Problem of Lack of Individuality in Russian National Character — Communal Sense without Individual Spark means Lack of Reform, Progress, and Growth

Anatoly Karlin wrote about the problems of Russia in The Russian Empire: Too Nice for Its Own Good

I’m thinking that the problem with Russians is the lack of individuality.

Now, some on the Right(esp Alt Right) are skeptical and even hostile to this thing called individualism. They see it as selfish, egotistical, vain, atomizing, and ahistoric. This may indeed be true in cases where individualism is the core of one’s worldview and ‘value’ system.

But individuality can serve something bigger than itself. And any agenda, vision, or order is best served by energized individuals with the will to be bold, headstrong, inspired, ingenious, and innovative. The problem with collectivism is it discourages and dampens individual initiative, and of course, initiative is always a function of individuality. So, even though the collective consciousness emphasizes the good of the whole, the actual good comes from those individuals who make the extra effort to assert their will and make dreams come true. Collective consciousness is necessary for a community of shared identity, values, and purpose. But the collective is about inertia than initiative. In order for things to get started, the individual must provide the initiative. Collective consciousness is like a pile of logs waiting to be lit. But they alone cannot make fire. It takes a spark. Individuality and Initiative are the sparks created by striking of flint stones. It’s like we can create any institution to serve the community in a specific capacity. It can be a center for art, drama, or music. And the members of the community can collectively agree on the purpose of the institution. But that collective knowledge will not create art, drama, or music. It takes individuals with initiative who are willing to pour their energies into creating something unique or special. Collective consciousness is about a general sense of what is necessary. Lots of people can agree that fine music would be a good thing. But it takes strong individuals like Mozart or Beethoven to actually make the music. And this is why the culture of individuality has been so important in the rise of the West in contrast to the Rest where collective conformity suppressed individual initiatives as rude, irreverent, presumptuous, destabilizing, or subversive.
Of course, a fanatical ideology that values radical individualism above all other considerations is bound to be fatal. The paradox of Ayn Rand’s success is that she reached mass readers with a vision that actually held most of them in contempt. Her obsession was only with the BEST, the 1% of the 1% in talent, beauty, and/or wealth. She saw most of humanity as just useless rabble whose only meaningful purpose was to serve as helot-cattle whose menial production and material consumption would sustain an economy that could fund and fulfill the mental vision of the genius. The fantastic element was in the idealized hero who possessed not only great talent but granite integrity and spellbinding beauty. (Reality is, of course, far messier and more complicated, less a myth of heroes than mystery of hustlers and hermits who, often by accident, stumbled on something remarkable.) She railed against middlebrow comprises(as characterized by Toohey), but hers was a middlebrow fantasy of heroic elitism sold to mediocrities. Still, upon arriving in the US, she was quick to notice what was missing in Russia due to Slavic tradition and Bolshevik tyranny. Both provided a general sense of the common good but repressed the independence and initiative of individuality. (On the other hand, Rand failed to understand that hyper-individualism destroys democratic individualism because the hyper-individual comes to believe that he is so great and awesome as a man of destiny that his individual will must trample over the individual wills of others. So, even as Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler came to be associated with anti-individualism, it was because they were hyper-individuals with radical will who felt that their individual vision must quell all obstacles. Not for nothing did Alexander the Great and Napoleon come to be associated with both individuality and tyranny. If every individuality was equal, nothing great can be done. The great individual must trample on the individuality of others and bend them to his individual will. Whether this is done through communism or capitalism, the dynamics is much the same. Still, a capitalist system allows for more than one powerful individual to call the shots, and that allows for more competition and achievement.)

There is collectivism where people conceive of the common good and try to work as a team. The downside of such mindset is passivity. After all, everyone would be waiting around to be told what to do for the common good. He’d lack the individual will to put forth his own ideas and plans. He’d know how to receive and take orders but not how to assert himself and propose/execute ideas to lead others.

There is individualism where the only consideration is self-interest or self-satisfaction. The most extreme type of this kind of individualism is found in gangsterism, vice industry, and globalism. Druglords don’t care what narcotics may do to society. They only care about raking in the bucks. Vice industry casino oligarchs don’t care about the negative impact of gambling on morals and values. They only care about profits. And globalist entrepreneurs don’t care about the peoples of their own nation and around the world. They just play the entire world to maximize wealth and prestige for themselves.

But there is the third option: Individualism for the shared national good. Peter Thiel is partly of this school. He believes in individual enterprise, boldness, risk-taking, and innovation… but he also believes there must be a sense of national purpose and good.

The problem with Russians is this lack of individuality for the national good. Many Russians do have a collective & shared sense of national good, but it isn’t enough to provide the spark for enterprise, innovation, and reforms. And some Russians do have a narrow sense of individualism that only cares about the self. Such egotistic opportunism will even do things that hurts the nation-as-a-whole as long as there is something in it for ‘me’.
Russian(often Russian-Jewish)individualism has taken the form of self-serving egomania. Its only obsession is to become rich by any means necessary and live like a king with yachts and mansions all over the world. (To be sure, Jewish-Russian oligarchs at least have a sense of "Is it good for the Jews?" They are willing to exploit and cause harm to Russia for self-gain, but they will serve the interests of Israel and EOJ or the Empire of Judea.) This kind of pathologically self-centered individualism is harmful to the nation. The powerful, the privileged, and the well-connected only care about themselves. And as fish rots from the head, such excessive vanity seeps down to the masses who, though remaining poor, ape the crass, trashy, and narcissistic. Of course, it’s a problem in the US too, with moronic masses imitating, at least in style and attitude, the decadent excesses of celebrities.

There has long been a sense of communal and shared good in Russian culture, and it goes back to the spread of Christianity… which may explain why so many Russians took to communism, which seemed familiar to Russian sensibility. Russians, lacking individuality and initiative, were used to being told what to do. They were used to others doing the talking for them. This kind of communalism discouraged individuality, spark, adventure, and can-do-spirit. It emphasized conformism to orthodoxy of the righteous and just, whether under Christianity, Tsarism, or communism. Or Putinism.

There is a positive side to communalism but also a negative side. Without sufficient individual spark and boldness, too many communal-minded people remain passive and sit around to be told what to do. In contrast, communalism of energetic individuals will be lit by sparks of initiative and will. In IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, George Bailey is compelled by circumstances to strive for the good of the town, but he is bursting with boundless individuality. He knows how to take charge. He is idealistic, resourceful, adaptive, and keen. He knows how to engage with all kinds of people. He has both communal spirit and individuality. In contrast, the lack of individuality in Russia led to too many Russkies just waiting around to be told what to think or do. Or, the strong individual exerted his precious will to control than inspire others. Consider the Strelnikov character in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. He is strong-willed like George Bailey, but he instills fear than inspires freedom.



The difference between assertive communalism(of individuals) and passive(or tyrannical) communalism(of collective mindset) is this: Suppose the electricity goes out in a community. In the community of civic-minded individuals, many will try to contact the company to see what’s up. Each person will try to take the initiative. In contrast, in the latter community, everyone will just sit around trusting or hoping that someone ELSE will do something about the power outage. This makes all the difference.

America used to be both individual and communal. It had civic sense and national unity, and it was composed of individuals who rolled up their sleeves in can-do spirit and went about building and fixing things. In contrast, the Russian lack of individualism meant a communalism that tended toward inertia or lethargy as most people lacked initiative and just waited around for orders from above. And Putinism hasn’t fixed this national character flaw in the Russian mindset.

Indeed, what is striking about the ‘Russian Revolution’ was how non-Russian much of it was. How was it that a small rabble of Jews, Latvians, Poles, and even Georgians gained so much power over vast numbers of Russians who almost overnight became their servants? Those other cultures had a stronger assertive will(though not in the Anglo-libertarian mode). Russian masses had long been inculcated to follow orders and do like others do. (This was why the Whites were doomed in the Civil War with the Reds. The Reds, though anti-liberty, found a way to whip up mass frenzy. The Russian masses were made to feel they were playing a heroic role in history. In contrast, the elitist and reactionary Whites had little to offer but orders and commands that promised nothing but return to the old order.) Unlike Russians, the ethno-minority Bolsheviks came from cultures that produced individuals who were more bandit-like, merchant-like, intellectual-like, and etc. Consider how a tiny number of Jews came to dominate so much of the economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consider how a tiny rabble of Chechen cutthroats were able to intimidate far bigger Russian gangs.

So, it's not surprising it took awhile for the USSR to become a genuine Russian Empire. Up to the 50s, it was largely an empire ruled by non-Russians with greater penchant for assertive will. Indeed, Russians gained power only because the non-Russian elites created a system wherein Russians could be educated and elevated up the Iron Ladder. Russians could use a system but weren’t adept at creating one themselves. Consider how Germans had played a pivotal role in the creation of modern pre-revolutionary Russia. Consider how it took many non-Russians to create the Bolshevik system. And after the fall of communism, Russia handed over privatization(that turned into ‘piratization’) to foreigners, mainly Jewish Americans. Russians felt they couldn't do it themselves.

Another problem with Russians is the persistent strain of barbarism that wastes energy on childish things. When Russians do indulge in crude forms of individuality, they are often silly stuff like swilling excessive amounts of vodka, having street fights, driving around like loons, wrestling bears, dancing on tables, and catching fish with penis. Jews don’t waste their core energies on such silliness. If you have a gallon of gasoline, it should be poured into an engine. Russians douse gas all around and set things on fire just to celebrate and have a good time. Total waste of energy and creativity. True individuality is a smart use of energy with focus and sense of purpose.


As Russia looks to the future, the main conflict will be this:

Russian nationalists and patriots with sounder values & nobler spirit but lacking in individual spark and spirit to take charge and make a difference

VERSUS

Jewish, Homo, and Cuck Globalists with terrible values and subversive mindset but bursting with individual spark and spirit to take charge and make a difference.

It’s like what Israel Shamir wrote of the Lucy Stein gang. Awful people but full of spunk and spirit. A spirited badger can bring down a passive cow. https://www.unz.com/ishamir/lucy-stein-gang-rides-moscow/

Organic Diversity vs Imposed Diversity - Diversity as Imperialism and Genocide - The Need to Reconnect the White Mind(the elites) with the White Body(the masses)

Jewish Globalists push Diversity and ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Invasion of White Wombs kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and replaces them with Black Babies. Only a worthless castrated cucky-wuck white male could WELCOME such a thing.

Not only is Diversity the chief cause of butchery and hatred, it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

How did the Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

Tibetans are angry because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’. Tibetans are forced to ‘include’ the Han Chinese colonizers.

Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans as slaves.

Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I’ll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

True, empires can unleash new possibilities and discoveries; they can spread useful ideas and values. Imperialism led to the discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic resulted from world explorations and conquests. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn’t have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there’s always been a huge price tag to diversity. The clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It’s like powerful storms can wipe out entire eco-systems and human communities.

Also, we should make a distinction between Organic Diversity and Imposed(often incompatible) Diversity.

A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial unity or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, even an extrinsically diverse society will result in formations of groups based on common age, interests, or skills. So, young people of various colors may hang out together. And smart people of various colors may work together. And people of shared interests might rub shoulders at a convention. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a child grows into an adult who grows into an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be Forever Young with slogans like “Don’t trust anyone over 30?.

As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn’t do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse… as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds's character after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he’s even more helpless than a child.

In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to old age. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It’s one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is that the identity of ethnicity is diluted and weakened, and identity becomes confused, contradictory, and/or unstable. Or overly narrow — the very smart club — or overly generic — like ALL young people. It’s no wonder that there’s been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

Now, it’s been said that a lot of affluent white people don’t care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s).
But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF they feel a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their ‘friends’ or pack members.

So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or concern about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn’t always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it’s beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it’s always for the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it’s like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn’t just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that’s all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as ‘weak’ and ‘irrational’. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one’s emotions from rest of humanity, even one’s own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and to tyranny.
Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and ‘socialist’ with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see the same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and ‘white trash’ act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

It’s not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It’s a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and least civic-minded.
Fascist socialism is about asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can’t lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it’s this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won’t even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism — no matter how successful the individuals are — is bound to lose to group-oriented strategies of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS OF HIS KIND to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others of another kind. It’s like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decide to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It’s like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness… though they’ve now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It’s one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East — war with Iran next on the menu? — , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentiles to get what they want.

Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But the horrors of WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it’s not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It’s this connection that makes life meaningful. It’s like the thief in the Akira Kurosawa film KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he feels a connection with the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food in another town, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotional pain because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it’s like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it’s not enough that he is safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses’ life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel a racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
Also, it’s not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren’t a great culture, it’s worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate and preserve white culture, it wouldn’t be the same thing. It’s like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It’s just a joke. It’s like it’d be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be ‘larping’.

Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It’s not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting is destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting were destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal were destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is infinitely more important. It’s like one’s mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It’s okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cords to their own race and history. It’s like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can’t feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind(elites) and white body(masses). White mind feels no pain even when the white boy is being destroyed.
But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.