Western Superiority was not the product of White Supremacism — Attitude vs Aptitude — The Connection between White Possession of Traits and White Properties of Power

Too often in the permitted(or imposed) discourse, white superiority and white supremacy(or white supremacism) are confused as interchangeable or as if superiority is the cause-and-effect of supremacy. In truth, one(superiority) is a condition, the other(supremacism) a contention. Many PC folks argue that the West, Europe and America, gained world hegemony and domination over other races due to the ideology of white supremacism than through the industry of white superiority. Now, supremacy and superiority are partly interlinked. It's natural for a people who gain superiority to believe they are somehow innately better than others and have a right(and/or a responsibility) to rule over them. This rule could be ruthless and exploitative or conscientious and constructive — the Others' burden or the burden for Others — , but in either case, it means dominion of one group over another.

While superiority all-too-often leads to feelings of supremacy, supremacism per se hardly guarantees superiority or domination. If anything, supremacist attitudes can lead to dissipation and downfall, as with the story of the hare that slacks off in the race with the tortoise. Or, exaggerated displays of supremacism could actually be therapeutic compensations for those plagued with inferiority-complex. (Mussolini's Italian He-Man huff-and-puff was mostly that.)
What matters is that attitude doesn't translate into aptitude. White people with all the supremacist attitudes in the world couldn't have gained domination without certain superior aptitudes resulting from genetic, cultural, historical, or material factors. In supernatural movies, 'psychic' will often determines outcomes, but reality doesn't work that way. If reality did, Germany and Japan would have prevailed in World War II, or at least fended off invasions by Allies. Nazi Germans certainly had a supremacist worldview and believed themselves to be invincible against the slovenly Slavs. Japan, though severely disadvantaged against the US in manpower and materials, felt imbued with a divine spirit that would favor its destiny. In an earlier period, the Ottoman Turks thought the divine will of Allah was on their side, and in time, nothing would stand in their way. Indeed, Muslims in general believed the whole world would be remade by Jihad in accordance to the prophecy of Muhammad. And the Chinese believed for a long time that they were fortunate people of the Middle Kingdom, the summit of civilization, wisdom, and power. Now, if indeed what-ism determines what-is, the Ottomans would have defeated Europe, and China-as-Middle-Kingdom would have been impenetrable to Western Imperialism and Japanese aggression. But no matter what the Chinese thought of themselves and others, reality led to a rude awakening. Chinese 'supremacism' or 'Sino-centrism' didn't ensure Chinese superiority.

This is why it's idiotic to fixate on White Supremacism as the cause of the Rise of the West over the Rest. If, like the Ottomans and the Chinese, white Europeans possessed the big attitude minus the big ability, the white world wouldn't have been victorious. Indeed, this has been amply demonstrated in sports. No amount of white supremacist attitudes led to white victory over blacks who possess genetic superiority in athleticism. No amount of promotion of the Great White Hope produced a white boxer who could defeat Jack Johnson. And even if the combined 2.5 billion population of Chinese and Asian-Indians were to adopt supremacist attitudes in the 100m and 200m sprints, the odds are blacks of West African descent will dominate the finals.
Now, attitude and will do matter but as accents and adjectives to the hefty nouns of power. It's like yells, spurs, and/or the whips can make the horse run faster but they can't substitute for the horse itself(or turn a weak horse into a strong one). Furthermore, their effectiveness has limits as the horse can run only so fast and for so long. The real advantage comes with the quality of the horse itself. Indeed, a mild-mannered man on a horse will win a race against a strong-willed man on a donkey. Attitude is a matter of inches, not yards. A man with supremacist confidence armed with a knife will lose to a moderate man with a sword. It's like the story of the train-that-thought-it-could. Its attitude played a role, but what really mattered was the powerful engine that could turn wish/will into reality. While it's true that potential without confidence won't get far, confidence without potential won't get anywhere. Supremacism without superiority is just talk without walk.

According to PC, modern history is as follows: One day, white folks woke up on the wrong side of the bed and began to feel 'supremacist'. And this supremacism suddenly drove white people to invent better weapons, build bigger ships, develop better medicine, advance science & technology, create new forms of arts & music, set sail to other lands, and dominate the modern world that they created. This Narrative implies that all of mankind and all of history were a stranger to supremacist attitudes BEFORE white folks, suddenly out of the blue, got to feeling awfully supremacist and decided to conquer and dominate others. Thus, whites weren't only guilty of feeling supremacist but inventing supremacism. Apparently, all of humanity were into equality, passivity, brotherly love, or peacefulness. Or just plain inertness without much in the way of Will to Power. Such historical view is like the soccer match between Greek Philosophers and German Philosophers in the Monty Python skit. All the thinkers just wander about the field, lost in thought without a clue as to what game they're in or what the ball is for. But then, suddenly a Greek philosopher has an idea to KICK THE BALL and sets off a chain reaction among the Greeks who win bigly.

Supposedly, all the world was in a slumber of pacifism or just plain lethargy until white world suddenly woke up with the will of supremacist domination, and THAT was the real catalyst for the Triumph of the West. It's all so laughable. First, as stated before, attitude doesn't ensure aptitude. Even if it was true that whites or Europeans, alone among all peoples, stumbled upon a supremacist view of the world, that in and of itself wouldn't have guaranteed anything. After all, any person can claim to be a genius, but it doesn't make him so. Any person can claim to lift a ton with his bare hands, but he's no Hercules. So, to focus so much on white attitude without investigating the whys and whats of white aptitude is to ignore essential history.

Furthermore, it's simply not true that the Rest, unlike the West, was suspended in a historical equilibrium of peacefulness, equality, harmony, or whatever. All of humanity have been at war since time immemorial. Just ask those vanquished by the Persians, Mongols, Turks, Zulus, Assyrians, Aztecs, Mughals, and various American Indian tribes in which every male was brought up to be a fierce warrior. So, supremacist attitudes have been part and parcel of the human DNA forever, and they also exist among animals in instinctive form; organisms of all kinds seek dominance. Among humans, the supremacism could be clannish, tribal, ethnic, racial, national, religious/spiritual, philosophical, or whatever. Whenever someone or some group insists 'my/our way is better than yours', he or it is setting the world up for future competition, conflicts, and even all-out wars.

One thing for sure, winners are decided less by supremacist attitude than superior aptitude. If wishes come true, Byzantium wouldn't have fallen to the Ottomans. After all, Byzantine Christians believed they belonged to the superior civilization and God was on their side. And yet, their spiritual supremacism didn't ensure protection against the Ottoman juggernaut. Of course, the Ottomans were also spiritual supremacists, but they prevailed because they had superiority in leadership, organization, manpower, and strategy. The Franco-German War of 1870-1871 was a clear example of how supremacist attitudes guarantee nothing. The French, having been the dominant power on the European Continent for as long as they could remember, didn't believe they could possibly lose to the German nation-state that had only recently coalesced into being, but German superiority in industry and military prowess led to crushing defeat for France.

Now, there have been no shortage of historians who explained as to why the West gained superiority over the Rest. Not long ago, Niall Ferguson came up with his list of 'killer apps' that pushed the West(especially Northern Europe) over the top to dominate and remold much of the world. As Ferguson pointed out, the domination wasn't merely military as, even with the fall of European empires following World War II, the Rest adopted so much from the West as the shining standard of modernity and progress. So, even as the military conquests and demographic colonization abated and came to an end, the Rest continued to be scientifically, technologically, culturally(especially in dress and manners), and ideologically 'colonized' and reshaped by the West. If indeed the only thing the West had going for it was nasty 'supremacist' and 'racist' conceits, why did the Rest adopt so much from the West, and why does it continue to do so? An honest look at reality would indicate that there was much that was indeed superior about the West that was worthy of being adopted and emulated by the Rest.

People like Ferguson are careful to note that Western Superiority had NOTHING to do with any racial/genetic advantage but, even if correct, there's no getting around the fact that the West did achieve real superiority in so many crucial spheres of power projection: Transportation, Communication, Hygiene & Medicine, Science & Technology, Political Philosophy, and even Theory of Justice(not least because even anti-white non-whites resort to Western theories, ideals, principles, and values to make their case against the West; blacks who find slavery to be evil didn't get that idea from African culture, which was more about killer apes than killer apps).

Western superiorities didn't arise from 'white supremacist' attitudes but certainly fueled them, but then, whites were far from alone in their 'guilt' in this regard. So many civilizations, upon reaching their apex, believed themselves to be innately superior to other peoples for reasons of blood, spirit, or divine providence. Given the unprecedented breakthroughs of the Modern West that surpassed all previous achievements by the greatest civilizations around the world, was it so surprising that white folks(especially in the North) came to believe they possessed some innate right-stuff generally lacking in other races? If blacks, who've contributed close to nothing in science and technology, can't help indulging in supremacist fantasies of fictional Wakanda, was it so out of line for whites who created the Modern World to feel that there was something special about themselves?
Besides, in areas where black superiority is obvious, especially in sports, no one is troubled by black confidence or even arrogance. Blacks are encouraged to feel maximum pride in black domination over other races. One thing for sure, black domination in sports is proof that supremacism isn't the same as superiority. A white guy with a supremacist attitude in the sprint is likely to lose to a humble black guy with sportsmanship. Of course, superiority can be wedded to supremacism. A black guy can be superior in the sprint and be filled with supremacist arrogance against non-blacks, but still, his victory on the track field will have owed to real superiority in muscle than supremacism in attitude.

It's similar with Jews in the brainy fields. Jews do have a superior edge in intellect and verbal skills, which naturally led to Jewish preeminence in science, medicine, finance, academia, letters, high-tech, law, and etc., and many Jews are obsessed with recording and relating how awesome and stupendous they've been as a people, culture, and community. On the basis of the Covenant, Jews have had a supremacist worldview for eons, but the Jewish Advantage hasn't merely been a matter of attitude, and this is especially true of Ashkenazi Jews who, probably through assortative(and assertive) mating, managed to elevate their IQ above goyim. (In contrast, Middle East Jews seem to have the supremacist attitude but not the superior aptitude of the Ashkenazis, the 'tribe' of Jews who managed to conquer the world by conquering the Anglo elites who'd done most to conquer the world; conquer the conquerors, and then, you don't have to conquer the world.)

Anyway, we must be careful not to confuse supremacist Jewish attitude with superior Jewish aptitude as, once again, attitude doesn't guarantee aptitude. Jews possess real talents in excess of other groups, and that accounts for Jewish dominance in certain fields. Of course, and again, pride of superiority can foster arrogance of supremacism, and current Jewish Power is undoubtedly both conscious of its superior advantages and contemptuous of goyim as inferior cattle. One thing for sure, superiority of power doesn't guarantee higher morality or commitment to principles. Both Nazis at their peak and Zios(Zionist-Imperialists) today amply demonstrated that. (But then, principles become problematic among unequals. After all, we don't have the same set of rules for adults and children, let alone for humans and apes. Within a population where most peoples and groups are more or less alike, adherence to principles is viable. But when some people are clearly more intelligent, perceptive, and capable than those of another group, principles break down because the superior group develops a low opinion of the other group that seems incapable of grasping, let alone practicing, the fundamentals of principles while the inferior group, in its envy and resentment, feels that the superior group has accrued its advantages by means foul than fair. If the superior group, out of either compassion or 'guilt', decides to compromise principles to accommodate the inferior group, it will have ceded the moral high ground, and then, the inferior group, out of stupidity or spite, will exploit the situation to further erode rule by principles. Generally, the greatest harm to principles come from those with superiority-complex and those with inferiority-complex. The superior feel the rules needlessly favor the inferior and therefore must be circumvented in favor of the superior, and the inferior feel the rules favor the superior and must be circumvented in favor of the inferior. In the current US, intellectually superior Jews subvert principles in favor of intellectually inferior blacks to erode the pride & confidence of whites to guilt-bait them into serving Jews. Jews encourage blacks to blame everything on 'white supremacism' to break the white spirit, but then Jews manipulate guilt-ridden whites to support Jewish supremacist hegemony. It's really messed up as bait-and-switch.)

In a sane world, people would freely explore the reasons as to the facts of white superiority(that catapulted the West far beyond the Rest) while warning against white supremacism(that could be dangerous not only to non-whites but to whites who, in supremacist zealotry, might turn overly aggressive, or, in supremacist smugness, might become overly complacent). And there are surely many historians who work in this vein and contribute to our understanding. But scholars and academics don't set the overall/official tone of the Narrative, though, to be sure, most Narratives are perverse simplifications of ideas derived from academia. What nuance or complexity that may have existed in the original theory is overlooked in favor of pat formula and mindless mantra. Politicians, bureaucrats, and mass media decide the Narrative that, more often than not, is history turned into mass myth for morons. Generally, scholars are either too powerless, craven, or fuddy-duddy to question the Narrative. Or, even as they disdain it as fairytale for dummies, they may broadly sympathize with its agenda either out of condescension or due to consecration. In the US, Jews control the gods and made the Negroes noble & sacred, yet blacks have failed miserably in many fields, and that has led to eggheads seeing blacks as both gods to worship and children to save. Also, if they don't play along, not only will they be smeared as 'racists' by blacks but as 'white supremacists' by Jewish Power.

In such a climate, honest and sane discussion is nearly impossible as anyone can become 'canceled' over the slightest wrong-think. After all, whites are micro-scrutinized for the slightest 'aggression'. Indeed, not only public debates but private conversations could be jeopardous for honest scholars because 'cancel culture' in media and parts of academia reward people for ratting out thought-criminals. One thing for sure, academia has taught us that intellect and erudition are hardly pillars of integrity and courage. Western intellectuals are no more likely to stand up to tyranny than intellectuals were in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China. Per chance they do speak out, it's almost always in service of the prevailing Narrative. Thus, it's sham courage, much like a dog barking with the approval of the master. A person can make a show of 'courage' out of toady cravenness. It's like all those tough-talking US politicians who bark at Russia, China, and Iran are just ass-kissing tools of Jews and the Deep State. All those who 'courageously' denounce 'white supremacism' are just submissively bowing down before Jews. Would they courageously support BDS and denounce Zionist Imperialism or call out on the facts of black criminality? Fat chance. They got big mouths and cold feet. Michael Moore will never name the Jew.

The sad result of Cancel Culture and other forms of 'wokeness' is the total lack of honesty about history. Then, no wonder that White Superiority has been conflated with White Supremacism and all that it implies: All white achievements and demonstrations of civilizational superiority are products of evil and 'racist' white supremacism. Thus, even white achievements of genuine merit are deemed 'supremacist', like when Yale Medical School decided to take down pictures of great medical pioneers and scientists. Portraits of these men had been placed on the wall for their very real contributions to medicine, but honoring them simply could no longer be tolerated because they were white. Any proof of white superiority is automatically dismissed as 'white supremacism'.
In a climate where any demonstration of white/western superiority in any field is a case of 'white supremacy', we mustn't take notice of white merit, just like we mustn't take notice of black demerit(as criminals and louts) and Jewish demerit(as subversives, seditionists, radicals, fraudsters, and crooks). If you notice the good about whites, you're aiding and abetting 'white supremacism', and if you notice the bad about blacks and Jews, you're taking part in 'racism' and 'antisemitism'. The current climate is utterly ludicrous, but it's far worse than radical egalitarianism. Radical egalitarianism would at least be sincere in its idealism. In the current order, Jewish Power is pushing sham-justice to guilt-bait whites into shame and servitude, all the better to manipulate them into supporting Jewish Supremacism. A dirty trick of bait-and-switch.

The current PC logic, if applied to Muhammad Ali, would insist his victories in the ring were the result of ego-supremacism. After all, Ali was no stranger to arrogance and announced to the world that he was 'the greatest'. Whether one characterizes Ali's attitude as colorful or contemptuous, the fact is he had the aptitude to match the attitude. It wasn't just bluster, which any boxer can dish out. Arrogance doesn't guarantee apogee, no more than supremacism ensures dominance. The walk has to back the talk. Whatever one thinks of Ali's talk, he sure had the walk. This was no less true of a far less likable boxer, Mike Tyson, a truly grotesque personality. If Ali's arrogance had a comic touch, Tyson's outrages were simply demented. Like Ali, he claimed to be the very best that no one could beat. Yet, only a fool would say Tyson's power owed to his ego-mania, ego-centrism, or ego-supremacism. At his peak, he really was the most fearsome heavyweight boxer who steamrolled the opposition. So, one mustn't conflate his very real superiority as a boxer with his ego-supremacist rhetoric. His talk didn't make him the dominant figure in heavyweight boxing in the 80s. For a time, he really was the best with unmatched power and speed. No amount of ego-supremacism in an inferior boxer could guarantee victory.

Then, it's similarly ludicrous to attribute the epic rise of the West to 'white supremacism'. If 'supremacism' leads to great power, why didn't Arabs take over the world? Armed with Islam, they sincerely believed Allah was on their side and they were justified in the Jihad against the infidel. Plenty of American Indian tribes thought they were the best and toughest warriors. With such supremacist attitudes, they should have been able to fend off Pale Face. African tribal warriors were just as convinced of their prowess as warriors and killers, but many of them ended up on slave ships.

Blaming 'white supremacism' for everything is a cheap trick to enshrine the backwardness or stagnation of non-white peoples and cultures as 'tragic victimhood' than as relative failures in global competition. There should be no great shame for any people to have fallen behind(as it happened to all peoples), and there should be no special blame for any people to have pulled ahead. There was a time when North Africa and the Near East were far ahead of Europeans, especially those in the North. So, are we to assume that the great achievements of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia were the results of 'supremacist' attitudes whereas Northern Europeans lagged behind because of... 'supremacism' of the then Global South?
Perhaps, Egyptians, Libyans, Babylonians, and such folks really did believe their great achievements owed to something innately superior in them, but regardless of their attitudes, the fact is they achieved far more than Northern European folks in ancient times. Jews certainly developed a supremacist attitude, but the power of their spiritual vision cannot be attributed to tribal arrogance alone. Along with Hindus, Jews took spiritual imagination to the highest and deepest levels, and there was genuine superiority in the vision and wisdom, which explains why so many goy folks eventually adopted the God and sacred texts conceived by Jews.

In a way, PC denigration of white achievements is like antisemitic assumptions about Jewish achievements. Because Jews have often been vicious, nasty, arrogant, and contemptuous, Anti-Semites assure themselves that EVERYTHING accomplished by Jews must have been by hook or by crook. So, all Jewish achievements become suspect. Perhaps, Jews feel they are getting even with the historically 'antisemitic' West by encouraging the same kind of mindset against white achievements, i.e. whatever great or noble things whites achieved were always somehow tainted with 'white supremacism', 'racism', or 'antisemitism'(or were stolen from others). In other words, every white achievement, however astounding or beneficial to humanity, was the expression, product, partner, accomplice, enabler, or some such of White Supremacism. Whiteness is now akin to Nazi Lite, and the logic goes as follows: Werner von Braun may have been a great scientist/engineer, BUT his genius was in service to an evil ideology, therefore his genius was evil; likewise, whatever good whites may have done, it is morally questionable because it came about within the context of White Supremacy.

Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that positive white achievements were especially dangerous because they furthered and expanded the power of White Supremacism. It wasn't just the guns and bombs that tyrannized and terrorized the non-white races. Everything achieved by whites INDIRECTLY oppressed the world because it boosted the power of the white world inspired by 'white supremacism'. Medical advancements meant healthier white soldiers to invade other lands and lay waste to indigenous folks. Improved food production meant explosion of white demographics, setting off waves of white colonization of non-white territories. Better ships led to not only increased travel and trade but white domination of non-white lands via control of sea routes and formation of coastal colonies. If whiteness is indeed the foundation of evil 'white supremacism', then white achievements, however remarkable in and of themselves, are to be judged within the context of history in which whites used their advantages to gain dominance over the rest of the world.

There is surely a kernel of truth to such a worldview as it is true enough that the Power uses whatever means available to further its reach and control. Thus, nuclear science/technology in both the US and USSR could never be independent of politics. But, this has been true of all social orders, and it also applies to the spiritual realm. Has God or gods ever been neutral? Not only will both Domain A and Domain B exploit the latest technology to make better weapons but they will claim god or gods as being on their side. So, if achievements in the West were used to further Western power, how was this different from how the Mughals, the Chinese, or the Persians used their knowhow and technology?
It's an interesting topic for discussion, but hardly something the West has been uniquely guilty of. Some controversy surrounding Hayao Miyazaki's THE WIND RISES raised this very question. Should we admire the dreams and the craftsmanship of an airplane engineer because his achievements were used by the Japanese Military in acts of imperialist aggression and war? A sane person should be able to both acknowledge the real achievement and critique how it was used. After all, we can both admire the superb design of the samurai sword and despair of how it was often used. Or the Winchester 73 as a piece of brilliance and a killer of Indians. That the West and the white race often abused their great power is true enough, but that's been the timeless story of power, and the white race is no more or no less guilty than the rest. The main 'guilt' seems to be its pulling ahead of the rest and breaking through the sound barrier of history that no one had thought possible or even imagined as a possibility.

Now, what were the foundations of White Superiority? Here, we need to make a distinction between 'possession' and 'property'. For convenience sake, innate traits among whites will be called 'possessions', and external factors owned and/or controlled by whites will be called 'properties'. So, a man with higher IQ has possession of intelligence, and a man with land & weaponry has property of means. Of course, the two are interrelated as people who possess superior traits usually end up with more properties of power. (Consider what was done to Detroit by whites and blacks. Whites built it, blacks wrecked it.) Still, it isn't always the case. A people of real ability could become mired in a civilizational trap, like traditional East Asia prior to Western Imperialism or like Jewish intellectual culture prior to Emancipation and Secularization. Or, a people of ability could be situated in a harsh climate with poor soil, or they could exist in crippling isolation from the rest of the world. In contrast, a people of no special ability could be favored by fortune: Fine arable land with lots of water. And they could have warlike spirit(like the Ottoman Turks) and gain control of the inventions of other more gifted peoples. Thus, people who possess innate abilities could be severely limited in property(due to external factors), whereas a mediocre people with good fortune and warlike spirit could gain much in the way of property. Also, quality often loses to quantity. The upper classes have been brought down by mob uprisings, and talented minorities were set upon by the envious, resentful, and/or desperate majority. One hundred elite troops will lose to 10,000 mediocre troops. A tiger can be brought down by a large pack of wild dogs.

Beginning with 'possession', what innate traits favored the West over the Rest? Surely, this is the most controversial topic in our PC age, and even relatively maverick historians like Niall Ferguson don't want to go there. Instead of a single factor, it was probably a combination of traits. Some believe it owes to higher IQ among Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, but then, why did East Asians lag behind though their IQs have been shown to be comparable, even slightly higher? Some have surmised that Europeans were more individualistic and innovative because of their racial personality; or European IQ is higher at the tail end.
Does this mean the white race is individualist whereas the yellow race is conformist and/or communalist? Maybe but maybe not. More likely, most whites may actually be inclined toward conformism, just like the yellows. The spread of PC and the ideological & idolatrous consensus in the current West is a testament to that. If most whites are truly individualistic, how come so many fell under the spell of PC and other officially sanctioned nuttery?
Then, what really made the difference between East and West? Rather than individualist West vs communalist East, it's more likely that the West had just enough extra individualism to set it apart. So, it wasn't as if 100 people in the West were individualist and 100 people in the East were communalist. Rather, if only 2 out of 100 people in the East were individualist, 6 out of 100 people in the West were individualist, and that provided just enough added window space to allow for more innovation and discovery. So, even though the great majority, 98 in the East and 94 in the West, were always communalist than individualist, the West had just enough MORE individually-minded folks to create just enough extra space for more freedom necessary for innovation and revolutions. But because entire civilizations are defined by their most iconic figures, many came to assume that the entire West is marked by individualism. But the actual history of the West is more often of herd-mentality, mob-mentality, and ideological conformism. In reference to Ayn Rand's THE FOUNTAINHEAD, it was more about the masses bound to Toohey than individuals standing tall like Howard Roark. Still, having a society where 6 out of 100 are Roarkians than merely 2 out of 100 could make all the difference. It's like 6 strikes with flint-stones than merely 2 are more likely to provide the spark that lights the tinder on fire.

Genetics cannot provide all the answers, especially as the abilities of one group may be closer to those of another group that is genetically more distant. For instance, Northern Europeans are genetically closer to Arabs than to Northeast Asians who, in turn, are closer to Southeast Asians than to Northern Europeans. And yet, in terms of IQ and ability, Japanese are closer to Germans than to Malaysians. Europeans in general are closer in ability to East Asians than with Arabs even though both Europeans and Arabs belong to the Caucasian race. Even among various groups within a single broadly defined race, different cultural-historical-geographical factors could have led to notable divergences. Burmese and Mongols are closer to one another than Burmese are to Arabs or Mongols are to Swedes, but Burmese and Arabs are better adapted to warmer weather, whereas Mongols and Swedes are better adapted to colder weather. American Indians are genetically similar to East Asians, and yet in terms of IQ, Europeans and East Asians are more comparable.
White advantage surely owes to higher IQ but also to racial personality. If blacks evolved to be wild, East Asians evolved to be mild. As such, blacks found it difficult to build complex social order, and East Asians found it difficult to break free of the order. In contrast, Caucasian genetics were somewhere between the polar opposites of Negroids and Mongoloids.

Europeans also lucked out because the core of Europe was sufficiently close to non-European civilizations(to draw inspirations from them) yet also sufficiently separated from them(to fend off attempts at wholesale invasion). In contrast, East Asia was far removed from the rest of the world and mostly developed in isolation. Thus, it drew fewer inspirations from foreign civilizations other than India, which, by the way, was more notable for spiritual contemplation than vigor in science/technology. So, while certain white advantages were possessions(innate), others were matters of properties(external) that accrued to the white world because of the 'accident' of its geographical location that was just close enough to and just closed off to the non-European world.

In the long run, Northern Europe especially gained much from the 'backfield advantage'. As it was further removed from the Cradle of Civilization, it naturally lagged behind Southern Europe that came into regular contact with North Africa and Near East. And yet, this contact also meant endless conflicts of invasions and being invaded. Over time, the endless conflicts led to more destruction than construction.
In contrast, once the civilizational formulas that originated in the South crept up North, they could develop in a world of greater security and stability. Indeed, the US had this advantage to a much greater magnitude over Europe in the 19th and 20th century. Notwithstanding the horrors of the American Civil War, the US could develop with far greater security, stability, and freedom than Europe where Great Power politics led to endless tensions and eventually to World War I and World War II. The American advantage was like that of historical Britain but on a much larger scale. Whereas UK was a small island nation(relatively speaking) separated from the Continent by a narrow channel, America was separated from the Old World by an ocean and furthermore, had limitless empty space to stretch out across for a grand experiment without interruptions of war(especially as the native Reds were easily quelled). In that sense, certain European ideas came to their fullest expression and realization in America.

If white 'possessions' are forms of superiority owned by whites regardless of their fortunes — it's like Jews will possess high IQ even if robbed of wealth and blacks will possess athletic abilities even if robbed of freedom — , white 'properties' are forms of superiority that whites are fortunate to own. Europeans were geographically fortunate, and Anglos were especially fortunate to have arrived in North America, the best land mass in the entire world. (Russians lucked out because the vast territories of Siberia were mostly unpopulated and simply there for the taking. And despite the horrors suffered by Russians at the hands of Mongols, the yellow barbarian hordes very possibly prevented China from grabbing much of Siberia. After all, the reason why the Chinese refused to expand northward was they regarded the Northern Tribes as hopeless barbarians who should be kept out with massive walls. If the Mongols weren't there, Chinese might have grown bolder and more expansive. So, even the monstrous misfortune like the Mongols proved to be a fortune for the Russians.)

One may argue that white properties shouldn't qualify as evidence of white superiority as they are external to whiteness. After all, if Bill and Bob are equal in strength but if Bill gains an advantage over Bob by wielding a rock or a stick, his superiority depends solely on an external factor. Bill isn't any stronger than Bob because he has a rock or a stick, and if the rock or stick were to end up in Bob's hand, things would be reversed. For much of modern history, the white world had the better weapons, what Omar Sharif's character calls 'guns' in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Especially since the end of World War II, non-white nations have been developing their own technologies and weapons, and what had once been the sole property of the White World now belongs to all the world.

Still, there is a connection between possession and property. Consider the opening part of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Bones and sticks are strewn everywhere. So, any ape could have picked them up to be used as weapons. But, no ape did(or even thought to) until a certain spark affected the way one particular ape(the Howard Roark of apes) began to see things. No longer were bones merely lifeless matter strewn on the ground. Dead things could be 'resurrected' like Lazarus into force & energy by living organisms. A dry bone could be an extension of an ape's arm, an idea that eventually led to mankind's building of spaceships with lifeless matter. The ape turned the bone into a property of power because he came to possess a spark, which in the film was gifted by the monolith controlled by extraterrestrials.

It's possible that the revolutions in thought and technology in Europe were purely a matter of accident, as Jared Diamond argues in GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL. They could have happened to ANY people but just happened to happen in Europe because of certain factors related to geography and other external factors. But then, even accidents can indelibly alter the future course of organisms in profound ways. After all, mankind had nothing to do with the creation and formation of Earth that was an accumulation of series of cosmic 'accidents', but mankind, like all life forms, was profoundly shaped by these 'accidents' at the genetic level. Mankind didn't create the Arctics and the Tropics, the 'accidents' of geology, but the extremes of cold and hot did lead to divergences in evolution and favored certain genes at the expense of others among the various races. Even random events have deep repercussions.

Now, if the world were turned upside down by relentless series of accidents, nothing could be for certain. It's like a game of poker would be meaningless if cards were endlessly shuffled; the game is possible because it progresses in accordance to a certain logic once the cards have been shuffled.
Suppose the Earth was constantly bombarded with asteroids. Everything would be in a mad state of chaos and flux. But such major 'accidents' that fundamentally reconfigure and realign the world are rare and are usually followed by long stretches of relative stability in which the divergences set off by the Great Accident lead to long trajectories with profound implications. So, the Occident is more than an Accident. Whatever forces beyond human control led to the geographies and demographics that separated European folks from other folks, they set off far-reaching divergences that led to real differences and expressions of uniqueness among the races. And it's possible that Europeans ended up with just the right combination of higher intelligence, inspiration, individuality, and imagination to create the sparks that led to the fire of modernity. It isn't a certainty but should at least be considered, but the gods of the current order cannot tolerate any heresy.

ROOTING OUT WHITE SUPREMACY IN MATH - American Renaissance

How Biology Trumps Sociology and How Fascism Wins in the End.

The following is a response to Ken MacLeod's article "The ends of humanity
Socialism is dead, and the transhuman future looms. Is there any way to recover a sense of global purpose?" in the online journal AEON.

The future belongs to what might be called the 'genotopians' because the deep secrets of man are coded in the genes. Socialism failed because its understanding of mankind was cosmetic and plastic. Suppose there is an ugly woman, and we want to rid her of her ugliness. There is the cosmetic way of putting make-up on her face, but all that does is mask her ugliness. It's like spraying perfume on a dirty and smelly person. A more radical way is to put her under the knife and use plastic surgery to improve her looks. Her looks may improve--dramatically or modestly--, but her genes will still coded with ugliness, and so she'll give birth to ugly kids. The only real and permanent way to rid her of her ugliness is to work at the genetic level and change her DNA.
Or consider intelligence. How could we make a dumb person intelligent? IQ is essentially genetic though it depends on how it is developed in each individual. Similarly, though athleticism is genetic, athletes cannot rely on genes alone. Had Michael Jordan spent his entire youth in front of TV and never worked out, he wouldn't have become a great star. Had Einstein never read a book and spent his entire youth lazing around a pool, he never would have made his discoveries. Even so, it's undeniable that Michael Jordan and Einstein had natural or genetic advantages in their respective fields.

Now, some people are born dumb, so how could we make them smart? On the social level, the most we can do is train and exercise their minds with lots of lessons. But the result, in the end, will be cosmetic or plastic. A dumb person may memorize intelligent things to say or conform to the values and assumptions of 'what intelligent people are supposed to think', but he or she will still remain fundamentally dumb, incapable of genuine individual thought and critical inquiry. To turn a dumb person into a truly intelligent person, his genes must be altered. No matter how much were we to educate someone like George W. Bush, he's not going to be Einstein. At most, he can learn to spout intelligent-sounding cliches. But if we could somehow tweak Bush's genes and made them smart, there's no telling what he may be capable of.

The problem of Marxism and socialism was this notion that the essence of humanity is determined by material conditions and consciousness, i.e. material conditions shape one's consciousness, and consciousness, once awakened to the 'scientific truth' of class struggle as the main mechanism of history, would embrace revolution, and then, a new age would dawn.
Problem is the level of consciousness varies from person to person. The consciousness of someone with very high IQ is likely going to be different from those with with low IQ regardless of the social milieu. Also, depending on the temperament, some people might be more content while others are more discontent despite the similarity of social conditions. Consider that Betty Friedan lived in a nice house in the nice suburbs, but she felt miserable and compared her lot to the victims of the Holocaust. But there are women like Anne Romney who love being a wife and mother. There are lots of housewives in Japan who never feel the kind of resentment felt by Friedan even though they have less choice. And there are lots of Mexican women who are economically far less fortunate--in both Mexico and America--than Betty Friedan was in the 1950s, but they are a lot happier and in love with their men. So, the so-called 'consciousness' is never universal. Jews especially seem to be overly sensitive to everything, and so whenever Jews talk about 'consciousness', they are projecting their own especially charged neurosis on the rest of humanity. Marx claimed to express the rage of the working class, but he was really projecting his frustrated rage as an unappreciated intellectual onto the working class as a moral cover. And Freud often projected his own sexual neurosis onto the rest of humanity. He claimed to be studying us, but in fact, he was using us as a screen for his own hangups. So, we should always beware when intellectuals pretend to speak of our 'consciousness'--or 'subconsciousness'.

At any rate, some people are capable of understanding complex ideas and thinking their own ideas; others are only capable of learning the ideas of other people; and some people are beyond understanding complex ideas altogether. This is true in the arts, math, science, philosophy, and etc. The notion that all of humanity could be liberated and advanced though material transformation and 'consciousness-raising' has been naive, to put it mildly. Of course, material conditions and education/media/indoctrination do have profound impact on mankind, but one constant is that most people, regardless of the system they live in, are followers, sheep, puppets, mental children, the duped. Most people are not intellectuals, and even most so-called intellectuals tend to be followers, doctrinaire ideologues than free thinkers, politically conformist commissars than critical individualists. Indeed, for every leading communist, socialist, or Marxist thinker or theorist, there were thousands of hacks, fanatics, and dogmatists who were incapable of thinking for themselves; indeed, that was precisely the appeal of Marxism that supposedly had unified history, science, philosophy, economics, ethics, politics, and everything under the sun. Though there were some vigorous Marxist thinkers, Marxism was really a lazy short-cut to Truth. The appeal was that the great Marx had figured it all out--the formula, mechanism, and destiny of mankind and history--, and all one had to do was study, learn, obey, and spread the gospel.

But in the end, here was the problem. It wasn't only that communism and socialism were less efficient and productive than capitalism. It was that communism/socialism failed to change the nature of man and the fact of man's limitations--especially that most people were mediocre and untalented. No amount of economic experimentation and consciousness-raising fundamentally could ever change the nature of man, and so communism died a slow death.
Though capitalism also failed to change the nature of man, it understood that nature much better and tapped into its potential through incentives and rewards that energized the most skilled and talented members of society. We all know that innovation and progress in all fields are realized by the most intelligent and talented individuals. If communism tended to suppress such talents, capitalism incentive-ized success, and so people with fresh ideas build up businesses, and investors provided the capital. A Steve Jobs would not have been possible in the USSR. Not only would such a person been denounced as a 'greedy capitalist', but his ilk could pose a challenge to the ideocrats--ideological theocrats--who ran the state. Economic freedom could eventually lead to independent forces that may challenge of state monopoly over everything.
If some people are 'greedy' for money, others are 'greedy' for power. And communist intellectuals were greedy for power. Che Guevara and Stalin may not have cared much about material wealth, but they wanted the power to decide who gets to live, who gets to be sent to the gulag, who gets to run the state, who gets to work on the fields and factories, and who gets shot in the back of the head. (Indeed, the main attraction of communism to the Third World was not justice but power. Third World nations felt weak in relation to the West, and many came to regard communism as a kind of Instant Hammer with which to drive out the imperialists and build a powerful economy. In most cases, communists didn't care how many people they killed in the process. What they prized in communism was not compassion but ruthlessness. They knew Stalin killed a lot of people, but the fact is Stalin built a superpower, and Third World leaders hoped to the same. Anything was worth it--even a mountain of bones--as long as their nations gained greater power.)
And contrary to what MacLeod says, there was an element of greed among ordinary people in socialist/communist states as well. Their greed may have been modest but greed is greed. Greed isn't necessarily want of great wealth or great power but want of something for nothing at somebody else's expense. Thus, if I choose to drop out of school, get pregnant in my teens, sit in front of a TV all day, and expect the tax payers to provide me with welfare, I'm being greedy. I may not demand great wealth , but I want something for nothing. And if society were to become filled with too many such people, its economy will eventually go under--as is the case in Greece, Italy, and Spain. Indeed, that was why the USSR finally unraveled. Stalin was murderous, but he understood the true nature of communism: As there were hardly any material incentives for working hard under communism, people had to be forced to work hard with the bully whip. So, Stalin killed millions but he built a superpower. But after the death of Stalin, the USSR sought to practice a more humane communism that was less coercive. In time, Soviets worked less and less but expected more from the state. Even if they didn't expect much, they were still expecting more than what the Soviet economy was able to produce, i.e. what they worked to produce. Since Soviet communism became more 'humane', it was easier for workers to slack off, do very little, get drunk on the job, and so forth. They were no longer being accused of sabotage and sent to the Gulag(all of which were closed in the late 50s), so why should anyone work hard at anything? So, it was the accumulation of modest greed among the masses that undermined the Soviet economy. Everyone was slacking off and producing less and less but everyone wanted higher living standards. For awhile the Soviet economy could sustain the illusion of economic stability with petrodollars--earned from selling Soviet oil to capitalist economies!--, but when the price of oil plummeted, the Soviet economy had no legs to stand on.

And so, capitalism won. But capitalism has its own delusions and problems. Many Americans like to believe in the power of the individual. They say that freedom and liberty combined with ambition and hard work produce great success, and this is indeed true... if you have natural smarts. But the problem is most people don't have natural smarts, and different groups have different levels of general ability. While American freedom can produce men like Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, and many others, the fact is your average man or woman has no chance in hell in becoming very successful. Now, one can argue that great innovators and entrepreneur, even as they get richer, make the pie bigger for everyone. And this is true enough to a large extent. Henry Ford didn't just make himself rich but paid good wages and enabled Americans to own cars. Cars meant faster travel and more trade and thus affected all other industries. And the advent of the telephone also had a great impact on communication and business. And all these enterprises created lots of new jobs, and that meant more spending power for everyone. And indeed, even poor people in the West are materially better off than most people around the world.

But we cannot escape the problem of inequality around the world, not least in the West, and this has serious implications for the future, especially as income levels tend to correlate with race and ethnicity. It's one thing to be a poor white person in a white nation. You may feel economic resentment but not racial resentment. But in a nation where income and race/ethnicity go together, there's likely to be both income and racial resentment, and that could be especially dangerous. Leftists like to believe that all races are equal in talent, but this is not so. The reason why Jews are only 2% of the US population but own up to 40% of the wealth is due to higher Jewish intelligence. Average Jewish IQ in the US is 110-115. White gentile IQ is, on average, 100. And black IQ ranges from 85 to 90.
So, unsurprisingly, Jews are the most successful people in America. 50% of Jews earn more than $100,000 a year. As Jews get richer and richer, many other groups get poorer and poorer. The idea that blacks and increasing numbers of Mexican-Americans will eventually reach the income level of whites, let alone Jews, through more education and training is becoming ever more delusional. Though white, Jewish, and Asian liberals may officially spout all the politically correct nonsense about IQ being nothing more than a social construct, the facts speak for themselves. Jews arrived as dirt poor immigrants in America, but within several decades, they've ousted the Wasp elite and become the ruling elites of America. Jews now control Wall Street, law firms, elite universities, media, courts, US government, etc. Would this have been possible if not for higher Jewish IQ? Though it's true that Jews have a culture that prizes intelligence, it's partly because they are intelligent enough to appreciate the worth of culture.

In sports and physicality, blacks have a decisive advantage. Evolution made blacks stronger and more aggressive. That's why blacks dominate basketball, football, and many top professional sports. That's why so much of the racial violence is black on white, black on Hispanic, black on Asian, black on Arab, and etc. Even most liberal whites prefer not to live in areas with too many blacks. Thus, there's a lot of anti-black sentiment among non-blacks even if it happens to be repressed as our society deems no sin as graver than 'racism'. Though white liberals will claim to love the Negro, most of them prefer to gentrify neighborhoods by jacking up real estate prices that drives out blacks.

Just as many non-blacks fear blacks, many blacks resent being avoided by non-blacks. While we can understand the frustration of law-abiding blacks, there's no denying that the high rates of black crime and violence owes to (1) blacks knowing that they are tougher than non-blacks who make easy prey (2) higher levels of black aggression due to bio-chemical factors (3) lower black intelligence that prevents many blacks from making the economic climb. Especially with whites--both liberals and conservatives--favoring the more docile and less uppity Hispanic labor over the more troublesome black labor, there's bound to be ever more racial problems in times ahead.

Another problem is the rise of globalism. While international trade is nothing new in capitalism, the main mode of capitalism used to be national capitalism, i.e. "What is good for General Motors is good for American workers." Not anymore. With the expansion of trade treaties, networks, and communication, America-based companies can easily contract and hire much cheaper labor around the world. Thus, while the profits of globalist corporations go through the roof, the middle class and working class in America feel more pinched than ever. If you're of high intelligence and creative/innovative potential, you can prosper in the New Economy, but if you're average or mediocre, there's only the service or servant industry. And it just so happens that most people are naturally mediocre. We keep hearing that Americans must be more 'creative', and while that's true, the problem is most people are never gonna be creative since they are of limited intelligence and talent. Even among trained writers, few are very good. Even among trained artists, few are really talented. Even among trained scientists, few really come up with new discoveries and ideas.

But the myth of American individualism that says anyone can 'make it' with work ethic and dedication continues to fill a lot of people with false hope. And it is increasingly becoming a dwindling hope as more Americans realize that the new global economy is really a boon only for the smart and 'creative' than for all Americans. In the past, the smart and creative Americans mostly built their factories in America and hired American workers(who were often unionized). And so, the employers and employees were one people. Today, there is no such sense of national purpose among the elite globalist class, and so the American middle class is becoming more hollowed out.
And things got really wild when Wall Street bankers played fast and loose and sank the economy, and then used their puppet-boys in government--Bush and Obama--to 'bail' them out at the expense of the already squeezed middle class. Of course, Wall Street was able to get away with such outrage since Jews control all the top institutions. Jewish oligarchs own the media, Jewish sharks own Wall Street, Jewish agents control both the Democratic and Republican parties, Jews run the top law firms, Jews run the academia, and Jews run the courts. So, all those powerful Jewish groups all watched each other's back, and so the Jewish elite banksters on Wall Street got away with the crime of the century. But we cannot speak of this truth because Jewish media will destroy anyone who dares to speak truth to Jewish power.

There is no social, material, or intellectual solution out of the current problem. No matter how much we spend on education, blacks and Mexican-Americans are not going to be the intellectual or economic equivalents of Jews and Swedish-Americans. And no amount of politically correct propaganda is going to rid non-blacks of their fear of blacks since the fear in this case is totally rational and sensible. Fear of blacks among non-blacks is the product of black thuggery, violence, crime, and bullying, and many blacks act the way they do because they very well know they are stronger/tougher than other races and also because they're naturally more prone to be aggressive and less inhibited.

The only REAL solution is genetic. All other solutions are cosmetic and/or plastic. We can pretend that Michelle Obama is a 'smart black lady', but honest people know she's a mediocrity who was generously favored by 'affirmative action' at the expense of far more talented individuals.

If we could use genetic science to boost the IQ of all people to the level of Ashikenazi Jews, there would be more equality. Notice that the most equal states in America tend to be more homogeneously white. This is so because white gentiles tend to share not only a similar set of values but similar range of abilities.

The greatest inequalities exist in places like NY city and California, and why? Because high IQ Jews in NY hog most of the wealth while blacks, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans have a difficult time making the social climb. California is one of the most liberal and 'progressive' states, but it has huge income gaps and why? Because Jews in Hollywood and Jews/Asians in Silicon Valley with their high IQ earn huge sums while the growing number of Mexican-Americans remained mired in mediocrity. It doesn't matter how much California or NY spends on education or 'consciousness raising', or whatever. Indeed, just about everyone in Hollywood and Silicon Valley is a very politically correct liberal. Yet, despite their ideology, certain groups--especially Jews, Asians, and some whites--keep getting richer and richer while other groups keep falling through the cracks more and more. And Charles Murray noted this trend among whites as well: Richer whites with higher IQ tend to marry one another while poor whites with lower IQ tend to marry one another. It wasn't always so, but now, the white race is being more divided permanently--genetically--among income/intelligence lines.

The only solution is to work on the DNA. If everyone could genetically be given the IQ of Bill Gates or Sergey Brin, the world would be more equal. And in athletics, genetic therapy might produce greater parity among the races. China spent huge sums on track and field, yet it won medals only in the Walking competition. And China is a nation of 1.3 billion people. Tiny Jamaica produced more track stars than China and all of Asia put together.  At this point, only the most politically correct fanatic/idiot would deny the racial-genetic factor in sports. If races can be different in the field of athletics, surely they can be different in other areas as well.

We can spend tons of money on Mexican-American athletic training, but will it make Mexican-Americans the athletic equal of blacks? Though Mexican-Americans will surely improve their game with more training,  most of them simply won't have the genetic material to become NFL or NBA stars.
So, if we really want to make humanity more equal and successful, we must work on the genes. Indeed, the fastest way to build up the Arab economy would be by taking high IQ Jewish sperm(or someone like Sergey Brin) and inseminating it into 100,000s of Arab women. Then, the Arab world will almost overnight produce many geniuses in science, math, law, and etc.

And the easiest and cheapest way for China to have its own super athletes in track would be have some powerful West African guy hump a 1000 Chinese women. You can spend billions on educating mediocre children, but they are not gonna be Einsteins. If you want an Einstein, just take high IQ Jewish sperm and impregnate a woman with it. It's so much cheaper and quicker. Biology trumps sociology.

As for social-democracy, its economic system was far closer to the fascist model than to either communism or full-fledged capitalism. Like fascist economics, social-democracy accepted the role of capitalism but also upheld the role of the state in regulating the economy and/or managing certain sectors of the economy. As such, both social-democracy and fascist-economy were forms of the Third Way. Not for nothing did German National Socialism provide all Germans with universal healthcare. National Socialism also created extensive job programs, indeed on a bigger scale than attempted in the US under FDR's New Deal.

If communism saw economics as a war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, both social democracy and fascist economics believed an understanding could be reached by the two sides. Also, both social democracy and fascist economics accepted the reality of classes and economic differences. Some people, being smarter, more talented, and more industrious, were simply going to earn more. Even so, both social democracy and fascist economics believed that all people should be provided with certain basic needs.

Where social democracy and fascist economics differ is in their view of the human soul. The holistic model of fascism sees every member of the state as being spiritually linked with the sacred national family. So, the socialist aspect of fascist economics wasn't simply materialistic but deeply emotional. For a German National Socialist, eating a loaf of bread wasn't just a case of case of eating something made of flour. The bread was regarded as the product of the sacred German soil and  prepared with honest German toil. Thus, the central concept within fascist economics was that you, as a sacred member of a sacred family, must do your best to be a productive member of society. As you eat sacred German bread from the sacred German soil prepared by honest German toil, you too must do your part for the good of the sacred motherland/fatherland. In other words, there was a conditional aspect to National Socialism. The nation gave you stuff, but you must give back to the nation. The nation is not just the government but a kind of family. Since you were 'spiritually' bound with all other Germans and with your sacred nation, it was not enough for you to feel entitled and demand stuff as a self-interested individual. And German National Socialism would have worked had it remained 'national'. But instead, Hitler got greedy and aggressive and veered into international imperialism when he invaded Eastern Europe. The problem of National Socialism was not its nationalism but its violation of the nationalism of other nations. A true nationalist loves his or her nation but also respects the love that other peoples have of their nations. Hitler violated that rule of nationalism, and henceforth, National Socialism was doomed to failure.

The problem of social democracy is it tends to be unconditional and materialistic(or soulless). According to fascist economics, even the lower classes should be provided with jobs, opportunities, purpose, and basic services, BUT the lower classes should reciprocate by working hard as part of the national family. No one should slack off. No one should feel entitled to free stuff just because he or she happened to be born. You must contribute to the nation if you want something from the nation. As such, there is a sense of shame in fascist economics. You must work, want to work, and contribute to the nation as a whole. You mustn't just demand free stuff. And in this respect, fascist economics had one thing in common with communism. Communism too demanded that people had to work and contribute to the nation. Ideally, communism was only for workers, not shirkers.

But welfare socialism that developed in Europe and America sent out the soulless--and soul-destroying message--that everyone was entitled to stuff for free and without any strings attached. So, even if teenage girls in America messed up in school, dropped out, got pregnant with some moron boyfriend, and sat in front of a TV all day, she was entitled to free housing, free food, free clothes, free medicine, free everything. Even free cell phones. There is no 'spiritual' sense that she should be responsible and work hard and contribute to the system to the best of her ability. Instead of give-and-take, it creates a lazy, parasitic, and decadent mind-set that goes for take-and-take.
Today, even a chubby-faced privileged white girl(Sandra Fluke) who attends an elite university--she must be person of some means--expects free birth control pills. With educated people setting such a decadent and rotten example for the rest of America, we can see where this country is headed. In the 30s, it made sense for decent people to sympathize with Okies looking for jobs in California. It made sense to feel sympathy for people who stood in lines for jobs. It made sense to provide welfare for widows with children. But we can sympathize with the man who wants to work in the humanist film BICYCLE THIEVES. And we feel pity for the old man in UMBERTO D, another neo-realist work from the early 1950s.
But in today's America, we are to believe that not providing free birth control pills to some privileged chubby faced girl attending an Ivy League college is 'war against women'. We are supposed to believe that all those black, brown, and white trash girls who mess up in school and get pregnant with one boyfriend after another and live off welfare are 'victims' deserving of sympathy and more freebies.
This is socialism without a soul, without a sense of mutuality and reciprocity. Under fascist economics, people got some 'free stuff' from the nation, but everyone was reminded that he or she was part of the national family, and as such, owed something in return. One should feel gratitude to the national family for what it provides for you. Since the national family provided you with bread, education, and universal healthcare, you should try to be a good person, work hard, contribute, and etc. (And had National Socialism operated within Germany, it would have worked. But the radical racial-imperialist ideology of Hitlerism led to insane murderous ventures in the East.) But there is no soul in social democracy and welfare socialism. Even a bratty, soulless, and lazy slob in America or Sweden can lay back and say, 'gimme free stuff'. And do such people feel even an ounce of gratitude for the 'free stuff' made possible by tax payers? No, they just bitch and whine and demand more. They complain that it's unfair that other people have more; never mind that other people worked for what they got. Complainers and moochers will keep complaining and mooching.

Even so, Sweden has fared rather well because of the built-in quasi-fascist cultural character of Germanic/Nordic peoples. Having been tempered and hardened over the centuries by the work ethic, discipline, thriftiness, social order, and dedication inherent in their culture, Germans and other Germanic peoples became more orderly, efficient, thorough, clean, and committed to work and craftsmanship than most other peoples.
Culture does matter in human achievement and social stability, and this is something fascism very well understands. Marxism and socialism tend to focus on material factors, but culture always played an important role in the relative achievements of peoples. Though IQ has been a decisive factor in Jewish success, Jewish culture of intellectualism and scholarship cannot be ignored either. And the Confucian ethos of East Asia played a key role in the success of East Asians over there and here.  Confucian ethos emphasizing education and social harmony has given East Asians an edge over other Asians. East Asians have a better sense of priorities on what it takes to succeed in life.
Similarly, the reason for the differences between Northern Europe and Southern Europe is due to the different cultural values. Northern Europeans, especially of the Germanic and Protestant stock, developed a more sober temperament, seriousness of purpose, greater bonds of trust and civic duty, a deeper sense of personal responsibility, and mutual reciprocity. In contrast, the Latins and the Greeks are known for their pettiness, self-interest, clannish distrust of others, culture of corruption, and mutual recrimination. So, even if Sweden has been politically liberal/leftist through most of the 20th century, the Swedish character that had formed over many centuries tended to be 'fascist'--orderly, disciplined, responsible, dedicated, etc. And this can be said for the Dutch as well. Paradoxically, the most successful liberal and libertarian nation-states tend to be homogeneous ones with a deep culturally 'quasi-fascist' heritage. They were better able to handle their freedom and freebies because their cultural character was rooted in work ethic and responsibility. Germans especially have been known for their orderliness, thoroughness, and discipline. Indeed, even German greens are more orderly and sober than Greek or Southern Italian conservatives.

Fascists understand and value the power of culture, but socialists do not, and so the very cultural character/qualities that made Northern European success possible are being chipped and eroded away. Eventually, even an hardy people will become soft if corrupted with soulless materialism--and social-democracy and welfare socialism, along with consumerist-capitalism, are forms of soulless materialism. Worse, modern Germanics have swallowed whole hog the false god of 'diversity'. They fail to understand that Sweden has worked as well as it did because it was mostly populated by Swedes of shared culture, more or less equal talents, and common values. Swedes, in embracing 'multi-culturalism' and 'diversity', have opened their nation to hordes of low-IQ immigrants with high birthrates, criminality, backwardness, laziness, and parasitism. As such, whole areas of Sweden is now beginning to look more like Detroit. And Netherlands isn't looking any better.

Thus far, Swedes and the Dutch have done well for themselves in the modern liberal order because their national character had been forged and hardened through centuries of Protestant work ethic, culture of sobriety, culture of self-restraint, and culture of mutual responsibility. Even as the politics got more and more decadent, the core culture and its habits still remained in sufficient number of people to keep the economy working. But as those nations fill up with ever more low IQ people from backward nations, they will turn into cesspools of mediocrity, and no amount of preening politically correct propaganda can refute this dire truth.

Culture matters. All white ethnic groups arrived in America under the same conditions, but some groups rose faster than others. Despite the problems of discrimination, Jews achieved more and faster success than all other groups. And Swedish-Americans are more successful than Italian-Americans who, due to their cultural background, were more likely to be involved with organized crime. Fascism understood the nature of culture, but the soulless materialist ideology of socialism sought to understand everything in terms of economic data. Leftists often say that some kids score higher on the SAT  because their parents are richer and because they attended better schools. But then, why is it that Japanese-Americans, who were dispossessed and 'interned' and had to start from scratch after WWII, became among the most successful groups in America? Polish-Americans and Italian-Americans weren't dispossessed during WWII. Shouldn't they be making more money than Japanese-Americans? Again, we cannot understand such social phenomenon without addressing the issue of culture(and values associated with particular cultures). And many kids from poor Jewish immigrants, though having nothing like the advantages of the WASP elite, did extremely well academically. And even Jews who were denied entry into Harvard and other elite schools achieved remarkable things at CUNY. The advantage of higher Jewish IQ notwithstanding, we cannot understand Jewish success without understanding the culture and values of the Jewish community.
In a way, this lack of understanding of culture accounts for the decline of socialism. After all, ideologically the most 'leftist' and 'socialist' group in America are the Jews. Yet, they are also the richest and most privileged. When a Jewish leftist like George Soros is infinitely richer than a white conservative who believes in Austrian school of economic theory, it's obvious that the world conforms to the reality of the power of culture and biology than to any set of ideological principles. Jews may be overwhelmingly liberal and leftist--ideologically egalitarian--and vote Democratic, but the fact is Jews are getting richer and richer while non-Jews aren't so lucky. And to understand this, we need to look at the real causes of social inequality. They are culture and IQ. Jews have a culture of sobriety and intellectualism and discipline; they also have higher IQs. While non-Jews can learn from Jewish culture and values, they cannot adopt Jewish IQ. .. unless there is a method of genetic therapy in the future that can boost the IQ of all groups at the genetic level. But then, would Jews--even leftist Jews--really want that to happen if it means the erosion of the Jewish advantage over non-Jews?
One of the reason for the demise of socialism is that Jews had long been the ideological leaders of socialism, but the power of Jewish IQ and culture made Jews too rich and successful--even leftist ones--for them to really take stuff like Marxism, communism, or socialism seriously anymore. If anything, Jews are secret neo-fascists who want to gain greater control of the government in order to manipulate us into the kind of people who will readily obey them.

It's long been a truism that in the contest of ideologies, fascism died an ignoble death in 1945, and then, the grand conflict had been between capitalism vs communism, with the former finally triumphing in the 1980s. But seen in another way, fascism didn't die 1945. Instead, the fanatical strain of radical racial fascism as defined by Hitler crashed and burned--and along with it Mussolini's Italian Fascism because Mussolini, unlike Franco, didn't have enough sense to stay out of the war.

To understand the true history of fascism, consider the post-war era when the East and West offered their respective solutions to the problems of the Third World. What was the victor in this game of power? Communism? Capitalism? Or Fascism? It certainly wasn't communism. Anyone who knows anything should know what communism did to China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and African nations. It was one big story of oppression, mass murder, and deprivation. So, did capitalism win in the Third World? Not quite. The most successful Third World nations in the Cold War were fascist Asian nations like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. Of course, they dared not use the term 'fascist' since it was associated with the much loathed Axis powers, but their system of governance, ideology, and economics were essentially fascist. It was capitalism but heavily under state control and guidance. And they were very nationalistic and ethnocentric and promoted patriotism. But like Franco, they were non-aggressive and had no plans to conquer other nations. (Had Hitler followed the same path, National Socialism would have thrived within Germany.) Also, the fascist East Asian states emphasized the importance of tradition while, at the same time, adopting and promoting modernity. The original ideal of fascism was to balance the various elements instead of seeing history and society in terms of constant conflict where one side had to totally demolish the other. The problem of Marxism was its Manichean tendency to see everything outside its ideological construct as an enemy to destroy. So, communists destroyed entire churches, entire populations, entire cultures, entire classes, etc. In contrast, fascism saw no reason to destroy all traditional institutions. Instead, tradition was to be honored as a part of national and cultural heritage. At the same time, fascism rejected reactionary-ism and was open to modernity and technological progress. Communists insisted that the bourgeoisie class must be exterminated. Fascists said classes were natural and would always exist, and so, what was ideal was finding a way to arrive at some kind of compromise among the classes--and in this sense, FDR's New Deal was a kind of liberal fascism.
Communism preached World Revolution and dreamed of smashing national walls to create an ideologically homogeneous community singing the same anthem and worshiping the same god of Marx. In contrast, the fascist ideal was for each nation to have the right to rule itself and maintain its national identity and pride. Of course, Mussolini couldn't resist invading Africa since the price of admission of being a 'great power' back then was to have imperial possessions. Since France and UK had so much, Mussolini figured Italy should have some imperial spoils too. But fascist imperialism was never as extensive as democratic-capitalist or communist imperialism. After all, most of Africa was owned by democratic France and democratic UK. And it was democratic UK and US that encouraged Japan to become an Imperial power long before Japan joined with the Axis powers. And US was created by Anglo-imperialism against the American Indians. Russians had long been expanding their empire over the centuries, and communists took it even further in creating the massive Soviet Union. In a way, WWII was a conflict between the established-giant-imperialist powers--UK, France, US, and USSR--versus the up-and-coming imperialists who felt that they'd been cheated out of the international spoils system.

Anyway, after WWII, a much smarter and more sober form of fascism--though never called 'fascism'--developed in parts of the Third World, especially in East Asia. Though most progressives and liberals in the West thought the future belonged to communist nations(at least in the Third World), history turned out very differently. The fascist East Asian nations made the greatest social and economic progress. They were the first to produce the educated middle class that would eventually push for democratic reforms. In contrast, communist East Asian nations remained not only mired in poverty but committed mass murder and created vast prison states of drabness. It was the success of East Asian fascist nations and overseas Chinese that finally convinced many Chinese Communist leaders that they had to change course. And since then, China has essentially become a fascist state, which again proves the rule that fascism is many times more useful than communism--and even democratic capitalism AT LEAST IN BUILDING UP THE ECONOMY for the rise of the middle class that may eventually push for democratization. As Samuel Huntington realized, a truly working democracy needs a firm foundation, and that happens to be the educated middle class. Thus, having democracy before economic development may be like putting the cart before the horse. While economic growth doesn't necessarily guarantee democratization, a democracy without a solid well-educated and well-informed middle class is like a horse with broken legs. Indeed in Europe itself, economic development preceded the expansion of liberties and the eventual rise of mass democracy. With more economic growth came more political reforms.
At least from the example of the Third World, fascism was more effective in bringing about economic growth and building up the middle class than communism and capitalism(without state intervention)were. The Chinese Communist Party will never admit to being 'fascist' and still continues to use that word as an epithet, but when we look closely at China since the 1980s, it can only be called a fascist state.  In the economic sphere, instead of communism, it goes for state capitalism. Instead of radical universalist rhetoric, it goes for Chinese nationalism; its message is, "We are proud to be Chinese, so leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone. Respect our national sovereignty, and we'll respect your national sovereignty." Ironically, the new fascist China has fought no wars while democratic America has been engaged in a series of wars since the 90s, beginning with the Gulf War. Democratic United States even invaded Iraq, a nation that had done nothing to provoke it. And Obama and other democratic leaders decided to use NATO to attack Libya and bring down Gaddafi. Democratic nations like to boast that democratic nations believe in peace and don't wage wars on one another, but they sure love to wage wars on non-democratic nations(even while being very close to other non-democratic nations).
Instead of smashing old culture(as under Mao), the new fascist China reveres the idea of Chinese culture, Chinese heritage, and Chinese history. And unlike communism that banned all religions and made itself the sole faith for all Chinese, new China allows all sorts of religions and a degree of cultural pluralism. If China under Maoist communism remained mired in utter poverty and oppressive paranoia, China since the 1980s has made great progress in leaps and bounds in many fields. Fascism has been a great success. In the end, the new China learned more from tiny fascist Singapore than vice versa. China seeks to become a giant Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea than revert to the old communist ways. But Chinese fascism is smart. It's not Hitlerian; it has no ambition to conquer neighboring nations. It balances internationalism with nationalism. It earns and learns from the world but maintains the sovereignty and national integrity of China.

Another fascist power of the post-cold war is Putin's Russia. Russia's 70 yrs of communism/imperialism has been a failure. Communism in the end brought much ruin to Russian heritage and culture. And Soviet imperialism brought much devastation to Eastern Europe and Central Asia. After the fall of communism, Russia opted for fast-paced liberalization managed by international Zionists, but all it did was hand Russia over to a cabal of cutthroat Jewish oligarchs working in tandem with their tribesmen in NY and Israel. And Russia became one big whorehouse for the West. It was Putin who used a form of Russian fascism to restrain the oligarchs, to promote Russian pride, to restore a degree of discipline. Putin understood that communism was a failure, but he didn't want to hand over Russia to a bunch of international laissez faire neo-liberal capitalists. He insisted on the primacy of Russian sovereignty, solidarity, culture, heritage, identity, and tradition. He encouraged nationalism and higher birthrates among Russian women. Even as the new Russian state rejected communism, Putin encouraged pride of the achievements during the Soviet Era. There was no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Of course, Putin will insist that there's nothing 'fascist' about Putin's Russia. This is par for the course since Russia fought a horrifying war against German fascism, and the word 'fascism' has become synonymous with Eeeeeeevil. But an objective look at Putin's Russia reveals that it isn't communist, it is not democratic capitalist. It is fascist. It balances capitalism with socialism as a kind of Third Way. It promotes Russian pride and nationalism. It defends traditional institutions like the Church. But it also embraces modernity and learning from the rest of the world. It is like early Italian Fascism that was unencumbered with nutty racial theories.

Now, it may well be that while fascism has been effective in building up economies in the East Asia, the eventual thrust of all modern nations is toward liberal democracy. This may be true, but even with the arrival of political democracy, one can argue that the continual success of a nation depends on a degree of cultural fascism. Take Japan for example, one of the biggest economies in the world. After WWII, it was transformed into a democracy by the Americans, and it remains a democracy to this day. But one can argue that Japan's success cannot simply be attributed to democracy. After all, there are many democracies in the world that remains mired in poverty. If democracy is the key to success, all democratic nations ought to be richer than non-democratic nations. But fascist China has done a lot more than democratic India. Chile under the fascist Pinochet achieved more than many democratic Latin-American nations. Taiwan under military rule achieved a lot more than many democratic African nations.

So, we cannot attribute the success of a nation to its political system alone.

Japanese through the centuries have developed a culture of order, discipline, unity, trust, shame, and obligation. While there's been a dark side to Japan's value system--and it continues to plague Japan--, it is indisputable that the Japanese national character played a significant role in the rise of Japan from the ashes of WWII. Democracy allows open debate, criticism, and will of the people, but economy grows from hard work, diligence, industriousness, dedication, and the culture of sobriety & responsibility, and those qualities cannot be achieved through democracy alone. If anything, democracy can make things worse. Blacks always had the shorter end of the stick in American history, but blacks used to believe in the dignity of work. And out-of-wedlock births among blacks were relatively low even in the early 60s. In the 50s, many blacks aspired to become middle class and respectable. But the combination of cultural libertarianism  and the massive welfare dependency ushered in a new era of blacks acting wild, crazy,and lazy, and now 80% of blacks are born out of wedlock and a massive black underclass dependent on handouts has developed. Democracy offers more freedom, but freedom is only as good as the people using it. If used stupidly, it can do more harm than good. Democracy can make people more free, but it cannot guide people on how to use that freedom. Such guidance comes from family, tradition, social pressures and values, from the church, from education, and etc. But the family is in decline, kids are addicted to trashy pop cultures, schools impart the politics of resentment and blame than the culture of learning and responsibility, and many churches--especially black ones--are more like discoteques or rock concerts than spiritual institutions. When freedom becomes rotten and decadent, things will fall apart, and people will look for new solutions.
There are two kinds of social order: order-from-within and order-from-without. The self-regulating and self-shaming order-from-within operates among citizenry that is responsible, sober, and serious; people have an inner sense of right and wrong, of how to function in society. Such sense of inner order comes from family upbringing, schooling, communal life, a sense of sacred belonging to the community--a sense of give-and-take--, and cultural heritage. People with order-from-within will not steal even if they can steal because their inner compass shames them if they were to even entertain the idea of stealing. Successful societies are populated mostly with citizens with order-from-within. If everyone is committed to stealing as much as he can, there isn't much the system can do to stop it. This is why so many shopping malls have closed down in the black community. Even with all the security guards and surveillance cameras, it's impossible to stop and catch all the thieves. It's made considerably worse by the fact that many black employees feel no sense of inner shame or order-from-within and will themselves steal as much as possible. And in most black African nations, everyone treats stealing like a national pastime, from the ruler on the top to the beggar on the ground.

Where the culture of order-from-within is weak and too many people cannot control themselves, it becomes necessary for the system to impose order-from-without. Imagine a population that is wild, rowdy, disruptive, irreverent, irresponsible, selfish--take-and-take instead of give-and-take--, and obnoxious. Since they have no self-control, they must be controlled from the outside. The problem of democracy is it cannot instill rotten lunatics with proper values. As democratic freedom permits people to be stupid, nothing can be done about women who choose to be single mothers, parents who neglect their kids, kids who watch trashy TV and listen to ugly music all day, etc.  When that kind of attitude and culture spreads--and there are no cultural or social counter-forces to check them--, liberal democracy is headed for decadence and decline. And it will continue to decline until things gets so bad that massive civil unrest erupts from which a new authoritarian order arises and uses its iron boot discipline to instill people with the values of order-from-within.

One way to control and restrain the idiots and lunatics is by shaming and shunning, and this may still be effective in parts of democratic Asia where the culture remains pretty conservatives and people--especially the young--still respect older people and feel ashamed of being regarded as morons. But in culturally libertarian America, even shaming people is seen as 'oppressive' and 'repressive'. And so, America has become a shameless nation of ever growing number of slobs and lunatics. The one thing that American society shames is 'racism', but this is as damaging as helpful. If attacking 'racism' meant shaming blind bigots who just like to hurt people of a different race, it would indeed be a good thing. But anti-racists throw the baby out with the bathwater. They even shame honest critics and observers of racial problems, and so, a courageous discussion of America's racial problems has become nearly impossible. And if we can't address the real problems of race, we cannot arrive at any solution. Can a doctor treat cancer if he's not allowed to diagnose the true nature of the disease?  Since blacks are the most irresponsible and destructive people in America, shaming 'racism'--especially among whites--will do nothing to fix the problems of black pathology. Even if all whites were to stop saying 'nigger' and look up to Obama, the problems of black crime, violence, and pathology would still remain. The cult of Tolerance tells people how to treat others, but it doesn't do anything to address a person's individual integrity. Can a person be said to be good if he or she's lazy, dishonest, irresponsible, corrupt, obnoxious, and deceitful BUT doesn't say 'nigger' and adores MLK? This is why liberalism has failed as a value system. It preaches the correctness of outer attitudes but it fails to address the inner virtues that make a person a constructive and productive citizen in life. There's shame for a hardworking white guy who mutters 'nigger' but absolutely no shame for blacks who attack people, beat up teachers, burn down neighborhoods, rob stores, and act like animals in public. The 'hate crime' of saying 'nigger' is more serious than the real crime of actually robbing, raping, and murdering people according to modern liberalism. Liberalism also fails to understand that much of anti-black hate is justifiable since blacks act in hateful ways that incite hate in others.

If more and more Americans turn into lunatics incapable of control-from-within, US will have to turn more and more into an Orwellian state that manages the populace through control-from-without. And we are already seeing that in the UK. As the people have become more vulgar and trashy, the British state has installed many more cameras and other surveillance systems to monitor people at all times. Also, increasing diversity means more racial and social strife. The sensible thing for UK would be to end immigration and expel criminal elements among the immigrants, but political correctness bans anyone from speaking out against the cult of diversity, and so more immigrants arrive each year, and there's bound to be more problems. And since things will fall apart even worse with more people being incapable of order-from-within, there will be more efforts and means to control them from without.
Ironically, the return to political fascism is being enabled by the politically correct ideology and policy of 'diversity' and 'progressivism'. Indeed, the supreme irony of the current era is that liberals are becoming more politically fascist in their efforts to control society. Liberals who once championed free speech are now clamoring to shut down 'hate speech'. Liberals who once disdained fascist iconography are elevating people like Obama into a kind of Nietzschean godman to be worshiped and obeyed by little children. Leftists who used to disdain and rebel against the Establishment and the powerful institutions are now firmly entrenched in those very institutions and cooking up ever new laws and regulations to control what we say, what we eat, what we smoke, and etc. And Hollywood, though owned and controlled by liberals, have appropriated fascist imagery and iconography. But many people are blind to this because they equate fascism only with 'Aryanism', when anything and anyone can be presented via fascist aesthetics.
But political fascism as an armor for cultural Marxism will only be an empty shell. For there to be genuine moral regeneration, what the West now needs is cultural fascism that restores the 'spiritual' link between man/woman and his/her sacred realm.