In your book Uniqueness of The Western Civilization (2011) you have written about the dynamic history of the West and about the distinctly Western traits which made the West stand apart from the rest of the world. Which are those main traits that made Europeans unique and how would you describe this uniqueness, if compared with other cultures in the world?
Before identifying the traits that I think made the West unique, I should say a few things about the reasons why many scholars in the past – Adam Smith, Max Weber, Lynn White, William McNeill, Fernand Braudel, Eric Jones, David Landes, and others – believed in the singularly unique trajectory of the West, not just a different path, since all cultures are unique in their own ways, but a path that contrasts the West to the Rest.
If we could use one word, the essential consensus among scholars in the late twentieth century was that the West created a modern culture, both a culture that valued experimental science coupled with an economy based on free markets with a state-sanctioned “bourgeois” legal system which guaranteed property rights and equality under the law. The argument was that this culture was initiated by unique “middle class” or bourgeois group making a living from their own entrepreneurial activities, predisposed to think in a more practical and objective manner, no longer living off land rents but engaged in the pursuit of profits by way of market transactions. There were merchants pursuing wealth in other civilizations, but not a bourgeoisie that gradually became independent of the traditional landowning feudal order, no longer subservient to aristocrats and kings, but creators of self-governing cities where the air made everyone feel free, with new legal systems to regulate the contractual agreements of individuals as individuals. This “rising” bourgeois world, the consensus argued, gathered momentum through the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance, rationalizing its economic activities, as Weber argued, until eventually it spearheaded an industrial revolution in the mid-1700s characterized by sustained technological changes. The industrial revolution was the key watershed (in this consensus) because it brought about a complete break with a Malthusian past in which every gain in production was consumed by higher rates of surviving children, with humans perennially living close to subsistence except for a privileged few.
This consensus was discredited in academia with the rise of multiculturalism and the spread of cultural Marxism in the 1980s. The dominant leftist faction called for a new interpretation of world history in which the West would no longer stand out but would be seen as a rapacious imperialistic civilization that rose on the backs of African slaves, expropriation of Amerindian lands, and other sinful acts. It would be too easy, however, to say that this attack on the old consensus was driven by ideology alone, without any substantive research behind it. Many detailed studies were showing that China, Japan, and India were no less advanced in commercial undertakings, peasant markets, urbanization, and technologies. A.G. Frank, Kenneth Pomeranz, and Jack Goldstone combined many of these new studies to argue, rather effectively, that Asia was well ahead through most of the modern era, and that it was only after the 1750s/1820s that Europe/England took off thanks to a combination of circumstances, such as ample supplies of coal in England, plentiful resources in the Americas, and the rise of predatory nation-states in Europe capable of imposing military rule in faraway places.
Half of my book Uniqueness consisted of a very close criticism of the major claims of “revisionist” multicultural historians, combined with a defense of some key claims of the old “Eurocentric” consensus. Essentially, I argued that the growth witnessed in the non-Western world was primarily based on the intensification of labor inputs and the extension of old technologies without any major technological innovations after the 1200s. By contrast, I tried to show that from about the 1200s Europe started a new path based on the use of novel technologies and methods of rationalization, which did not break with the Malthusian path right away, but did exhibit a new rational preoccupation with mechanical devices. How can anyone underestimate the Newtonian discovery that the behavior of all matter in the Universe can be explained according to mechanical laws?
My main criticism, however, was that the multicultural interpretation had simplified Western uniqueness in its singular focus on economic change and the industrial revolution. Past “Eurocentric” scholars like Weber, Hegel, and William MacNeill had a deeper grasp of Western uniqueness in their realization that the uniqueness of the West was broadly cultural and institutional. I was particularly drawn to the arguments of Hegel, Weber, Spengler, and Christopher Dawson about the “restlessness” of the Western psyche and how this restlessness was visible in multiple cultural activities going as far back as the ancient “Greek Miracle”, or at least back to the incredible expansionist drive of Europeans across the world from the mid-15th century onwards. I argued that there were multiple “divergences” in the history of the West, starting with the unique aristocratic lifestyle of prehistorical Indo-Europeans with their horse-riding, their co-invention of wheel vehicles, their invention of chariots, their intensification of the “secondary products revolution”, and their obsession with heroic renown by aristocrats who never acted subservient towards their leaders, never prostrated in front of their rulers, as was common among the slavish elites of the despotic non-Western world. The Greek invention of citizenship politics, prose writing, deductive geometrical thinking, tragic and lyric literature, syllogistic reasoning and infantry warfare, constituted a major divergence, followed by the Hellenistic advances in astronomy, mathematics, geography, medicine, and physics. The West was far more creative in all the spheres of human endeavour through Roman times, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, the Scientific Revolution, the Bourgeois Revolutions, the Enlightenment, the German philosophical revolution from Kant to Hegel to Nietzsche and Heidegger, and th Second Industrial Revolution.
Framing the uniqueness of the West in these broad terms, across a long time span from its Indo-Europeans origins and beyond the First Industrial Revolution, I drew attention to the aristocratic individualism of Europeans as the critical trait that made this civilization different, and that accounted for its unsurpassed creativity. My argument was not that this trait on its own explained Western uniqueness. I drew attention to other factors, not least of which was the unique contribution of the geography of Europe with its far greater ecological diversity, multiple seas and rivers, in producing and sustaining this aristocratic Faustian character. The inhabitants of the non-Western world were relatively subservient, with even the members of the ruling classes acting slavishly in the face of the ultimate ruler and in the face of their despotic and irrational gods. One of the main complications was explaining how this aristocratic spirit was first exhibited in a berserker manner and then moderated by laws and norms, subjected to rationalization, the restless extension of this rationalizing temperament into all spheres of life, while retaining underneath its primordial irrational will to power. I sought to combine the ideas of Weber, Spengler and Hegel.
Uniqueness of Western Civilization was followed by your second book Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age in which you continue to search for the reasons for this uniqueness, by trying to define the West geographically, and also, more importantly, to define its essence by answering two very important questions; “Where is the West?” and “What is the West?”. How would answer those questions today, and what do you believe were some of the crucial points in history that shaped the Western world?
After I completed Uniqueness, even as I was writing it, I kept wondering about the identification of the West in our current times -- was it accurate to call Japan “Western” just because it adopted liberal democratic institutions? What was the difference between a modern civilization and a Western civilization? I noticed that both multicultural and Eurocentric historians tended to identify the West with modern industry, science, and liberal institutions. Francis Fukuyama’s famous book, The End of History and the Last Man (1989), which I valued greatly, argued that all nations were moving in a Western liberal direction, and that once the world become “Western” there would be no more history because liberal democratic institutions reflected a deep longing within the nature of humans to be validated as free beings, to be recognized as equally free in their political institutions. But I gradually realized that Samuel Huntington was correct: the non-Western world was becoming modern but not really Western; in fact, their modernization was encouraging them to affirm their ethno-cultural identities rather than to imitate the liberal West. I began to read about the importance of race, why any discussion of race was prohibited in the most irrational ways across the West. I was wondering why the West was dominated by a multicultural ideology, and whether a Western world that was increasingly diverse both culturally and racially could be identified as “Western”. Was the city of Detroit really Western -- the latest stage in the progression of the West?
Many similar questions and inquiries led me to conclude that the West was not merely a culture, a civilization of values; it was also a civilization of a particular people, the white race. Once I added race as a key criteria, it become easier for me to identify the location of the West, for I did notice that those areas to which the West had spread, say, during Hellenistic and Roman times, into Mesopotamia and north Africa, barely Westernized, and eventually fell out of the Western orbit; whereas Frankish or Germanic Europe, for all their internal wars, were areas that assimilated with enthusiasm the Greco-Roman legacy. Only European peoples were willing to be part of “Christendom”, part of the “Western world”, because that was their culture and because they had common racial affinities.
The West is where whites are still a high majority, rather than where Western liberal values on their own predominate. Historical ancestry, the spirit of individualism, Christianity, are key cultural markers, but so is race. Using this definition, I concluded that Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia were Western, while insisting that the racial and cultural diversification of the West was threatening to contract this civilization out of existence in many lands.
In Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age you have written about the Faustian nature of the West and about the Faustian soul of the Europeans. Could you briefly describe to our readers the term “Faustian” and tell us what is the essence of the Faustian soul?
In Faustian Man I expanded on the importance of Spengler in our understanding of the West. Spengler believed that Western civilization was driven by an unusually dynamic and expansive psyche, by a personality driven to go beyond the known and master the unknown, reach new territorial frontiers, new frontiers of knowledge, transcend all possibilities and reach the highest peaks of achievement. I used the example of exploration as an endeavour that could clearly bring out the essence of this Faustian spirit. A standard explanation for the unsurpassed European drive to explore every corner of the earth is that Europeans were just more rapacious in their thirst for wealth and domination of lands. But I argued that the history of exploration during and after the Enlightenment era offered us with an opportunity to apprehend the essence of this Faustian soul. For while it is difficult to disentangle the pursuit of economic goals, gold and lands, in the earlier explorations of the Portuguese and Spaniards, for example, we can clearly apprehend the non-economic, purely spiritual nature of this soul in the explorations that Europeans carried from about the 1700s onward, because from this point on we can see explorers who had no interest in wealth, but were increasingly driven by a will to discover, to be the first to climb that mountain, to cross that dessert, to reach the center of Antarctica, irrespective of the economic costs, the possibilities of trade, or even the scientific knowledge to be gained. My point is not that only in the unadulterated desire to explore do we witness the Faustian soul. The urge to accumulate wealth and advance knowledge may exhibit this Faustian will just as intensively. The difference is that in the desire to explore for its own sake we can see the West’s psyche striving to surpass the mundane preoccupations of ordinary life, comfort and liberal pleasantries, proving what it means to be a man of aristocratic character.
While in The Uniqueness of Western Civilization you are mostly focusing on the rise of the West, in the first chapter of Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age you deal mostly with its current decline. While searching for the reasons of its decline you invoke the idea of the cyclical history that appeared already in ancient times, but is most famous as being the main theme of Spengler’s magnum opus, Decline of the West. Could you tell us a bit about this view on history, and about this decline that according to Spengler started in the 19th century, despite the technological progress?
As I was completing Uniqueness I could not help thinking about the current decline of the West -- why the same civilization I praised so much for its glorious rise was currently in a state of self-abnegation, promoting other cultures, insisting that non-whites were “culturally enriching the West”. In Uniqueness I endorsed the idea of progress, though I was aware of the idea of cyclical decline, but only in trying to explain the current multicultural malaise did I realize that Spengler’s idea of decline was inescapable, and that he was right to observe that the West no longer had the same youthful drive that had brought most of the globe under its dominion. Spengler anticipated declining birth rates, emasculation of males, breakdown of traditional family values, declining creativity in the arts and high culture generally, including a lack of certainty and commitment in one’s culture.
While giving a considerable thought to Spengler’s views about the decline of the West, you weren’t completely persuaded by his reasoning, giving examples of other civilizations, such as China, that also faced temporary declines, but were renewed after periods of stagnation. You concluded that there are other factors for the current decline of our civilization that may in the future prevent the West from renewing itself, and cause its permanent destruction. Which are those factors?
Yes, I could not understand the common Spenglerian assertion that all civilizations rise and fall when in fact many civilizations have continued to survived despite their relative decline. Some civilizations have been destroyed but China experienced ongoing rises and declines, without reaching a state of finality, as the Mayan or Sumerian civilizations did, which is why the theory of dynastic cycles has dominated historical thinking in China. China is currently threatening to become the most powerful culture in the world, exporting masses of peoples to other lands as well as gaining access to huge resources in Africa and Latin America, beyond nearby Asian lands. I thought it was more accurate to think of Western decline as temporary, as another phase in the rise and decline we witnessed in the past in various core areas of this civilization, in ancient Greece and Rome, or in the decline of national parts of this civilization, in Italy in the 16 century, Spain in the 17th century, Holland in the 18th century, and France in the 19th century. Europe could rise again as a unified force, or the United Stated could continue its dominance deep into the 21st century. The difference now was that immigration from Third World nations was posing a permanent threat to the white race. This was the crucial reason why I decided to focus on race in Faustian Man. The United States and Europe can handle a temporary and relative decline facing a powerful China, but whichever way we cut it, a thoroughly race mixed West constitutes a permanent and possibly irreversible decline to the White race even if the gross national output reaches new heights.
There are quite a few modern seemingly conservative academics and writers that seem on the first sight to be defending the West, but are in fact advocating not for the ethnic survival of the West, but only for the modern western liberal values. Could you tell us a bit more about these views for which the essence of the West is in modern liberal universalist values, and give us your opinion about such definition of the Western world?
In Uniqueness I was persuaded by mainstream conservatives, or plain defenders of the liberal values of the West. The Eurocentric historians I listed above – including popular conservatives like Ben Shapiro, Steven Pinker, and Jordan Peterson – value the West only as a civilization that advocates “universal values” that are cherished, so they argue, by humans as humans. They believe that these values express the highest aspirations of humanity and that the moment humans get the opportunity to enjoy freedom of expression, separation of church and state, rule of law, and equal rights, they will embrace them. hey believe that multiculturalism discourages immigrants from assimilating to these values, keeps minorities in their own cultural enclaves. But they welcome mass immigration, and believe that white identity is a horrible thing that inevitably results in Nazism. They would never dare to call Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and many other advanced nations that prohibit immigration and enjoy racial homogeneity, Nazi nations. They use this criticism only against whites. They give Israel a free pass as the only liberal democratic state in Middle East even though Israel is a Jewish ethnic state. Jordan Peterson is psychologically too weak to ask his favorite Jewish friends any questions about the ethnocentrism of Jews.
The West did originate universal values as testified in the idea, for example, that all citizens, regardless of religious beliefs, sex, and ethnic status should have the same legal rights. The West also originated the scientific method with its universal rules of experimentation and mathematical reasoning. European scientists discovered that the laws of physics are indeed universal and that every material entity in the universe operates on mechanical principles. The non-Western world adopted this scientific method because it is universally true. There were no indications that the Chinese, notwithstanding their practical insights about the natural world, would have developed a proper scientific method – the West remains, in this respect, unique in origination of a universal science.
The West is a very particular civilization, created by a race with a unique psychology, highly creative, originators of all the fields of knowledge, all the disciplines that are taught at our universities, geography, biology, chemistry, sociology, archaeology, anthropology, geology, botany…most of the styles in art and architecture, with many singular behaviors and hobbies, bird watching, a unique affection for animals, science fiction stories, stories about animals full of imagination, word puzzles, unique facial expressions. Europeans invented the novel, and while there are stories with characters in the non-Western world, their characters have not been as multifaceted, as you already find in Shakespeare, and then in the novels of the 18th century and particularly the 19th century, where one finds far more variety in personalities and inner depths.
Let’s talk a bit about your third book, Canada in Decay. Its main topics are mass immigration and the current demographic crisis, which are seen not only in Canada, but all across the West. Tell us what are the current demographic trends in Canada and how has mass immigration altered Canadian cities and its society in general?
The statistics are clear: Canada will soon cease to be a White nation demographically speaking. Government statistics tell us that non-White Canadians will "increase more rapidly than the rest of the population". Non-whites already make up close to half of the residents of Greater Toronto and Metro Vancouver. Almost 7 of 10 Vancouver residents will be visible minorities in less than two decades. The non-White working-age population of Greater Toronto will expand to 71 percent by 2036. Canada will be 20 percent white, 65 percent non-white, and 15 percent mixed race by 2106.
These statistics may no longer reflect the speed of mass immigration, however, which has accelerated since the current liberal government of Justin Trudeau assumed power in 2015. The average number of immigrants per year during the previous conservative government, which ruled from 2006 to 2015, was approximately 256,000. Under Trudeau, the average has been well above 300,000, with 350,000 projected to arrive in 2021. In concert with big corporations and academic hirelings of the state, they are planning to “ramp up permanent immigration” to 450,000 per year. The goal is to increase Canada's population from its current level of about 37 million to 100 million by end of century. Globalists want Canada to resemble a heavily populated Asian nation inhabited by docile inhabitants, showcasing its competitive edge over Asian nations by way of masses of mongrelized creatures with no identity other than the corporate brands they consume and the indoctrination they get in our schools about how the natural goodness of non-whites and the inherent racism of whites.
The alteration has been overwhelming. The most obvious change lies in the racial physiognomy of the population, from a happy White nation into a nation of senile Whites terrified of their history and identity, encircled by a growing mass of non-Whites who see themselves as superior, more vibrant, fair-minded, inclusive and tolerant than the Whites. But few want to notice these changes because multiculturalism is about encouraging whites to include and celebrate foreigners while encouraging foreigner to celebrate themselves. Our major cities have huge areas that look like Third World replications. The architecture is still very European, and there are still many wealthy Whites, with the globalist Whites benefiting from this replacement, due to increases in gross national output, and stagnation in the wages of the working classes. Globalists don't care about the replacement of Whites they love virtue-signaling about diversity, pretending to be ethical beings who care about »marginalized minorities« while entertaining themselves in highly exclusive restaurants, private clubs, and neighborhoods.
It seems that western universities and educational institutions in general have become hostile towards European achievements and even towards Europeans themselves; we can see this in claims of esteemed historians that all the successes of Europe were due to imperialism and slavery, or among the Anthropologists claiming that “first” Europeans were actually dark skinned etc. You have written about this bias among current academia quite extensively, so could you tell us a bit more about this? And also tell us what do you believe are the reasons and goals behind this anti-European bias?
The hostility is palpable in the growing number of reports we read about how universities are discarding the teaching of Western civilization, with only a few Christian colleges still teaching it. A few days ago, Yale University announced it will stop teaching a famous course, “Introduction to Art History: Renaissance to the Present”, because most of the great paintings studied were by White men. As I have argued extensively, almost all the great things in the fields of human endeavor were accomplished by White men, so as the West is diversified we will see increasing pressures for universities to stop teaching what White men accomplished, which means less emphasis on high culture, the history of Europe, Western philosophy, as well as calls for the removal of statues, symbols, historic profiles of the White men who created the universities. This is already a fact, not only do we have countless courses about pop culture, blacks, indigenous peoples, homosexuals, but a growing focus on the repetitive history of Asians, Moslems, and Africans.
One of the most pernicious happenings is the revision of history, the portrayal of European nations as inherently diverse from the beginning of time, with fabrications about how blacks and Moslems were major contributors to the Renaissance, Galilean-Newtonian science, and the Enlightenment. Many academics are now trained to deceive their students. In England, there is a movement called »decolonization of the curriculum«, which claims that the curriculum is still not diverse enough because it has yet to include on an equal basis the contributions of Africans to philosophy, their own mathematical thinking, and their own ways of producing »oral knowledge«. In Canada there is a mania with the »indigenization of universities«, entire programs and departments are being dedicated to »indigenous knowledge«, with calls for the hiring of indigenous academics even if they lack a PhD, and the renaming buildings to reflect indigenous culture. This is what comes with diversity, the erosion of knowledge. Non-Whites, understandably so, don't identify with the cultural achievement of Whites, except the disciplines that are career oriented in Business and Science, which they need to function in a modern society, but they don' care about »Eurocentric« Liberal Arts courses. They only like the Liberal Arts which currently trash Whites, and they also want their own history and »knowledge« added to the curriculum as equal partners, and since there are many cultures, this means equalizing European knowledge with the physics of Aztecs, the philosophy of the Chinese, the botany and zoology of Zulus.
While you were a Professor at the University of New Brunswick, you also faced hostility from your colleagues and other academics, because of your “unconventional” views and writings. Please tell us more about your experiences within today’s academia and about these accusations and attacks you faced?
Universities can tolerate mainstream conservative academics and critics of feminism, not as graduate students, but if they have tenured, conservatives can survive. What freaks out the establishment is a critic of immigration and a proponent of white identity politics. For all the talk about Jordan Peterson being a dissident facing obstacles at his university, he became a multi-millionaire promoting “conservative” ideas. Peterson is a globalist who likes mass immigration and hates white identity; he is fine with black, Jewish, or any form of non-white identity, but finds white identity “reprehensible”. He regularly has very amicable discussions with the most radical leftists, such as Slavoj Žižek, but will not come near a person who opposes diversity and uses the word “white” in a positive way.
Universities are Orwellian institutions constantly telling the whites students they exploit with high fees that they are “learning to think critically”, when in fact they are teaching students to endorse the most pro-establishment program ever devised: the notion that diversity enriches us all and that whites should not be allowed to have an identity in the same vein as they are encouraging identity politics by non-whites. The diversification of white nations is the most radical program ever devised in human history. Every institution is now geared towards the “successful” implementation of this program. The government, corporations, banks, and universities have huge networking tools dedicated to diversity. Bringing foreign students, and fast tracking their immigration papers, are now one of the major responsibilities of our universities, with foreign academics getting priority in hiring all the way to the highest administrative offices. It is a pathetic spectacle to witness white academic males crawling on all fours with smiles as they get replaced by foreigners.
This anti-European bias is not present only in academia and in educational system, but in western societies at large. As I understand, your above-mentioned book, Canada in Decay, was banned on Amazon, among many other titles that don’t conform to the politically correct views. And alongside this sort of censorship, many Western countries have so called “hate speech” laws which are preventing honest public discourse about the mass immigration and multiculturalism. Does Canada have such laws and have you ever been affected by it in any form of censorship within Canadian society, besides the already mentioned censorship on Amazon?
My book Canada in Decay has been a best seller at Amazon since it was released in August 2017, eliciting over a 100 customer reviews by the end of 2019. In late December 2019, Amazon Canada deleted about 70 customer reviews without an explanation. I wrote about it, https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2020/01/amazon-canada-deletes-70-customer-reviews-canada-in-decay.html
I was not, or have not been, accused of »hate speech«, but the customer reviews were nevertheless censored. It is no longer a matter of violating hate speech laws. The globalists promoting the ethnocide of Whites control social media, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Disqus, Paypal. They can control dissent far more effectively by banning you from these indispensable means of communication. My blog Council of European Canadians was banned from Facebook, Paypal will not do any business with us, and just recently we received notification that Webnames will no longer host the domains eurocanadian.ca and eurocanadian.net. I experienced an academic mobbing at my university, and my books have been ignored by mainstream media and corrupt academics.
You are also founder of “Council of European Canadians”. Please tell us a bit more about this project and its activities?
I started the Council of European Canadians in the summer of 2014 with the aim of creating a pressure group representing Canadians who are concerned about the imposition of diversity and the suppression of debate about this topic. I was hoping to attract professionals, but not a single profession has ever shown a willingness to be part of a group advocating white identity politics. That’s a problem in Canada, more so than elsewhere; whites are very conformist, brainwashed since they were born to accept the false claim that Canada was meant to be a nation of diverse immigrants from its creation. They think that Canada is uniquely multicultural; they don’t know, or refuse to think, why almost every other white nation is now identified as multicultural. Canadians complain a lot in private, but rarely in public. I can understand young individuals who can’t afford to risk their careers, including established professionals, but it is unfortunate that many are simply worried that they will be called “racist”. Even those who are retired and can afford to take risks, refuse to do so for fear of breaking the mandated norms. Without risks you can’t accomplish much in life. CEC has grown a lot in readership. In in the future there is potential for it to become a political pressure group, a formal organization with membership fees, conferences, involved in many activities.
Thank you for the interview! For the end please tell us if you are planning any new books, what are your general plans for the future, and what do you believe the future hold for the West? Do you think it shall rise again in the future, or will its current decline be permanent?
I am writing a book on the psychological uniqueness of the white mind and personality. The key to understanding why whites accomplished far more culturally than all the other races combined lies in their apprehension of the mind as a faculty separate from the enveloping world of nature, customs, and bodily pressures. This separation of the mind from the surrounding world, of thought from sensory impressions and material objects, began with the Presocratics. The aristocratic individualism of the Indo-Europeans and the heroic Homeric Greeks should be identified as the cultural locus from which this separation of the conscious ‘I’ from the ‘non-I’ began. The ancient Greeks had a strong sense of personal agency, which eventually led them to identify the self in separation from the not-self, and in the same vein to become aware of the distinction between private thoughts and public norms, thinking and believing, the inner states of the mind from the outer states of the natural world. The mind can't achieve its potential to comprehend the nature of things unless it identifies itself as the source of knowledge, which includes becoming aware of how the not-I continually affects the thinking that goes on inside the mind.
The West is heading for a very dark age, with millions of aggressive Africans, Moslems, and Asians roaming the streets of Europe, attacking whites, grabbing their women, consuming government expenditures, and imposing their cultural ways – with globalist whites welcoming them, celebrating the backward cultures of immigrants and trashing their heritage. The West has been declining for some time now, as was noted in the nineteenth century by Nietzsche and Spengler. Whites could have handled this cyclical decline, but one wonders if we are witnessing a permanent disintegration of white civilization with masses of immigrants continually coming to the West. Non-whites crave what whites have created, the efficiency, functionality, creativity, beauty of white nations. But non-whites are inherently incapable of sustaining white culture; a small proportion of non-whites could have coexisted with whites, but to this day black and Amerindians have not assimilated in the United States, are constantly requiring white funding, with blacks becoming more violent and demanding.
White identity is crucial for our survival, and I anticipate increasing racial tensions, increasing attacks on whites. The good thing about Trump is that his election has brought forth in the open the hostility of the establishment against whites as whites. This will awaken whites. Whites will increasingly realize that the goal of the globalist establishment is to marginalize the white race. As tensions mount, as white flight is suppressed, as the double standards intensify – celebration of non-white racial identities coupled with suppression of any expression of white identity – whites will become conscious of themselves as a race. I anticipate major racial clashes, intensification of government suppression of freedom of speech, exposure of the utter failure of »diversity enrichment«. This will intenify the resurrection of white identity and revival of the West.