own laws and mores.  The British generally did the same in India and Africa and any other place where the natives were already thickly settled and displayed native cultures.  Typically, the imperialists did not try to navigate these native cultures, but neither did they try to force those they colonised to adopt their own norms.  Individuals may do so, and advance in the imperialists’ own system, but it was not made obligatory to do so.

This is what makes the situation with our modern day SJWs so different.  It can fairly be said that “middle America” and “village Europe” are under occupation by a hostile culture – this being the cosmopolitan, deracinating, post-liberal culture of the transnational élite and their SJW underlings.  SJWism itself seeks to destroy traditional white cultures, those belonging to the “wrong sort of white people.”  I’ve pointed out previously that SJWism is itself a form of cultural imperialism, and it has been elsewhere observed that even the most inane of left-wing causes are really just ways to humiliate and compel submission to SJW culture.

However, SJWism is still essentially a white culture.  All of its assumptions – the goodness of democracy, the equality and fungibility of all peoples, the essential materialism of all its social and economic positions – are basically those of white modernism and flow from the direction of historical forces in play for centuries.  As a result, even SJWism is white supremacy – as the ACLU recently found out.  Thus, the racial grievance movements fabricated by the progressive Left, once they began breaking the chains of their alliance with white leftists, have begun to openly demand that even white liberals “shut up and listen” and fall prostrate before Big Black and Aunty Aztlán.

The problem for these folks is that they find white civilisation, in its entirety, to be structured against them.  And it really is.  After all, if you’re a black who still carries (however subconsciously) a good deal of West African derived culture, then white institutions like patriarchy (patrilocal marriage, men as the primary providers, etc.), private property, the rule of law, and other European-derived social standards will seem somewhat foreign and rankling to you.  This is doubly the case when your distant native cultures (still passed on to you in diluted form even after centuries of contact with whites) originally worked for a low IQ population with low time preferences and high aggression.  In Africa, men could hunt while the women did the “grunt work,” and could fight to the death if “dissed” by other men.  In a high-IQ, high time preference white rule of law culture, this doesn’t work.  When black drug dealers kill each other over turf or honour, they go to the white man’s jail.  (Most) whites see this as entirely just.  Many blacks see it as an affront.  Whites tend to not be sympathetic to a black thug who robs a liquor store and then tries to take away a police officer’s gun, getting shot in the process.  Whites see it as justice served.  Blacks see it as a swipe at their tribal identity and dignity.

And the thing about culture is that it is pervasive.  Despite what many seem to think, culture is not just a matter of  superficialities like “exotic” foods or manners of dress.  Instead, cultures from top to bottom are shot through with interlocking sets of assumptions, mores, traditional modes, and taboos which cannot simply be transferred piecemeal.  In many ways cultures are all or nothing – either you adopt the whole thing or you are left outside.  Cultures are perfectly adapted to sort between the in-group and the Other.

This is why the racial grievance quacks in our Western societies know they have to completely undermine Western civilisation in toto if they are to replace whites as the ruling power in our own countries (and make no mistake, that is exactly what the end game is for the transnational élite, because blacks and browns are generally more pliable and easily cowed than whites are).  No vestige of white, European civilisation can remain.  Hence, the laws and morals must be destroyed.   The statues and heroes must be overturned.  Our history, and especially the classics upon which our traditions and assumptions are built, must be erased from knowledge.  Shakespeare must be replaced with Audre Lorde (I’d never heard of her, either).  Whites must be browbeaten into accepting their own evil and the banishment of their civilisation.  When the white nationalists argue that white genocide is planned, the honest and informed person is hard-pressed to counter their assertion.

This underlies the related claim made by People of Colour™ that “whites don’t have any culture,” presumably because we didn’t dress up in feathers and eat human hearts at our festivals.  Obviously the assertion is ridiculous on its face.  The professional PoCs know this, which is why they’re spending so much time trying to undermine white cultures by simultaneously flooding us with hostile, inassimilable third worlders while seeing to erase every expression of exactly these cultures.  But they have to make the claim if they are to justify these erasures.

The problem isn’t that whites don’t have culture, but that their cultures are too successful, and are practically irresistible when matched against anyone else’s.  Again, whites are different from other peoples, and their cultures will reflect these differences.  Even pre-modern whites, basically everyone from the classical world to medieval Europeans living prior to the Renaissance, thought and acted differently than did other traditional societies.  The Greeks were very different from non-Europeans.  So were the Romans.  So were the Germans who adopted Christian Roman culture.  So were, for that matter, the pagan Vikings.  And so on.  Even the most religiously-minded of Europeans was more rational (though not rationalistic or materialistic) than practically all non-Europeans on Earth during those times.  Whites naturally do philosophy and science and theology and technology, and this is reflected all across their cultures and in Western civilisation.  This is why logic, reason, and even the concept of objective truth itself are now derided as “white supremacist.” These allow whites to do the things that they do. Even when white Europeans were being distempered by modernism, their cultures were still more successful than those they encountered during the march of European imperialism.

Thus, when the professional PoCs talk about “fighting white supremacy,” what they really, actually, truly mean is “overturning Western civilisation,” since that civilisation was built by and for white Europeans and their kindred peoples who colonised major portions of the globe.  Objectively speaking, Western civilisation is superior.  Both in its underlying features and in its overt, empirical results, the West is more successful, more “fit” (in the biological sense of the term) and has brought the world a great deal of underappreciated good.  To see this overwhelmed and destroyed by the machinations of the globalists would be a tremendous loss to humanity.  While there are many elements of the West that need to be unpozzed and restored to their traditional goodness, the overarching structure itself must not be allowed to fall.  If the West falls, high civilisation goes with it.  Hence, we need to recognise that white supremacy, in the sense described above, is not only not bad, but is in fact very good, and very necessary if we are to retain Western civilisation in any sort of recognisable form.



7 thoughts on “The West IS White Supremacist

  1. You have done an excellent job writing Generic Alt-Right Manifesto 8888, complete with “higher IQ except the East Asians.” (I wonder why the gooks shouldn’t conquer us, then. After all, J. Philippe Rushton placed Caucasoids in the middle of the evolutionary spectrum. Perhaps some yellow colonialism will do us good.)

    Alas, contrary to your pretensions, you haven’t been able to say what the West, or a white person is. Any appeal to such markers as genetic distance and FSt suffers from the same type of Lewontin fallacy (“Well, the inter-group distances are small, so they aren’t relevant to the essential characteristic of whiteness.”) s/whiteness/humanity, and you get the progressive argument. If we appeal to the distribution of haplogroup frequencies, we get at least four different geographic clusters that don’t exactly fit either folk or nationalist assumptions.

    It is true that Western culture is successful beyond belief. Too bad it’s the highly recent culture of the past ~200 years. Appeals to continuity are true for the hereditary germplasm, but they conceal the great social and legal changes underneath. The path from the Lex Langobardorum to the Napoleonic Code is not particularly straight or obvious. The “civilizing process” had to happen with heavy intervention from clergy and courtiers, which you’ll notice are two classes of society that are irrelevant to the day-to-day workings of the modern West. Ah, but we all “naturally do philosophy and science and theology and technology.” As if the content of it is an afterthought.

    Once more, this idea that the classics represent the soul and traditions of the West. The only “classic” (more a product of late antiquity) that really had an influence was the Justinian Code, often for the worse, and certainly the jurists of Bologna and Ravenna did not wait to fulfill their project of temporal supremacy. In a real sense, though, the modern West is actually one giant parody of the ideal of paideia. Pericles (quoted by Thucydides) said that “[we Athenians] regard him who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless,” — a model that today leads to greater calls for democratic participation, and to a toxic mindset of republican vigilance characterized by exalting the values of the investigative journalist to some paragon of “repaying one’s public duty.” Everyone thinks he’s Demosthenes, when he’s a hack.

    (So, too, does the rule of law owe more to modern jurisprudence of the Rechtsstaat and of constitutional liberalism than of ideas in antiquity.)

    I, of course, perfectly understand what you’re trying to say. How couldn’t I? Anyone who just discovered the alt-right yesterday already does. Your semantics and your taxonomy simply don’t fit for the political case you’re trying to make here, though. Mapping biological realities to a political platform is decidedly non-trivial. And frankly when I see calls for white unity like this, I’m always reminded of such dead movements as Austroslavism. “Come over here, white brother.” “What’s that, 1.5% North African admixture?! Out of here, sand nigger!”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Supremacist means you want to supremacize another group. Pro-whites don’t want to supremacize anybody. But anti-whites demand that whites be turned into powerless minorities worldwide. They demand that white people be supremacized by people who hate them and want to drown them in a sea of diversity (genocide under law). They are ANTI-WHITE supremacists.


  3. I am compelled to agree, though some among my Catholic brethren would be horrified to hear so, as there is nothing contained herein that is contrary to the essential tenants and doctrines of the Faith.

    I’ve often wondered that the great heights attained by Christendom, the original name for Western Civilization during a majority of its life and it’s ascent, were not solely the product of the Truth and efficacy of the Faith, though I do not believe that Europe could have reached the heights it did without it, but rather of the Faith playing out within a European context. That the Gospel should be spread so rapidly and powerfully would require a rapid and powerful means of transmission, the European people provided this. Essentially, I’m convinced that the True Faith would improve all peoples by significant measure, but, in material and social terms, the exact manner and degree of improvement is almost certain to vary as widely as the nations which subject themselves to Christ’s rule.

    Western Civilization is what happens when European genetic potential meets The Christian Faith.

    (To be clear I am in the camp that believe’s that Classical European Civilization is a distinct entity from Christian European Civilization.)


  4. ***High time preference.

    Time preference is rational and innate but it varies in its intensity.
    Some people, such as enterprising middle-class whites, certainly prefer a glass of milk today to one next Wednesday, but they also recognise that there’s value in setting aside resources for the distant future – retirement, inheritance for their grandchildren, and so on.

    Others see saving solely as a means to a near end, such as next year’s holiday, and while they may say they believe in “live for today for tomorrow you may be dead”, they mitigate this somewhat with car repair funds and spare bottles of wine for Christmas.

    Still others, with an even stronger preference for today over tomorrow and tomorrow over next week, have no concept of saving anything for the future whatsoever: give them a million dollars and they’ll spend it.

    That, in a nutshell, is the time preference theory.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s