The Death of the West: Act II
March 2026
“Demography, not democracy, will be the most critical factor for security and growth in the 21st century.”
— Lee Kuan Yew, first Prime Minister of Singapore
Act II: The Usurpation of the Nation
I. The Importance of Ethnicity
Often overlooked is the role of ethnicity, its importance, and how easily manipulated people are when acting as both individuals and groups. Singapore is a famously multiethnic society. Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, had been criticized as authoritarian and running an “illiberal democracy”. When interviewed in 2005 by Der Spiegel, Lee was asked: “During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?” Lee replied:
“I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people’s position. In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them.”
He understood that people act differently when thinking as an individual or a group. Even the field of psychology, for what it may be worth, makes a distinction in individual and group psychology. Counter to the fervent liberal capitalists, the needs and desires of the individual are, in some ways, superseded by the group. Likewise, counter to the fervent Marxist, the needs and desires of the group are, in some ways, superseded by the individual. Neither system fully accounts for this. Also, counter to the liberal capitalist, the individual is often swept into groupthink. Likewise, counter to the Marxist, the amorphous, colorless group, society, is often superseded by sub-groups, such as ethnicities. Every person can, and does, simultaneously recognize themselves as individuals, members of families, members of economic classes, members of ethnicities, and members of countries in a tiered-like fashion. Different cultures and societies across time have weighted these associations differently, yet they all have existed, and so one’s own allegiances to any one of these aforementioned groups also weigh differently. Western democracies, naturally, place emphasis on the individual. As, I think, most anyone would attest, one’s allegiance to their family is the greatest among these groups. This is only natural by way of the nurturing either of oneself by a parent or of one’s own children, living in close proximity for long periods of time, relying on one another for the household, and the fact that the family is the smallest group; ergo, closest to the individual, being the highest regarded piece of the democratic system. This kinship often extends to the ethnicity. This is by way of both blood and a shared cultural experience.
The American mind is mostly numb to this according to the previous section on the American mythos, as well as the close proximity we often live to different ethnicities. All the while, pockets of ethnicities exist everywhere in America, i.e.: White/Black neighborhoods, Little Italy, Chinatown, etc. For various reasons, people tend to prefer to be among those like themselves. Likewise, mixed neighborhoods have been demonstrated on several occasions to have lower social cohesion, such as by Putnam’s 2007 study, ultimately becoming “low trust societies”. Where I live, I have often seen valuables left in open places with the assumption the owner will return and they are still present. This would not be the case in other, more mixed, places, such as Florida. I have also heard via in-person conversation and from the internet that older generations recall a time when one could leave the front door unlocked all day and night. This is certainly not the case anymore. I also recall that in school Black students tended to sit among themselves at lunch and White students among themselves, which I have corroborated with several others to be the same at their schools in other states. White people tend to be particularly blind to this, though, as expounded in this and the previous section on the Mythos. At one such school, in Alabama, I spoke to a girl who angrily denied that this was the case. Meanwhile, three other students of the same school confirmed this to me. No one at my school was racist. This is just a natural outcome of in-group preferences, which seems to manifest in all schools.
Ethnicity is an integral part of the human person, inseparable. Where individuals are, the effects of ethnicity are. It exists in the self-coalescing enclaves. It exists in the formation of groups such as the ADL or Black Panthers. It exists in the justice system as O.J. Simpson trial juror Carrie Bess admitted for the jury’s ruling of acquittal. Leftists and Rightists both admit to the weight of ethnicity in society. Only the midwits in the middle deny it. Largely, this is a celebrated thing. “Diversity is strength”, after all, unless you are White – then ethnic activism is explicitly denied.
A funny example of the importance of homogeneity and the evolution of arguments around it is the success of the Scandinavian system. I recall when I was quite young, too young to know much of politics, that the success of the Scandinavians was argued to be due to their ethnic homogeneity. Apparently, such a system would not work otherwise. As the 2010s came to full swing, though, this would be outright heretical of an argument to make. However, I was surprised to find this argument is back into the public conscience as it was recently made by public figure Jordan Peterson. Peterson, like those who made the argument many years ago, is not whatsoever a “White Nationalist”. This is simply the observation that a system which hands out so much can only be successful in a high trust society, among many other compounding reasons.
The group is an embedded part of the human experience, many groups, each according to different circumstances. Just as ethnicity is an inescapable part of the human person, voting blocs are an inescapable component of democracy. We see below demographic maps and election results in Belgium and Brazil, states which have been multiethnic since their beginning.
Likewise, similar maps can be shown for the United States. All three examples, among many others, serve as vindication for Lee Kuan Yew. Within a single population, such as the southern Walloons in Belgium, seeing as they would be all voting from a similar understanding, would naturally (probably) choose the best fit party among themselves. The northern Flemish would do the same. However, to combine the two into one state would mean that the best fit party overall was, in fact, not chosen. Instead, as Lee put it, “the majority would always overrule them.”
At the height of conversations about ethnicity in recent time, around 2016 to 2020, opponents to viewing ethnicity authentically, namely by white liberals, said: “Well, the Hispanic population in the U.S. was split between Republicans and Democrats. Florida, despite being largely Hispanic, went for Trump. Therefore, the realists are wrong.” Unwittingly, this only reinforced the realists’ point that people voted by ethnicity. “Hispanic” is not an ethnicity. Florida went for Trump because Cubans largely vote Republican. Meanwhile, Mexicans vote Democrat.
“But immigrants assimilate! But they’re just as American/British/etc as you and me!” I would point back to the maps, but some people are that dense. Clearly, countries which have always been multiethnic, thereby all ethnicities therein are “assimilated”, still suffer from this issue. An interesting debate took place between Carl Benjamin and Narinder Kaur about what it means to be British. Kaur was born and raised in England. Having never seen her face and only heard her voice, one would imagine she was English by ethnicity. Fair points were made all around and Benjamin conceded at one point that Kaur was, for all intents and purposes, British – for all that may mean in the conventional sense. However, Kaur, at many points, could do nothing but otherize herself in her language, i.e.: “You (the English) were kicked out of our (the Indians) country (India) because of x, y, z.” It was quite insufferable, but also funny, that she was constantly shooting her own argument in the foot. The overarching and confounding point is that the notion of the “nation” has been entirely eroded. Now, it is simultaneously correct to call Kaur British, as a citizen, yet not British, as an ethnic Indian. However, interestingly, this seems to only apply in one direction – to the West. Saying the word “British” now may conjure an image of a White European, but we would be just as easily picture a Black man. It would seem more odd, though, to conjure a Black man as the image for someone who is Chinese.
In 1787, Jon Jay, a founding father of the United States and first Chief Justice, wrote in Federalist No. 2:
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs … This country and this people seem to have been made for each other …”
Let us not forget that ethnicity is more than blood. It is a mixture of blood and culture. Jay points out that it is a great and unique circumstance that the now “freed” colonies are more-or-less of a single ethnicity – a group of the same blood, religion, language, etc. This is a providential circumstance that is not afforded to many countries globally and will naturally secure a sort of internal security. Jay’s point, however, is completely gone in the new America. Further, the point is also lost to the mind of the new American, who would actually see this providential circumstance as bad. Diversity is strength!
Similarly, as Alexander Hamilton put it in 1802 in his Examination No. 8:
“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
Hamilton alludes to that same distinction in psychology between individual and group which I have alluded in saying: “There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule.” Open border policies and illegal immigration aside, legal vetted immigration used to abide by this philosophy. It was commonly understood that homogeneity does provide internal security in many ways. A common retort to anything remotely portraying homogeneity as a positive is: “Well, I have known several people of x, y, and z groups and they are fine people.” Often throughout history there have been a sparse number of people living away from their homelands without much issue. It is when groups, not individuals, live among each other that tension grows. Discontented masses will always find a group and act accordingly. Ethnicity so happens to be the most apparent delineation between groups, and a very real one at that.
If to suggest anything put forth here or after is “racist”, then I am not sorry to say you may be an idiot. You may need to rethink what is means to be “racist” and if anything here fits. Simply pointing out that homogeneity is preferential says nothing on the character of any ethnicity or what to do with them, and is to be applied across cultures, Western or not. As a Western progressive will normally so fervently oppose homogeneity as a net good, he will simultaneously agree that what the Europeans did to African borders hurt the African by not accommodating historical tribal borders, thus ruining homogeneity and brewing conflict.
II. Undermining the Ethnos
As the new America was formed, it was important to reshape the old American into the new. The Overton window must move, policies and laws instituted, the American historical narrative and mythos amended, and a new philosophy propagated. If, as Lee Kuan Yew put it, the majority will always overrule, then it is necessary that the majority be undermined. In the case of the United States, then, the ethnic ties and religion of WASP culture should be undermined.
Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas: these are four extremely influential names the average person does not know, the progenitors of Critical Theory, modern methods of psychological warfare, among several other things. They began their work together at the Institute for Social Research in the Weimar Republic at Goethe University in Frankfurt – essentially acting as a Marxist think tank. After self-exiling to the United States in the 1930s, a few found themselves in influential positions among the American intelligence community, proving themselves instrumental in the de-Nazification process. The mere act of de-Nazification, the collective effort of power to mold a society according to new ideas, is psychological warfare. This was largely carried out by the Office of Strategic Services, a predecessor of a current alphabet agency. The bisected Germany was subjected to two very different strategies of de-Nazification, the Soviet and the American. The Soviets took a simplistic approach of shipping off any former officers to Siberia and instilling Marxist education. The Americans took to the approach of hammering into the German psyche: “Diese Schandtaten: Eure Schuld!” (“These atrocities: Your fault!”). Posters of horrible images with this phrase were posted in many places. Sidney Bernstein, the advisor to the Ministry of Information and chief of the Psychological Warfare Division, said in 1945: “To shake and humiliate the Germans, [we must prove these crimes were committed] and that the German people – not just the Nazis and SS – bore responsibility.” The American method was to humiliate, denigrate, and crush the spirit by imposing a collective guilt on all Germans regardless of their affiliation. This is something that could constantly be pointed back to in order to stifle. A narrative shift was critical to amend to the German mythos. It is not enough to say Germans bear guilt. It must be impressed upon the mind via the national mythos.
Those of the Frankfurt School, the Marxist think tank, went on afterward to be influential in many areas of governmental intelligence and philosophy through the 1950s and 1960s. Perhaps not coincidental was the information Yuri Bezmenov divulged in several interviews in the 1980s. Bezmenov, affiliated with the KGB, defected to the U.S. in 1970. He revealed the process the Soviet Union used to undermine foreign powers, including the U.S., which included as its first step: demoralization. Just as a demoralizing collective guilt was imposed on Germany for the sole purpose of steering a population in a desired direction, we have seen a similar collective guilt imposed on the West broadly. While these imposed guilts can only understandably be tailored to different countries, as no country has the same history, there is an overarching theme however: slavery and racism of the U.S., the colonialism and imperialism of the European powers. What more could be desired after the complete dismantling of these institutions already? There should, seemingly, be no more direction to pull the people.
It should be no secret that the U.S. and Soviet Union alike conducted psychological warfare. It should only be assumed by default. Likewise, any sensible group in power would also conduct such actions on its own people in order to maintain said power. It is easy to look back at the rampant patriotism of films during the Cold War and see what the federal hand in the film industry was doing. Yet, as people are sheep, no one seems to be able to see such actions at any contemporary moment. There is a constant war over the mind.
As Bezmenov pointed out in a 1984 interview, their subversive actions had exceeded expectations. There is a sort of snowballing effect to subverting a population rather than a person. When a few have been molded, they themselves will mold others. This serves to spread information in an exponential way, but, more importantly, it also serves to insulate the lie. It reminds of the Asch conformity experiments. Solomon Asch, a psychologist, found that, when outnumbered, an individual will nearly always conform to the majority opinion, even when they know the majority is wrong. It should also be noted that the first step of the Soviet, the Marxists’, method, demoralization, began with undermining education, which coincides with (1) the newfound influence in education the Frankfurt School had, also being a Marxist think tank, (2) the general influx of Marxist thought in the American university system, and (3) the large increase of Marxist thought among youth in the 1960s.
One of the hallmarks of Marxism is the dismantling of former institutions. Former members of the intelligentsia should be removed, any structures which maintained power should be toppled, and any heraldry of the former powers should be replaced. These are all modes of psychological warfare. This way, the Marxists are the disseminators of information, maintain power through their own institutions, and communicate the new status quo via their own art. This was done under the Bolsheviks, the Chinese, and has been done in the West.
Not coincidental to the large growth of Marxism in American universities and the discontent around the collective guilt of White Americans for slavery and racism, the Frankfurt School bore a new theory: Critical Theory, which is the critique of power structures and their subsequent dismantling. Kimberlé Crenshaw is a student of this period. Crenshaw is one of the founders of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the 1970s, a newer evolution of the former Critical Theory. Crenshaw once wrote that the purely class-oriented lens of Marxism is insufficient to be applied to the American experiment, which must be analyzed through the lens of race. The power structures that were, were oriented almost entirely around White Americans until the 1960s. Naturally, in Schmittian terms, this would imply White Americans are the “enemy” in the friend-enemy distinction. As follows, to dismantle “White power structures”, as students of CRT would call governmental and corporate power even to this day in 2026, White Americans necessarily must play a smaller role in all realms. This could take the form of the redefinition of terms, DEI initiatives, anti-natalism, preventing advocacy of counter-narratives, preventing the emergence of White identity, the use of refugees as geopolitical tools, and more; all of which have been, and are actively, done.
The American historical narrative and mythos must be amended in such a way as to demoralize; ergo, a collective guilt must be imposed on the majority population as to negate its power, its connection to said power, and any emergent collective of said majority group. In the case of the American experiment, that is the collective guilt of racism and slavery imposed on all White Americans. To undermine any resistance to said guilt, one such action was the redefinition of “racism”. The word used to be used to refer to the prejudice of one ethnicity against another; however, now it means exclusively the prejudice of an ethnicity with power against another. This is threefold: (1) non-White ethnicities can act as prejudicial as they like toward Whites without recourse because it is not racist to do so, (2) any retort on the part of Whites to point out hypocrisy is immediately shunned as illogical because it does not fit the new definition of “racism”, and (3) Whites, as those with historical power, are all racist. As Kelli Korducki wrote on NPR: “For White people who wish to be anti-racist, the first step in facilitating change is likely also the hardest: White people need to accept that they’re racist. All White people.”
From the Open Book section of the 2002 October issue of Harvard Magazine: “’Race Traitor’ will not abandon its focus on whiteness, no matter how vehement the pleas and how virtuously oppressed those doing the pleading. The editors meant it when they replied to a reader, “Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.” Similar writings can be found in multiple issues of Harvard magazine and many popular and highly regarded publications, including articles written by Harvard professors.
To give some credence to what was actually meant by this, it is important to note that CRT forgoes all definitions of race in connection to biology. What is meant by the destruction of “Whiteness” is the concept of the racial identity of Whites, as they would say, devised in the 17th and 18th centuries, which, as they would say, were to give credence to its power and subjugation of other races. These power structures and concepts have carried on to the current day in various forms.
An argument which I have heard in-person is that imperialism and colonialism themselves are Whiteness and that no other people across all eras and cultures would have wished to dominate the world but Whites. This is the fashionable narrative.
Worthy of its own essay, the aim here is not to dispel these claims in particular, but to illustrate the armed rhetoric against White people broadly which cannot be fought against per the imposed narrative and culture. Fighting against such claims only serves to reassert the claim that all White people are racist. Instead: “White people should shut up sometimes” (Liv Allen, The Simpsonian, 2021), “Dear white people: it’s time to shut up and listen” (Josh Smith, 3DownNation, 2020), “Dear White People: No melanin, no opinion” (The Beaver, 2018), “We Need to Start Barking at White People Who Speak Out of Turn” (Damon Young, The Root, 2018), and many more such examples.
I would say: “What if the tables were turned? Would that be acceptable to Black people?” However, this, too, has already been countered as “White fragility”. To question the criticisms of Whites broadly, even a remote critique of their claims or even their methods, is already covered in their narrative as showing a puerile, fragile nature on the part of the White person.
This will all only serve to hurt race relations into the future, not fix them.
It is commonplace in several universities to create spaces which explicitly exclude Whites. A few article titles to mention to at least serve as proof of such spaces: “Why there’s nothing racist about black-only spaces” (Charlie Brinkhurst-Cuff, The Guardian, 2017) and “Why People of Color Need Spaces Without White People” (Kelsey Blackwell, Land Trust Alliance, 2020).
I actually agree that such spaces are good. People have in-group preferences and all cultures have their place in this world. However, any slight hint at White in-group preferences is outright shunned. There exist at almost any high school and university “Black Student Unions”. These are all celebrated and outwardly promoted. There have been a few attempts in recent years to form “White Student Unions”, which are always met with pushback from the student body and faculty alike, then always shutdown. Wikipedia, for what it may be worth, defines “Black Student Union” as follows: “In higher education in the United States, a Black Student Union (BSU) is an organization of Black students, generally with a focus on protest.” Wikipedia defines “White Student Union” as: “White student unions were white supremacist students’ unions created as part of the white separatist movement.” It goes on to only mention historical white supremacist movements and the likes of Andrew Anglin, which does not at all encapsulate the entirety of it. Control of definitions is control of the narrative.
4chan has a history of putting out made-up political slogans into real life spaces to illicit a reaction and prove a point, such as associating Whites with milk and saying the OK hand-sign is code for “White Power”. Progressives fall for it every time. One such example was simple white sheets of paper with only the words “It’s OK to be White” printed on them. These were met with hysteria everywhere they were found.
Of course, some White people have put out rhetoric against other ethnicities that is distasteful. However, the cultural ethos has shifted far enough in recent decades that even these people are shunned to the darkest corners even by other White people.
Similar has happened elsewhere like in the U.K. All of the above applies: media articles, general acceptance of anti-White rhetoric without the ability for retort, etc. The hysteria is in many places across the West. Chelsea Russell, a 19-year-old girl in the U.K., was prosecuted in 2018, and sentenced, for posting rap lyrics which contained the word “nigga” on social media in honor of a 13-year-old boy who had died and liked the song. She served an 8am to 8pm curfew for a year.
There is also the general problem of anti-natalism in the West. The West in general is currently suffering from below replacement birthrates. This could potentially be catastrophic in several decades. Perhaps, this is a reason we see the powers that be wanting to import so many people legally and illegally. While I would say that the general atmosphere of the West, from economics to an overall ennui, is hostile to having children, there is simultaneously in some groups the thought that White people specifically should have less children. These articles I can no longer find, but they were titled akin to “I’m not having children because they would be White” and “White people should have less children to save us from climate change.”
It seems that even DEI initiatives still boil down to in-group ethnic preferences. I would concede that there is a subconscious in-group preference among Whites; ergo, as the progressive would argue, not me, there is a need for DEI. However, all ethnicities have this subconscious in-group preference. This extends, though, to mostly all facets of society, not merely job applications and test scores. Seemingly, the objective is not actually equal representation in the sense of opportunity, but outcome. In several countries, there has been set a quota that must be met of a specific amount of women or ethnicities. Likewise, apparently, some want a de facto quota on the amount of awards handed out based on ethnicity, such as at the Emmys and Oscars, which was argued not to have enough Black winners. However, granted they seem to not realize they make up a meager 13% of the population, many areas which are argued for greater representation only makes for over-representation. This necessarily implies the under-representation of Whites. While within the logic, if all remains equal, this is unfair; however, their philosophy would actually say this is a net good.
This has actually bitten back against minority ethnicities. When Claudine Gay became the first Black president of Harvard, this was much celebrated. Not terribly long after, billionaires such as Bill Ackman and others seem to have acted in concert to remove her for various reasons and replaced her with Alan Garber. In-group preference, and its ability to act in both conscious and subconscious ways, always triumphs, especially when combined with power. Granted, even the tendency for in-group preference to incite collective action is power.
Another issue is the question of refugees, which goes both ways. During the late 20th century, the countries of Rhodesia and South Africa were handed over to the majority Black populations. Rhodesia then became what is now called Zimbabwe. Infamously, the new Zimbabwean government under Robert Mugabe stripped property from almost all Whites who had been living there for several generations and endorsed their killing. Farm raids were common place and have happened even recently in both Zimbabwe and South Africa. The African National Congress (ANC), one of the foremost political parties in South Africa, had a chant led by its leaders in a stadium of “Kill the Boer”, which everyone partook in. Boers are White farmers. They have done this on multiple occasions, even as recently as 2023. Over the decades, though, Whites from Zimbabwe and South Africa are consistently denied refugee status in Western countries. Meanwhile, the West grants this status to anyone else of even a remotely different complexion for significantly milder reasons. Whites in these countries have begun to form self-sufficient enclaves in remote areas, one such example being Orania, South Africa. I have often wondered that if anything even remotely pro-White, let alone just colorblind Whiteisms, is actively stamped out because it is “White Supremacy” by default and they say it could lead to a second coming of Hitler, and if the outwardly anti-White rhetoric of Africa has led to the very things they hope to dissuade Whites from in the West, do these people really think their own anti-White rhetoric in the West will lead to better relations? The majority of Americans per a poll, even Black Americans, say that race relations have only gotten worse in the 21st century. If the undergirding of their own philosophy is the “destruction of Whiteness”, then obviously not – even if they have virtuous motives.
Anti-Whiteisms are so ingrained into the Western psyche that I have often caught myself finding something that is pro-White at first as potentially racist. I then have to question why that is, if it is, and if the same would be true if it were pro-Black.
Also worthy of its own essay is the current refugee situation in Europe. Any critique of the situation is met with labels of “racism”. This has caused some police officers to admit in private interviews that they cannot properly police the situation. There has been an unprecedented and sharp rise in rape and terrorist activities in Europe in the last decade, which coincides with the refugee crisis. Such headlines as: “German police investigate political motivation for gang rape of Iranian dissident” (Yuval Barnea, The Jerusalem Post, 2024), “Austria arrests nine Iraqis over gang rape of German woman” (Reuters, 2016), and “Newcastle grooming gang jailed for raping 13-year-old girl” (BBC, 2024) are very common, countless examples. Another example would be the Freiburg gang rape case in 2018, in which “one witness claimed that up to 15 men had raped the woman.” There was also the infamous New Years’ mass rape in Cologne, Germany, in which 1,200 cases were reported. There are only a couple countries which have had no problems. In fact, Poland has had zero incidents. Poland refused to house the refugees despite the European Union attempting to force them to. The European powers have little interest in correcting the issue. For various reasons, the European powers are stubbornly adamant to import more. EU figures estimate a total of over seven million so far. Interestingly, the representation of young men grossly outweighs the others. Gang rape also happens to be an issue in many of the countries these men come from. Some of these men have been on camera stating they want to specifically target White women. It could be sexual frustration or it could be politically motivated, which would align with what some Muslim Imams have said. If this were the case, then it fits the United Nations’ definition of genocide in multiple ways. Not only is it the targeted bodily harm of another ethnic group, but there is also the much unknown term “genocidal rape”. This term includes inflicting harm via rape but also the intent to displace an ethnic group by way of its children not being considered of that group. Many cultures around the world have not, and do not, consider someone of their group unless they are wholly of said group. The Japanese are a famous example of this. However, it is only White cultures that get attention over this.
All of that, not to mention the existence of “no go zones”, which have been adamantly denied to exist by the European powers, but documented nonetheless by many.
It is funny that the most “anti-racist” of White people tend to be the more ethnically isolated. Despite coming from cosmopolitan areas, these people tend to only be around other ethnicities in an individual capacity. Historically, time and time again, it is when ethnicities live among each other in groups that discontent grows, counter to the narrative that we only need to be around each other to solve racism. I have heard the sentiment many times: “Why can’t we all just get along? The managerial class uses race to divide us. If we could look past race, we could fix many issues.” Unwittingly, this only reasserts the realists’ point that countries, nations, and individuals are stronger when homogenous.
“Bald & Bankrupt” is a YouTube channel of an Englishman who emigrated in the Tony Blair era to explore other parts of Europe. He has vlogged across many countries, namely the former Soviet republics, showcasing them and interviewing locals. In 2024, he finally returned to England for the first time since emigrating. His vlog seemed eerily similar to the dystopic and derelict scenery of Eastern Europe for the most part. Just as Alexander Hamilton had pointed out, the new population of a few short years have come to treat England as they would their former countries. He then ventured up to Northern England, which has been poorer and in decline for many decades. This area, though, was quite clean comparatively. What was the difference?
III. Undermining Religion
Just as it was necessary to affect the Western psyche to turn on itself through ethnicity, it was also necessary to undermine religion. Religion is a great unifying force historically. As was pointed out by Bezmenov, the insulated subversion affects many areas of society at a rapid pace. As religions are, naturally, comprised of people, religions are affected by proxy. Many Protestant pastors tout the narrative of anti-Whiteisms. Further, though, we have seen the decimation of religion in the West. Certainly, some of this was due to the growing atheistic nihilism which was warned about in the 19th century by Nietzsche and Spengler. Certainly, too, it was a concerted effort on the part of power to maintain said power by undermining other avenues of unification of the masses.
This has manifested in many ways. Al Goldstein, a prolific pornographer, said that he made pornography because he hated Christians. I presume that he also hated White people, as some readers of this esoteric writing venture may also be able to see. There is also the uneven policing of religions. Isabel Vaughn-Spruce and Adam Smith-Connor are two British people arrested for silently praying. The police camera footage of their inquiry on Smith-Connor even included the question “What is the nature of your prayer?” as if even the nature of a prayer could incriminate. Both of these arrests were made as a protection of abortion. As the courts would see it, is disorderly and “detrimental”, the judge’s word choice. However, by contrast, the growing masses of Muslims will pray in such a way as to block whole avenues midday, which is outwardly disorderly, and receive only protection by the police until they are finished. Granted that there are not the same protections of religion in the U.K. as there are in the U.S., this, among many other examples named and unnamed thus far, is an explicit targeting of one religion over another by the British government. France has many of the same issues. This is especially interesting because French culture has been so vehemently anti-religion for the past 200 years. The restrictions in regards to any expression of religion in French government is quite strict. France is also the most atheist of the European powers. Still, even as atheistic and supposedly impartial they are through “liberté, égalité, fraternité”, there seems an explicit preferential treatment that is opposed to their own inherited historical culture.
During Lent, of all times, at London’s King’s Cross railway station, Muslim Hadiths were put on the billboards of otherwise official communication. After complaints were received, the officials took it down. I imagine that if true equality and representation was sought, then Christian Lenten messages should also have been put up. The head of state of the British government, after all, is the “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”. Hospital and military chaplains are Christian. The law is based upon Christianity. The cultural inheritance of Britain is Christian. Yet, there is both an explicit and implicit anti-Christian sentiment, even by officials.
In Witheridge, England, a single complaint was filed which resulted in the government silencing the church bells which otherwise have rung for 150 years. At any other point in English history, the English certainly would have sided with the church.
Some Muslims in England harass Englishmen, calling them “kufr”, a Muslim pejorative for non-Muslims, and see no rebuke. Whereas, undoubtably, groups of Christians targeting a Muslim with armed rhetoric would be met with action by the law.
Most concerningly, there has been a deafening silence on the amount of church burnings and general desecration of Christian sites across France. This, obviously, was not an issue prior to the mass influx of migrants.
Straddling this disparity in treatment of Western nations and religions as opposed to foreign, much like any of these examples, was the case of Adil Rashid, who raped a 13-year-old girl and was spared a prison sentence. The judge found that he was “naive and immature”. Liam Hughes, on the other hand, was also found to be “immature” by the judge and given six years. The argument that the Muslim immigrants are naive of how to approach Western women has been used on several occasions.
All of these things in isolation may seem insignificant, but together point somewhere significant. Whether or not one sees these as happenstance from the changing culture or concerted by powers is irrelevant to the general death of the West.
IV. Undermining the Broader Culture
When going to other countries, it is commonly understood that one is to respect their culture and abide by their social norms and laws. When coming to the West, however, this is not the case. At a bare minimum, abiding by the law is required. What culture is there to abide by in a “country of immigrants” considered a “melting pot”? All are equally valid, apparently. However, the points made by Jay and Hamilton should retort this. These Americanisms have spread to Europe as well, which has historically not considered itself either of these things.
What’s more is the point of the progressive that “Whites have no culture”, seemingly interpreted in two very different ways. Some would say that White people have no culture because all played a role in a country’s development; therefore, “white culture” is reductive and exclusionary, as well as there not having been a “white culture” but instead many European nations’ cultures. The latter is mostly true, save for many of the unifying principles which undergird things like the European Union. The former is true possibly in the sense of the United States. However, the Black population of the United States has stayed a constant 12 to 13 percent through its whole history. They only played a role insofar as allowed and, even then, contributions would be minimal by necessity according to their makeup of the population and due to restrictions after the gains in the 1860s and 1960s. Any other culture in the United States might as well not be considered part of the equation. Still, there clearly was a philosophy, religion, and general culture at the beginning of the United States, which had no prior input of other cultures, unless one would like to assert the second interpretation of “Whites having no culture”, being that it was stolen.
The stealing of culture is put to European colonialism, which the United States was formed prior to colonizing the places this antagonism is normally associated with, namely Africa and India. It seems the cultural osmosis generally worked in the opposite direction, though, such as India’s inclusion of English norms, banning sati, etc.
There is also hanging over Western man a general sense of apathy that has been growing steadily for a long time. This is a complicated thing and the result of many converging circumstances. While it seems that urbanization causes this anywhere it touches, and societal pressures like economics do not help, one cause of apathy and pessimism which I can certainly point to is the growing distaste for “White culture”, calling it racist, and shunning any identity on the part of a White person other than being a consumer of some fad. I have frequented the circles that this has taken hold of. While it does create a bleak outlook, it is also having a counteractive effect which those who peddle this nonsense will likely one day rue. Its causing of apathy and pessimism on the part of the White person, though, does seem its goal. How else can a new philosophy take hold without the old first having been usurped? Their goal, then, of course, is to replace it in the mind of the White person to create their utopic vision of an inclusive world.
Historically, European civilization has only been about as inclusive as any other. In fact, at the current moment, Europeans are probably the most inclusive across any category, which is why continuing any further, especially in the manner they are, will likely rebound in the opposite direction – assuming the looming apathy does not choke what is left.