How the Game of GO illustrates the Importance of Context as Nothing Exists in a Political Vacuum — Facts are contained within the Context like Chickens are inside the Coop — Modern Jews don't worship God but take pride as the Creators of God

There is something to be learned from the game of Go. It's about routing and counter-routing, surrounding & sieging and counter-surrounding & counter-sieging. Your position on the board, advantageous or disadvantageous, is relative to who has the edge in surrounding whom and/or whose space has been made siege-proof. So, it doesn't matter how much area your pieces occupy if they're surrounded by your opponent's pieces that rob them of 'liberties'. It's like it doesn't matter how many men you command and the space they occupy IF they're surrounded by the enemy who have built walls or fences to cut them off; they've essentially been reduced to captives, like German soldiers under siege in Stalingrad — they were 200,000 men-strong but surrendered to the Soviets because they were deprived of reinforcements and supplies from the main force outside. When your forces have been routed, surrounded, and sieged, whatever freedom they have is confined to the space enclosed by the enemy. At best, it is freedom within the larger unfreedom dictated by the enemy. As the survival and well-being of your men now totally depend on those who control the supply routes, the ins-and-outs of your enclosed domain, you must accede to the terms set by the enemy.

So, everything exists and operates within a context. Even in the most tolerant and permissive prison system, your freedom is limited within the walls and in accordance to the rules set by the prison system. Same with slavery. Even under the kindest and most compassionate slave-master, the slave is still a slave. He may be freer than other slaves, but his freedom, even if extravagant for his ilk, is within the whims of the master. This is true of the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. They do have freedoms but within the confines and context of what is allowed by the power and reach of Greater Israel. Their freedom of movement and settlement operates within what is permitted by Jewish Power. This is why the British control of the seas was so elemental to imperialist dominance in the 19th century. It enabled the British to surround and besiege many parts of the world, and not surprisingly, the US sealed its role as the new hegemon by taking over as the premier naval power in the world. US also built military bases all over to block the influence of Russia, China, Iran, and etc.

But the Go-strategy need not be physical, as with pieces on the gameboard or ships-and-soldiers around the world. It can be emotional, moral, ideological, idolatrous, historical, and etc. Indeed, a prisoner's physical confinement follows from the logic of moral containment. No matter how good and decent an individual may be in prison, society has deemed he must remain imprisoned because he is guilty and must pay for the crime. And if it's a life sentence, it doesn't matter how good and decent he is while in prison. He is still at a moral disadvantage on the basis of what he owes to society, which is to remain in prison for the rest of his life.
Now, we would all agree that putting a man in prison per se is a grave wrong, even an evil. Who would want to be arbitrarily arrested and placed behind bars for the hell of it? And yet, this wrong is regarded as righteous and justified IF the prisoner has been convicted of a crime. And even something as grievous as life-sentence is seen as necessary if the crime was serious enough; indeed, certain crimes are regarded as so heinous that the convicted is given multiple life-sentences.
So, even what seems like a terrible wrong can be seen a just act within a certain context. On a far larger scale, consider the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, any sane person knows it's a great evil to nuke a city and indiscriminately kill countless people. If the US did it for the hell of it, virtually all would agree it committed a horrendous act. But given the context of the Pacific War — Japan's aggressions in Asia, its attack on Pearl Harbor, calculations of human cost in invading Japan, and etc. — , good many Americans have been convinced that it was necessary and even justified. So, what seems like an evil act is made nonevil(or necessary evil) or even righteous based on the context. Indeed, the nukings go to show that even the most horrific acts can be justified depending on which context has narrative primacy.

It also goes to show almost nothing is a stand-alone moral certainty. Even matters regarded as fundamentally wrong take on moral shadings depending on the contexts presented. Most people would agree with one of the Ten Commandments, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Killing is dirty business. So, don't kill and instead try to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don't want someone to kill you or your loved ones, you shouldn't go around killing others. And yet, many killings are justified in the eyes of society and the law depending on the context of the event. Obviously, if some psycho-criminal broke into your house and threatened to harm your family, most people would agree you were justified in killing the intruder. Or, if a much-abused wife shot her husband dead in self-defense or out of rage, it's far more understandable than cold-blooded murder. The term 'murder' is used only for unjustified killing.

So, even though we all agree that killing is wrong, it can be justified within the context of self-defense or justice(as in capital punishment). On a larger scale, the US government(and governments all over the world) even justify bombings, invasions, and all-out-wars on the basis of moral necessity or outrage, e.g. such-and-such regime is so odious and pose such a threat to World Peace that the global community or the (self)designated 'policeman of the world' must do SOMETHING, even if it means war and considerable loss of life. It all depends on how one surrounds the act with what moral context. US is currently illegally occupying Syria, but the narrative pushed by the Deep State and the Jewish-run Media is "Assad is a butcher and tyrant, and therefore the US must be there to protect such-and-such groups." It's horseshit, but Jews control the deep state and the flow of information that shape the dominant context. They can 'rout' and justify any act with their favored narrative contexts. Palestinians know this all too well. They're a terribly wronged people, but most of the West doesn't care. While people in the West would agree that ethnic cleansing, occupation, and apartheid policies are wrong, they tend to see the realities and events in Gaza, West Bank, and the Middle East in general within the framework arranged by Jewish Power and their cuck-allies.
In the game of Shoah-and-Tell, whatever Jews have done in the Middle East is always deemed necessary because of 'Muh Holocaust', 'Never Again', and 'It is Anti-Semitic!'. The Holocaust Cult says Jews need their own homeland for survival. So, if Arabs resist the Jewish Homeland built on Palestine, they must be the New Nazis. Also, as the West has been judged guilty for 'antisemitism' that led to the Shoah, they owe something big and eternal to the Jewish Community. It's the only way they can pay back the Holocaust-Debt. And it's gotten to the point that anything that offends or displeases Jews is 'Anti-Semitic', which can destroy careers in the West. As a result, all the evils perpetrated by Jews are spun as morally necessary or justified by historical context. As in the Game of Go, what is within a certain space matters far less than what forces surround it. So, even if there's white pieces over a portion of the board, they come to be owned by the black pieces that surround them and seal them off. Likewise, the reason why so many moral arguments against Israel, Zionism, and Wars for Israel are ignored is they are surrounded and hemmed in by the larger context of the 'Muh Holocaust' narrative. Sure, Jews do a lot of questionable things, BUT they are the Holy Holocaust People, and as such, their tragic wisdom and tribal survival cannot be questioned... unless you be one of those odious 'Anti-Semites'! That context surrounds, suffocates, and seals off any counter-argument.

Similar dynamics explain why American discourse has become so useless. Jews control America, and as such they control the gods. Now, there is a thing called Reality, but it is at once starkly simple and infinitely complex. Due to its simplicity, it has to be contextualized. Due to its vastness, it has to be framed. Reality is both the tiniest micro-fact and the grandest macro-truth. It is both too minute and too much for the human mind. Just like food is served in limited portions on a platter, reality has to be cut, cooked, and prepared for human consumption. Jews, long known for their dietary laws, are no strangers to preparing and serving reality in their own way.
Context both broadens and truncates reality, much like how a movie screen functions. The screen places a person or object within a larger space and context, but however large the space or vast the vista, it is limited to the screen size-and-shape. The Bible served as a Jewish Screen. On the one hand, it broadened our perspective on the Jews. In the Good Book, they aren't just another desert tribe but the Chosen of God whose lives and stories have significance within the vast context of history and God's design. And yet, its very Judeocentrism leaves out the counter and competing perspectives of other tribes and groups often at odds with the Jews. The Biblical context broadens the Jewish Experience while excluding other contexts of the goyim.
This is why Christian-Zionists are so utterly blind to the plight of the Palestinians. As their view of Middle East affairs is so fundamentally shaped by the context of the Biblical Narrative, they view current events as mere extensions of the prophecies of the Bible: Jews as God's Chosen People struggling for the Holy Land against the various Rottenites and Lowdownites. Given Christianity's overtly 'Anti-Semitic' context of Jews-as-Christ-Killers and the coming of the New Covenant, one might think Christians would be immune to such a mindset. But apart from anti-Jewish Christians who believe Jews must return to the Holy Land in order for Jesus to return(to finally mete out justice to Jews by killing them by the bushel), the Christian-Zionist types are just as much affected by the 'Muh Holocaust' contextuality. By being so mindlessly pro-Zionist, they seek to prove to themselves and the world that they, as Good Christians, had been friendly with the Jewish People all along and that Christianity, far from being 'Anti-Semitic', is the best friend of the Holy Jews.

How did Jewish Power prevail in shaping the American narrative and moral context? By corralling and containing reality within their favored contexts, even facts that undermine the Jewish-favored Narrative are rendered ineffective. (It's like it's a fact that rabbits are fast, but their speed is moot in an enclosed area; they have no place to run.) Take crime statistics. Whether one is familiar with FBI crime stats or not, most people in America know that blacks commit disproportionate amount of crimes. After all, even 'leftist' Jews and 'liberal' whites tend to live away from heavily black areas. Then, how come discussions of this fact fail to gain traction in the American Narrative and Moral Discourse? Because they've been routed and sieged within the Noble Negro historical narrative: Evil greedy soulless whites committed a great crime against a noble and wonderful race of Magic Negroes, and therefore blacks are righteous victims whereas whites have much to atone for.
It's like the WWII context of the Good War, one of the Free World vs Fascist Tyranny. So, it doesn't matter that the Allies had some cretins among their ranks and committed their share of war crimes and that the Axis powers had some soldiers of honor, principle, and courage. All said and done, one side was Good, the other side was Evil. Thus, the macro-goodness of the Allies contextualizes and absolves their crimes and guilt, whereas no amount of facts of exemplary behavior on the Axis side matters because, all said and done, the it stands for Evil in the postwar narrative established by the winners.

Jews are deep inside the power structures of goy society and are surrounded by so many goyim. Physically, Jews are surrounded by goyim, but they've mentally surrounded the goyim(especially white goyim) with Holocaust Guilt. Such is the power of the prophetic mind. Even if physically surrounded, you might surround your enemy with YOUR favored worldview. No wonder a shepherd has control over the far more numerous sheep. He has a mind and can manipulate their behavior whereas the sheep, though numerous, lack minds and agency of their own.

This is why the Dissident Right focus on black criminality, though factual and reality-based, doesn't really go anywhere. They are like white pieces besieged by black pieces in the game of Go. No matter how factual, they are owned by the narrative that surrounds and captures them. No matter how many facts and how much truth whites speak, they are regarded as guilty prisoners of history. It doesn't matter that most whites aren't in literal prisons. What matters is they are captives of mental walls constructed by Jewish Power. According to Jews, whites have been judged guilty by History, and as such, they must be held as moral prisoners by the Holy Peoples, mainly Jews and Blacks. The only kind of whites who are relatively guilt-free are Homos and Trannies, but this is fine with Jews as globo-homo craziness has a subversive and corrosive impact on white unity and solidarity.

In an order where whites are hemmed within the mental prison of endless excoriations about 'racism'(and its various forms, such as 'institutional racism', 'subconscious racism', 'systemic racism', etc.), they can never be innocent whereas blacks can never be guilty. While it's true that individual blacks who commit crime will be locked up behind bars, the black race as a whole is regarded as innocent and sacrosanct whereas the general white population is regarded as tainted with 'historical sin' and 'white guilt'. If anything, the fact that so many blacks end up behind bars despite America's commitment to 'anti-racism' confuses matters even more. As a matter of fact, more blacks end up in jail because they do terrible things and commit lots of crime due to their racial nature owing to evolution in Sub-Saharan Africa. If American Society was defined by simple racial truths, no one would be surprised or troubled by lots of black criminals and thugs ending up behind bars. But because America reveres the idolatry of the Noble Negro and places all blame on whitey, it seems terribly unjust that so many blacks end up in prison, not least for their attacks on whites. If indeed the US is in sync with its chosen narrative, shouldn't tons of whites be going to prison for 'racist' attacks on noble and innocent blacks? But the reality is the opposite, what with black-on-white violence being the norm and with many more blacks being incarcerated for attacking whites than vice versa. And yet, Jewish Power is such that so many whites remain locked within the Jewish-constructed mental-moral prison and seem incapable of breaking out. If anything, things have gotten worse since the Civil Rights Movement when whites from cradle were indoctrinated to see 'racism' as the worst evil, and the worst possible form of 'racism' is one directed at blacks.

So, what are whites to do about the stark reality of racial differences and why blacks cause so much trouble? Ideally, they should accept it for what it is and break out of the contextual walls erected by Jews. But, as they've failed at that, there only remains the coping mechanisms. One way is to turn a blind eye to reality and pretend that high crime rates don't exist among blacks; it's all just a 'racist' fantasy. Another way is to identify and blame a characteristic other than race, e.g. if black thugs run amok, pretend 'teens' or 'youths' done it. Yet another way is to admit blacks do commit lots of crime but it's all due to poverty caused by history of 'racism'. And some even go so far as to celebrate the violence as a form of rough justice, i.e. 'no justice, no peace'.

As long as the context remains, no amount of dissident-right detailing of facts and numbers will make any difference. The what-of-facts is routed and immobilized by the why-of-narrative. Americans must be more cognizant of the power of the context. After all, the 'genocide' of the American Indians was justified on grounds of progress and development. Sure, it was sad what happened to the Indians, BUT and it's a Big But, it was necessary to create America the Land of the Free, the Land of Liberty and Opportunity. You see, context can even justify the eradications of entire peoples and cultures.
And sure, the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty awful, BUT it was the Good War between the Free World and Tyranny, and besides, the 'Japs' acted really nasty and deserved it. Control the context, and you can control just about anything as nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything has meaning and place relative to everything else. While we can't control the universe, we can control our perception of the universe and the world around us. Every religion sought to contextualize the universe with its own cosmology. Every history contextualizes the Story of Man to contain events in the service and justification of certain groups and interests. It's no wonder Jews focus so much on history. It's not just about remembering the past but controlling the present and the future, as George Orwell said. History serves as context, and those who control history control the mazes of the mind. Depending on the context, something is justified or unjustified. In the past, slavery in America was justified on account of the oogity-context favored by whites. It was argued that blacks are oogity-boogity savages in the Dark Continent, and even though slavery as an institution was regrettable, it was necessary and a step up from the darkness for the black race under the tutelage of the white race that taught them to pick cotton and worship Jesus than chuck spears at hippos and shake their booties all night. Context even made white people feel justified in their practice of slavery.

What happens in a game of Go? As your opponent tries to surround you, you try to surround your opponent. He tries to create his own safe spaces, and you try to create your own. He seeks to subvert your space while you try to subvert his. He tries to swallow you, you try to swallow him that is trying to swallow you. It's like a game of who has the bigger mouth.
The dissident right with its details and facts are like a school of fish up against a humpback whale that represents the power of context. Context has a big mouth and swallows up all the details. It wasn't a school of fish that swallowed Jonah, that's for sure. Therefore, one way to counter the Jewish context is to create a larger context that can swallow it. If your enemy lays siege on your forces, you try to muster bigger forces to lay siege on your enemy that is laying siege on your forces. The besieger becomes besieged. Germans besieged Stalingrad in World War II, only to be counter-sieged by Soviet forces. If Jewish Power sieges whites with the contextual narrative of 'white guilt', then whites need to besiege Jewish Power with 'Jewish Guilt'. In a way, this shouldn't be too difficult as 'white guilt' cannot be divorced from 'Jewish Guilt'. After all, consider all the Jewish money that was invested in Western Imperialism. The Rothchilds sure lent a lot of money to British explorers and conquerors. Also, consider the roles Jews played in the South American slavery and in opium trade in China.

Of course, narrative power isn't just about saying but about being heard, and to be heard, one needs control of the industries of media and institutions of academia. How foolish it was for whites to allow Jews to grab so much of the media. And how foolish it was for American 'conservatives' to ignore institutional power in favor of 'muh individualism'. After all, even in the Wild West, it was cooperative communities than lone mythic John-Wayne figures who made a difference and created civilization.

Still, everything must start somewhere, and in the game of contextual Go, whites must be more like whales(or pythons) than schools of fish. All the FBI statistics on crime discussed by honest whites and the members of the Dissident Right only go so far. They are right about reality, but humans are emotional than factual. The righteous context prevails over the right data. It's sort of like how love works. When you really love someone, so many of his or her faults are overlooked or absolved. "Love means never having to say you're sorry", says Ali Macgraw's character in LOVE STORY. Alida Valli's character is so in love with Harry Lime in THE THIRD MAN that she didn't care about the dark facts about him. In some cases, the faults become part of what's lovable about the man or woman. In Film Noir, femme fatales are alluring and irresistible precisely because of their dark side. And in THE LONG RIDERS, Jesse James' fiancee says she wouldn't like him any other way.

Consider how long it took for science to finally break free of theology. So many rational and factual minds lived under the shadow of spiritual righteousness that few dared to challenge lest they end up burnt at the stake with jeers from the mobs. The West was so in love with God and Jesus that it was dangerous to speak facts that might undermine the total devotion. Indeed, science made headway under religious authority not so much in opposition as with a vow to reveal the divine ways of God to prove how totally great He is. It attached itself to religion for protection even as it revealed secrets that finally subverted religion. But given that science lacks a grand vision, it was the only way it could progress. After all, science is about how things are, not how things should be; it lacks prophetic reach.
There are surely some in academia who justify their scientific inquiry in the name of proving the truths of 'progressive' ideology, only to have the science reveal the very opposite. They speak through both sides of their mouths. Under the cover of PC, they are allowed to pursue real science. But even when the discoveries undermine PC, the scientists cleverly explain the findings as being in line with the official ideology... when they really aren't.
It is an artfully devious strategy of power. When the official dogma of an order is so overwhelming and almost universally accepted by all, it is hazardous to speak heresy, no matter how true. Thus, the only chance of getting the ball rolling is to present the heresy as actually being in tune with the dogma. It's like Jews want to destroy Christianity but knew they couldn't do it outright. There were too many Christians who would have been outraged. So, using the Rules for Radicals, they presented anti-Christian agendas as pro-Christian, just like Jewish Power pushed anti-Western agendas as part of 'Western Values'. Thus, Jews injected globo-homo into churches and then gleefully watch as the church rots from within. And in China, the regime moved toward capitalism with the Marxist rationale that it's all part of the eventual plan toward real communism. And it never gave up on the Maoist symbolism.

But for those in the Culture War or in the Revolutionary Struggle, such strategies are too subtle, slippery, and slow. Also, while science may be on our side, our main motivation isn't objective truth but a sense of who we are, where we came from, and where we, as a people, must go. Pure objectivity, after all, doesn't care who wins. In a jungle war between chimpanzees and baboons, objectivity is totally neutral. It doesn't care if chimps wipe out the baboons or vice versa. Indeed, objective reality doesn't care if a virus spreads and kills all apes and monkeys. It doesn't care if an asteroid hits Earth and wipes out all life. Facts not only don't care about YOUR feelings but EVERYONE'S feelings.
So, while it'd be good to be grounded in facts and have them back your arguments, they are not what the battle is really about. One thing for sure, given the brutal nature of history, there are sufficient facts to make your side seem virtuous or villainous. It's like the coin-toss that is 50/50 heads and tails. Every group won as many times as they lost and lost as many times as they won in the brutal game of history. For the longest time, the Germanic barbarians were clobbered by the Romans, but then they clobbered the Romans. Before Spain became a world power, it was under Moorish occupation for a long spell. Russians were crushed by Mongols before becoming a great power.
To be sure, the human species broke out of the natural balance and gained overwhelming supremacy over the other species. And, the white race broke out of the civilizational balance and gained world dominance, but those are recent events in the arc of history. Taken as a whole, white race got clobbered as badly as all the other races.

It's like there are equally facts of chimps as victims and chimps as killers, and the same goes for baboons. Sometimes, the chimps bit off the groins of baboons, and other times baboons bit off the groins of chimps. But notice Jews aren't interested in such truth, that all human groups have been victims and villains. They are motivated by Jewish pride and power. As such, they ignore, suppress, or rationalize facts that make them look bad while emphasizing the facts(or even fantasies) that make them look good. This is the kind of power that whites are up against, but then, it's the white folks who've forgotten the laws of power. It's as if whites, in their great prolonged & unprecedented success and prosperity, forgot about this in a foolish fit of magnanimity, especially with Jews and blacks.
By the way, if you're going to be compassionate, always ask yourself, "What is the nature of the object of pity?" After all, if you bring home an orphaned baby bunny, at most it will grow into a harmless rabbit. But if you bring home an orphaned baby gorilla or tiger cub, it's going to grow into something that can totally whup your butt. Given blacks & brawn power and Jews & brain power, whites should really have considered the long-term implications of letting Jewish/black power grow in their midst. It's like the American Indians who took pity on the Pilgrims and gave them food might as well have been feeding a T-Rex baby that would grow into a giant Tyrannosaurus that would devour the Indians. Take pity on a baby rabbit or baby fox, not a Grizzly cub... unless you have a plan to release the bear back into the wild away from human areas.

The Game of Go isn't only about the macro-strategy of surrounding your opponent's pieces but about the micro-plays along the barriers to gain an advantage. Indeed, sometimes it's a matter of a single piece that decides whether you have your opponent surrounded or vice versa. In the complex and intricate web of pieces aligned on the board, it finally comes down to a few pieces that determine if the player A has player B sealed off or the other way around. In this way, it's not unlike wrestling where one special move tips the balance and turns two men interlocking one another to one man locking down the other man.

Likewise, there are two ways for whites to take on Jewish Power. One way is to formulate a bigger narrative to surround the Jewish narrative. Out-contextualize the Jewish context. But, the other way is to look for weaknesses within the Jewish narrative wall, break down down, and form a white wall that intersects and cuts off the Jewish context with a pro-white context, thus linking white elements trapped within the context with white elements on the outside. It's like the motorcycle Go in TRON where the riders create trail-barriers to contain the motion of the opponents.

To play this game, whites must go beyond wimpy notions such as 'white advocacy' and adopt the bolder vision of White Liberation. The very concept is deeply threatening to Jewish Power as, to the question, "Liberation from what?", the answer is "From Jewish Supremacist Power(which can be detailed factually without fail)". The wussy notion of 'white advocacy' is merely a plea to be left alone and allowed to survive as whites. "Oh, dear Jewish Master, you are so almighty and powerful. We whites got nothing against you and just want to be left alone in our spaces, please pretty please." Does anyone thing Jews will let this happen?
No, there must be emancipation, independence, and liberation from Jewish Supremacist Power that is not only bad for whites but for all the world as it pushes for New Cold War with Russia and endless mayhem in the Middle East. It is also encouraging anti-Chinese rhetoric on the American 'right'(as it inflames anti-Russian rhetoric on the American 'left') so that idiot American goyim will fulminate against other goyim around the world than on Jewish Power that is really destroying the White West. 'White Advocacy' is at best a battle plan without a war plan. It fixates on little battles without a larger war strategy. But in order to win, you must know who your main enemy is and devise a grand plan against them. That is the real war. It's like doctors don't merely advocate for health but wage war on the disease and target its source. Battles are then chosen and fought as part of the larger war plan. 'White Advocacy' picks pro-white battles but totally disregards the larger war waged on whites by Jewish Power. It'd be like the US fighting the Cold War without ever addressing the Soviet Union & Communism as the main enemy. It's like a man with eyes closed swinging his stick at threats nearby without ever opening his eyes to see the real enemy standing further back.

Facts are important, and the Dissident Right has many useful facts on its side. But they are hemmed in by the contextual power of the Jewish Narrative. As such, whites and their facts are about as useful as Palestinians with stones stuck within walled communities in West Bank. For those facts to gain traction and make a difference, the Jewish contextual walls must be attacked from both inside and outside. Even as whites chisel away at the walls from the inside with facts about Jewish power & abuse and black crime & thuggery, the walls must also be attacked from the outside by narrative routing-and-siege efforts controlled by whites. It is possible to come up with grand narratives that portray Jews as the villains of history, just as Jews have done with whites.
Now, it'd be ideal if whites and Jews don't vilify each other, but the truth of the matter is Jews are in supremacist mode and rely on white submission, therefore they've decided to institutionalize 'white guilt' premised on the special historical guilt of whites. This means whites have been convicted with life-sentence for all history; even as physically free men, they are mentally imprisoned within the Jewish moral context and worship at the feet of Jews, blacks, and homos. What kind of future is this?
Besides, mental imprisonment invariably and eventually leads to physical imprisonment as well. Consider the rapid demographic transformation of the West. As whites are mental prisoners/slaves of Jews, they do as the holy Jews say. If Jews say, "Open up your borders and let in tons of darkies", whites feel morally obligated to do just that. If Jews say, "Even when blacks burn down your city, do nothing but kiss the black ass", whites do just that. When you've lost your pride, agency, and will, you won't be free for long even on the physical and material level. After all, if your mental-master commands you to hand over all your money and the key to your house, you will do just that because you can't muster the courage to say NO. It's like how a cult operates. Legally, you are free and can walk away from the would-be-guru and the community. But the guru and his cult have gained control over your soul. You feel spiritually indebted to them, and so, it's difficult for you to walk away even if legally possible.

When we compare US and China, one key difference is China is ruled by the Chinese whereas the white majority in the US is ruled by the Jewish minority. There is enough historical evidence to shame the current CCP regime or to justify it. The crimes of Mao are legion, and millions of innocent lives were destroyed. But there is another context. China under CCP gained total autonomy from foreign intervention and imperialism after a 'century of humiliation', and the CCP has presided over great economic development in the past decades. So, current China can be made to seem good or bad. Both views are valid depending on the selected facts and chosen narratives. China prefer to make the Chinese the good people. It wasn't much different for White America. American History, like modern Chinese History, is a checkered affair. It was a great political experiment and achieved greatness unseen in history. But US was also built on 'genocide' of the natives, relied heavily on slave labor in the early decades, 'stole' huge swaths of territory from Mexico, and engaged in neo-imperialist wars that destroyed millions of lives. While acknowledging the dark side, white Americans nevertheless favored the positive view of their history, and it served as the moral context for whatever happened. That is until whites lost their minds and handed the keys of power to the Jews.

Whereas Chinese, nationalist or communist, kept control of the Narrative and Context in their own hands, the white Christian folks in the US outsourced American Narrative to the Jews out of some sentimental notion of JUDEO-CHRISTIAN solidarity. But then, maybe the Anglo-American elites didn't have a choice. They raised their kids on privilege, but the kids hungered for prophecy, and Jewish thinkers supplied it. So, in the post-war years, Anglo-American kids of the elites, under the tutelage of Jewish Ideas, were already at war with their parents. But then, so many Wasps had been turned onto radical ideas already by the 1920s with the disgraceful tragedy of World War I and the excitement over the Bolshevik Revolution. Too many had already become like Alger Hiss.

At any rate, when the power of Narrative fell into Jewish hands, most whites probably thought Jews would do what was good for all of America. But for the Tribe, it was Jews-uber-alles, and the Narrative was devised to maximize 'white guilt' mainly in relation to blacks(but also to American Indians in the Sixties) so that whites, paralyzed with self-doubt and self-loathing, would no longer be able to pursue white interests, thereby channeling their suppressed tribal passions toward serving Jews and their interests. Thus, whites, 'conservative' or 'liberal', who are utterly loathe to mutter anything resembling pro-white sentiments, will loudly profess their total commitment to Jewish identity, Jewish nationalism, Jewish pride, and etc.

Given the importance of the Narrative in the game of Political Go, it is one thing that should NEVER be outsourced to another. Perhaps, whites let Jews control it on the assumption that Jews are allies or wise men, but Jewish wisdom was always about furthering the Covenant at the expense of goyim. Also, modern Jews are even more dangerous than traditional Jews. The latter believed in God, and therefore, their tribal pride was tempered by humility before God. The Covenant meant Jewish submission to God. But modern Jews no longer believed in God. Thus, instead of seeing themselves as the creation of God, they saw God as the creation of Jews. Jews took pride in the fact that the Jewish Mind constructed the greatest spiritual idea/force in history. Jews created God, not vice versa. Thus, it is Jewishness itself that is the real center of the universe, so think the modern Jews. The Covenant, which used to mean Jews belong to God came to mean god belongs to Jews.
With the Jewish Mind being the greatest thing, one that even invent god, all peoples must serve the godlike Jews. And lucky for Jews, they formed a symbiotic relationship with the Anglos, the history's greatest empire builders. Jews rode on the underbelly of the Anglo Beast that conquered the world, and when the conquest was complete, especially with Anglo control of North America, Jews climbed to the top and rode on its back as the master. And this arrangement can last AS LONG AS whites play the subservient managerial role in the Jewish Empire. But then, whites will be content to play the subservient role ONLY IF they feel Jews(and their allies such as blacks) are morally superior and objects of worship by which whites can redeem themselves and wash away the sins of 'racism' and stains of 'white guilt'.

If, at the very least, whites were allowed to keep their majority position in the West, it wouldn't have been so bad. After all, Japan, even as cuck-puppet of the US, was allowed to remain majority-Japan. But Jews, in their determination to permanently secure power, have decided to turn the West into white-minority nations so that no goy majority could ever wake up and unite against Jewish elite power. And as the West is now Jewish-ruled, this New Normal is pushed on nations like Japan as well. It's as if Jews feel, "Let there be no example left of a successful and prosperous homogenous goy nation."

CHRISTIAN ZIONIST SLAVES - Know More News

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

Notes on Review of DIRTY HARRY(Clint Eastwood & Don Siegel) in Counter-Currents Publishing

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.