I think we agree. Those who fantasize about the fall of Western Civilization are eating dream cakes. They won't be living in rich people's houses growing organic carrots and hosting orgies. They'll be starving and dying by the boatload.
Yes, and that's a whole 'nuther issue as well. If we just get rid of all the whytipipo we can live in the advanced cities and have all the wealth and technology and it just keeps on going. That definitely wouldn't happen.
Except ‘The West’ is dying rapidly as you can see clearly throughout western countries and major cities and it is Western business and political ruling elites who are the main perpetrators.
I'd just like to note that, as a 74 year old America first white nationalist, I'm still good for the rifleman's quarter mile (and a good bit beyond that, actually). Make of that what you will.
The xyz-American freeloaders will never have it better than they do right now. If Whites become a real minority and / or lose a major conflict, all the gimmiegrant benefits will dry up, the infrastructure will start crumbling, and the cushy life they have now will be a distant dream. They will kill the goose that laid the golden egg and only after will they wonder if it would’ve been better to maybe not bite that hand that feeds them. Worst-case, White Americans with any sense will form up into areas like Idaho, Montana etc… and start a new ethnostate. This is assuming the government isn’t able to control everyone with the incoming Palantir AI control / social credit grid, which is absolutely their plan as they are fully aware and prepared for the collapse.
On the nose here: "... the USA, especially, has a large population of military veterans who have seen actual combat, much of it within insurgency-type situations. We also have millions of additional folks who are proficient with firearms..."
This is not a jest or braggadocio. This is a reality and one with manifold implications. These men (and some women) are not merely experienced and proficient, but were trained to act with initiative, to organize, to plan with attention to detail. They know how to defer, to delegate and obey all at the same time. They understand supply systems, rationing and fatigue. They understand rates of travel, how to estimate ranges and operational security. They understand mobility, counter-mobility and survivability (shovels, lots of shovels). Arming themselves will not be a first concern, they have that already, unlike nascent insurgencies the world over.
The rapidity at which the American nation could organize itself into unofficial militias, given sufficient cause, would (and should) scare hell out of any invader, traitor or tyrant if they had the ability to visualize it in a single glance.
Trump was elected in 2016 on a promise of ending neocon wars and ending mass immigration, and he did neither. Instead he caved to the cuckservatives repeatedly in both issues.
Starting with signing Ryan's omnibus bill that specifically banned ICE expansion and Wall funding. "We'll get to that later!" Ryan said, giving Trump a fig leaf to hide behind, and then they just both ignored it. Then Trump was going to sign Nancy Pelosi's spending bill, once again betraying voters on immigration, but when Ann Coulter and others sounded the alarm he pretended to do a shutdown "for as long as it takes, months and even years." Then he signed the bill anyway. Pretending that "there'll be a new shutdown in fifteen days" if he didn't get Wall funding, but that was a lie, he just hoped for the news cycle to move on.
Regarding the foreign wars, he vastly increased drone bombings and didn't get around to signing a peace agreement with the Taliban until the last year in office. They promised not to attack while Americans prepared the withdrawal. (Trump promised to start this right away in his presidency, but didn't. It was up to Biden to continue the withdrawal, and then when it was botched in the capital, Trump talked about it as if he didn't initiate the withdrawal in the first place. Just easier to talk like a neocon and appease the media.)
Last week he withdrew his promise of "mass deportations" when they had barely started. That promise was repeated over and over again in his campaign, and people believed him. Just like "build the wall," which he only started doing a bit in the last year of his first term, so he could use the slogan "finish the wall" for the re-election campaign. Meanwhile he said repeatedly in 2020 that he wanted more immigrants.
"We need MORE immigrants. That's what they tell me." Shrugging. "And this is not what I said in the campaign."
--Trump, February 2020, speaking to industrialists who wanted more immigrant labor
Going to war is a way to "move on in the news cycle," a trick he has used often.
And his amateurish approach to tariffs, just raise tariffs on everything, once again led him to back off when it turned out people need vital parts and much else, and you can't just block these things all at once. Trump then left some symbolic percent, so that there are no meaningful tariffs where U.S. industry really needs them, and he has clearly abandoned that project too now.
Better move on with the news cycle.
So what's left - oh, please the Jewish Zionist donor Miriam Adelson, and AIPAC which has a handler for every GOP congressman, and probably the Dems too, as Thomas Massie has revealed. Miriam adelson' husband was Trump's donor in 2016, calling himself a social liberal - i.e. wanted mass immigration for the U.S., feminism and the homosexual/transvestite agenda. But at the same time, Adelson wanted racial supremacism for Jews in Israel - it's the usual twin agenda. He funded Trump in exchange for Trump agreeing to the illegal stealing of land from Palestinians and Syria's Golan Heights. Miriam Adelson wants the same, and Trump delivers. And Jew-dominated media cheer.
Trump is tired of being president. It's just easier to cave.
I dunno man. I hear you say this, I hear others say the exact opposite. I think I'll stick with my original plan of just waiting a year or so before making any judgments about effectiveness or intent.
A couple of thoughts. The browns, by which I assume you are referencing Mexicans and Latin Americans, increasingly look at themselves as white. They hold on to their Spanish (and a bit of French) heritage as somewhat of a badge of honor. Whether you think it was Trump who facilitated their awakening or the democrats who finally made them sick to their stomach to vote for them, the whites, as deemed by the people themselves are probably going to expand their majorities in the US, not shrink.
Islam is about to have their reformation moment. There is decreasing support for the demographic as a whole worldwide as the mainstream political elite swarm to embrace them at the risk of their own culture and people. This is why they are getting voted out of office. How fast that happens is up for debate. If the fall of Iran as we have known it for the last 45 years or so comes about a certain way, Islam as we know it is going to change big time back in its home in the middle east.
Really? Hispanics is a made up racial designation that even the EEOC recognizes is a subset of “white”. Next time you get asked a racial identification question and “White, not of Hispanic descent” shows up you’ll have to remind yourself. Hispanic is in reality a cultural designation. Not a racial one. The democrats were looking for more grievance groups to build their victims hierarchy. Many Hispanics themselves consider themselves “white”. And they are starting to vote like it.
The EEOC is a joke. Besides, institutions and laws don’t get to designate what race a person is, that’s what genes are for. What you’re saying is exactly what leftists say when they claim “gender is a social construction“. Sex isn’t a social construction and neither is race. It’s rooted entirely in biology.
White just means “some sort of European ethnicity”, such as English or German. It has a different connotation in America because various forms of Europeans mixed over here, so the term white just came to mean some sort of European.
Hispanics are Spanish mixed with American Indian, such as the Aztecs, meaning they aren’t white but some new sort of race. If a Chinese person mixes with an Arab, they are no longer Chinese or Arab, but something entirely different. Same thing here. Honestly can’t believe this is even a debate. At no point in my lifetime have Hispanics ever been considered white up until the 2024 election apparently.
You need to do some homework then. Please define race for me. Because it has had very different meanings. Historically it was used as a designation for your country of origin. Biologically, since you brought up genes, there are three. “Hispanics” is not one of them.
The EEOC is the official group designator in the US, though I do agree they are mostly a joke.
It is you who needs to do his homework. You didn’t even counter any of my points. I’m aware that the study of race and genes is a major taboo, but I suggest you read up on genomics is you want a clear picture as to what a race is. I think you’ll find our species is quite genetically diverse, despite what leftists will tell you, and that findings from genetic studies are consistent and replicable.
You used terms like “historically” and “this institution defines race as this”, which suggests to me you’re a cultural relativist. If that’s true, then why don’t we just “historically” have the EEOC and other institutions designate Hispanic as a race and say that race is other than white? Would that magically make Hispanic a race all of the sudden? What’s the difference?
So, I did ask this earlier, what is your definition of race? I have met people from Mexico “whiter” than me, and I’m strictly Northern European. They no doubt genetically are from Spain more likely than not and have not married with indigenous tribal peoples. What are they? What race are they?
I merely state the obvious historical facts. That you wish to ignore them is up to you. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Your opening statement by the way is false. That’s how this all got started.
>> They don’t talk about us bombing Iran at the behest of Israel because they’re afraid it will hurt Trump’s credibility with his base or get us entangled in yet another fruitless, endless sandbox war, but because they’re hoping it will. ... The common denominator among a LOT of these folks is that they, themselves, are not of native western stock.
Seriously. Trump just broke U.S. law and illegally attacked another country and the first thing you do is write damage control.
LOL You seriously claim that bombing another country isn't an act of war. What an idiot. And stop whining little buddy, you can't stop me or anyone else from writing, go cry about that somewhere else.
Well, we have been at war with Iran for about 46 years so it does make all the posturing about what is war and what isn’t a bit moot. Was it a violent act? Yep? Is it going to be followed by another one? That’s up to the Mullah’s. If this was a real war in the manner of which most people define war, it wouldn’t be up to the Mullahs. It would be up to us. So, war isn’t quite the right definition. How about active hostilities?
Thanks for putting into words things that I’ve been sensing.
Not that the validation is at all comforting…
When you rightly pointed out that the only thing restraining people from moving forward (violent reaction) is their lingering respect for the rule of law, it reminded me of something terrifying that Tucker Carlson once said:
I recommend reading the Goodness Paradox. The more domesticated we are, the better we are at proactive aggression (calculated, organized, goal-oriented violence) rather than reactive aggression (impulsive, think most criminal violence).
On the narrow point of decentralization means collapse- I don’t think so in America. America has been naturally decentralized since the Iroquois Confederation, every widescale American political arrangement has always been a Federation.
It is centralization that is unnatural, it seems to be rejected when tried, for example when the Iroquois tried to over centralize their confederation they ran problems and eventually a sort of internal collapse, the British tried to centralize, that led to revolution.
It was the New Deal that was most successful centralization and now it is ending.
This isn’t some libertarian theory; just history.
Every wide scale, American political and social economic arrangement from the Iroquois confederation to the Internet has been a Federation .
Moreover, America today is 85,000 distinct governments spread over 50 states, 4 territories 20,000 police forces. Every state and territory has its own national guard very often air and ground National Guard.
The people are self organizing, competent and yes armed.
There are certain centralized systems like social payments and the common currency that if disrupted are going to cause problems, but the country a whole doesn’t face doom just because of decentralization.
Losing the Capitol doesn’t unravel the rest of the country. We’re just not set up that way, the constitution really just recognized what they had to work with already.
I used to be a more Third Worldist and fantasize about the collapse of Empire, but now, fortunately I realize it won’t be a glorious revolution, but it will be brutal and most of us will die.
No reason to expect current trends continue; things will hit a breaking point eventually? Have you looked at South Africa? There really does seem to be no point where the docility breaks. And being handy with a rifle is different than being an effective military fighter. Most war casualties aren't caused by small arms, and most of those civilian marksmen (myself included) don't know much about and don't train much in small unit tactics. Sure in this hypothetical scenario there'd be vets to teach it, but marksmanship alone does not an effective fighter make. It's probably less than half.
They literally had a couple of weeks of complete breakdown in SA a few years ago which resulted in the exact things I wrote about happening - Whites organising and a bunch of dead niggers that tried to loot.
This is a terrifying example but not long ago there was a school shooting not that far from where I live. (In Graz, Austria.)
Many of my friends immediately suspected that one of the immigrants chimped out, but I immediately said that this one was a local. The tactics, the modus operandi and most importantly staying focused on the task.
I think we can surmise some cultural attributes from history and the general way of things and I suspect that one of the most important edge of the Europeans(and European descended people) was the ability to bring things to conclusion. (For Chinese it would be something like throwing unfathomable meat on the problem.)
That is also why I think that trying to tank peoples attention span is at least somewhat deliberate.
It might be just my perception, but I never saw 3rd world types to line out how will they take over. Import flesh->amass necessary amount->profit(?)
While on the other hand there is a huge amount of content even here how "saving the West" would look like.
One problem with defense of white lands and culture stems from the cowardice of whites themselves. White men and women simply refuse to meet locally, in-person and organize such defense.
Nothing is more abhorrent for them because that means they might have to actually follow-through and do something about their situation. In other words, risk and effort.
An aloof and non-committal posture will produce articles, tweets and shaking a fist at the wind but nothing more.
This essay is terminally internet brained. The vast, *vast* majority of recent immigrants have nothing against America except for very specific things America may have done to their countries of origin (and many of them don't have the English skills or the fancy educations to spout bastardized Said at people on Twitter anyway). Third Worldist blowhards are a tiny fraction of immigrants who come from the highest echelons of their native countries and often return there as powerful aristocrats after a few years in America. Your Uber driver does not hate Western civilization. Fuck, your Uber driver is probably a devout Catholic who believes in the Immaculate Conception and transubstantiation and speaks a language directly descended from Latin. Log off and talk to a real human. I remember reading the blog of Indrajit Samarajiva, a rabid America-hater who lives in Sri Lanka but was raised in a tony Maryland suburb. Back in Sri Lanka he doesn't even drive his own fucking car because he can afford to pay a servant to do it for him. His chauffeur probably wants to move to America just to get away from his spoiled bourgeois ass.
(he once wrote a particularly amazing series of posts where he described the ending of the civil war in Sri Lanka and basically admitted his ethnic group, the Sinhalese, kinda sorta maybe did a bit of genocide against the Tamils, from which people like him personally benefited)
I think we agree. Those who fantasize about the fall of Western Civilization are eating dream cakes. They won't be living in rich people's houses growing organic carrots and hosting orgies. They'll be starving and dying by the boatload.
Yes, and that's a whole 'nuther issue as well. If we just get rid of all the whytipipo we can live in the advanced cities and have all the wealth and technology and it just keeps on going. That definitely wouldn't happen.
https://neociceroniantimes.substack.com/p/the-cargo-cult-mentality-behind-white
Except ‘The West’ is dying rapidly as you can see clearly throughout western countries and major cities and it is Western business and political ruling elites who are the main perpetrators.
The 'West' may be dying, but western peoples are not. That is all that matters.
Western peoples are rapidly dying and being replaced.
The west that as you know it is dying. And something new will emerge
Hopefully something still white or European.
I'd just like to note that, as a 74 year old America first white nationalist, I'm still good for the rifleman's quarter mile (and a good bit beyond that, actually). Make of that what you will.
Rare boomer
There are more of us than you might think. We haven't forgotten our training. And we're way past fatigued .
respect!
This is why I am not a doomer. I fully expect a white baby boom.
The xyz-American freeloaders will never have it better than they do right now. If Whites become a real minority and / or lose a major conflict, all the gimmiegrant benefits will dry up, the infrastructure will start crumbling, and the cushy life they have now will be a distant dream. They will kill the goose that laid the golden egg and only after will they wonder if it would’ve been better to maybe not bite that hand that feeds them. Worst-case, White Americans with any sense will form up into areas like Idaho, Montana etc… and start a new ethnostate. This is assuming the government isn’t able to control everyone with the incoming Palantir AI control / social credit grid, which is absolutely their plan as they are fully aware and prepared for the collapse.
On the nose here: "... the USA, especially, has a large population of military veterans who have seen actual combat, much of it within insurgency-type situations. We also have millions of additional folks who are proficient with firearms..."
This is not a jest or braggadocio. This is a reality and one with manifold implications. These men (and some women) are not merely experienced and proficient, but were trained to act with initiative, to organize, to plan with attention to detail. They know how to defer, to delegate and obey all at the same time. They understand supply systems, rationing and fatigue. They understand rates of travel, how to estimate ranges and operational security. They understand mobility, counter-mobility and survivability (shovels, lots of shovels). Arming themselves will not be a first concern, they have that already, unlike nascent insurgencies the world over.
The rapidity at which the American nation could organize itself into unofficial militias, given sufficient cause, would (and should) scare hell out of any invader, traitor or tyrant if they had the ability to visualize it in a single glance.
Trump was elected in 2016 on a promise of ending neocon wars and ending mass immigration, and he did neither. Instead he caved to the cuckservatives repeatedly in both issues.
Starting with signing Ryan's omnibus bill that specifically banned ICE expansion and Wall funding. "We'll get to that later!" Ryan said, giving Trump a fig leaf to hide behind, and then they just both ignored it. Then Trump was going to sign Nancy Pelosi's spending bill, once again betraying voters on immigration, but when Ann Coulter and others sounded the alarm he pretended to do a shutdown "for as long as it takes, months and even years." Then he signed the bill anyway. Pretending that "there'll be a new shutdown in fifteen days" if he didn't get Wall funding, but that was a lie, he just hoped for the news cycle to move on.
Regarding the foreign wars, he vastly increased drone bombings and didn't get around to signing a peace agreement with the Taliban until the last year in office. They promised not to attack while Americans prepared the withdrawal. (Trump promised to start this right away in his presidency, but didn't. It was up to Biden to continue the withdrawal, and then when it was botched in the capital, Trump talked about it as if he didn't initiate the withdrawal in the first place. Just easier to talk like a neocon and appease the media.)
https://original.antiwar.com/Ted_Galen_Carpenter/2025/06/22/trump-never-has-been-a-sincere-advocate-of-realism-and-restraint/
Last week he withdrew his promise of "mass deportations" when they had barely started. That promise was repeated over and over again in his campaign, and people believed him. Just like "build the wall," which he only started doing a bit in the last year of his first term, so he could use the slogan "finish the wall" for the re-election campaign. Meanwhile he said repeatedly in 2020 that he wanted more immigrants.
"We need MORE immigrants. That's what they tell me." Shrugging. "And this is not what I said in the campaign."
--Trump, February 2020, speaking to industrialists who wanted more immigrant labor
Going to war is a way to "move on in the news cycle," a trick he has used often.
And his amateurish approach to tariffs, just raise tariffs on everything, once again led him to back off when it turned out people need vital parts and much else, and you can't just block these things all at once. Trump then left some symbolic percent, so that there are no meaningful tariffs where U.S. industry really needs them, and he has clearly abandoned that project too now.
Better move on with the news cycle.
So what's left - oh, please the Jewish Zionist donor Miriam Adelson, and AIPAC which has a handler for every GOP congressman, and probably the Dems too, as Thomas Massie has revealed. Miriam adelson' husband was Trump's donor in 2016, calling himself a social liberal - i.e. wanted mass immigration for the U.S., feminism and the homosexual/transvestite agenda. But at the same time, Adelson wanted racial supremacism for Jews in Israel - it's the usual twin agenda. He funded Trump in exchange for Trump agreeing to the illegal stealing of land from Palestinians and Syria's Golan Heights. Miriam Adelson wants the same, and Trump delivers. And Jew-dominated media cheer.
Trump is tired of being president. It's just easier to cave.
I dunno man. I hear you say this, I hear others say the exact opposite. I think I'll stick with my original plan of just waiting a year or so before making any judgments about effectiveness or intent.
A couple of thoughts. The browns, by which I assume you are referencing Mexicans and Latin Americans, increasingly look at themselves as white. They hold on to their Spanish (and a bit of French) heritage as somewhat of a badge of honor. Whether you think it was Trump who facilitated their awakening or the democrats who finally made them sick to their stomach to vote for them, the whites, as deemed by the people themselves are probably going to expand their majorities in the US, not shrink.
Islam is about to have their reformation moment. There is decreasing support for the demographic as a whole worldwide as the mainstream political elite swarm to embrace them at the risk of their own culture and people. This is why they are getting voted out of office. How fast that happens is up for debate. If the fall of Iran as we have known it for the last 45 years or so comes about a certain way, Islam as we know it is going to change big time back in its home in the middle east.
Hispanics aren’t white.
Really? Hispanics is a made up racial designation that even the EEOC recognizes is a subset of “white”. Next time you get asked a racial identification question and “White, not of Hispanic descent” shows up you’ll have to remind yourself. Hispanic is in reality a cultural designation. Not a racial one. The democrats were looking for more grievance groups to build their victims hierarchy. Many Hispanics themselves consider themselves “white”. And they are starting to vote like it.
The EEOC is a joke. Besides, institutions and laws don’t get to designate what race a person is, that’s what genes are for. What you’re saying is exactly what leftists say when they claim “gender is a social construction“. Sex isn’t a social construction and neither is race. It’s rooted entirely in biology.
White just means “some sort of European ethnicity”, such as English or German. It has a different connotation in America because various forms of Europeans mixed over here, so the term white just came to mean some sort of European.
Hispanics are Spanish mixed with American Indian, such as the Aztecs, meaning they aren’t white but some new sort of race. If a Chinese person mixes with an Arab, they are no longer Chinese or Arab, but something entirely different. Same thing here. Honestly can’t believe this is even a debate. At no point in my lifetime have Hispanics ever been considered white up until the 2024 election apparently.
You need to do some homework then. Please define race for me. Because it has had very different meanings. Historically it was used as a designation for your country of origin. Biologically, since you brought up genes, there are three. “Hispanics” is not one of them.
The EEOC is the official group designator in the US, though I do agree they are mostly a joke.
It is you who needs to do his homework. You didn’t even counter any of my points. I’m aware that the study of race and genes is a major taboo, but I suggest you read up on genomics is you want a clear picture as to what a race is. I think you’ll find our species is quite genetically diverse, despite what leftists will tell you, and that findings from genetic studies are consistent and replicable.
You used terms like “historically” and “this institution defines race as this”, which suggests to me you’re a cultural relativist. If that’s true, then why don’t we just “historically” have the EEOC and other institutions designate Hispanic as a race and say that race is other than white? Would that magically make Hispanic a race all of the sudden? What’s the difference?
So, I did ask this earlier, what is your definition of race? I have met people from Mexico “whiter” than me, and I’m strictly Northern European. They no doubt genetically are from Spain more likely than not and have not married with indigenous tribal peoples. What are they? What race are they?
I merely state the obvious historical facts. That you wish to ignore them is up to you. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Your opening statement by the way is false. That’s how this all got started.
>> They don’t talk about us bombing Iran at the behest of Israel because they’re afraid it will hurt Trump’s credibility with his base or get us entangled in yet another fruitless, endless sandbox war, but because they’re hoping it will. ... The common denominator among a LOT of these folks is that they, themselves, are not of native western stock.
Seriously. Trump just broke U.S. law and illegally attacked another country and the first thing you do is write damage control.
Then I prefer reading these sources:
https://www.antiwar.com/
https://simplicius76.substack.com/
https://www.informationliberation.com/
Did you, uh, read past the first half of the first paragraph?
He didn't. Please just stop. It's not true, he has behaved no differently than almost any president since Jefferson.
So just start over.
LOL You seriously claim that bombing another country isn't an act of war. What an idiot. And stop whining little buddy, you can't stop me or anyone else from writing, go cry about that somewhere else.
Well, we have been at war with Iran for about 46 years so it does make all the posturing about what is war and what isn’t a bit moot. Was it a violent act? Yep? Is it going to be followed by another one? That’s up to the Mullah’s. If this was a real war in the manner of which most people define war, it wouldn’t be up to the Mullahs. It would be up to us. So, war isn’t quite the right definition. How about active hostilities?
Bitch, are you even a White Westerner? Rules don't apply to the Other, as the browns and their fetishizers love to say.
Thanks for putting into words things that I’ve been sensing.
Not that the validation is at all comforting…
When you rightly pointed out that the only thing restraining people from moving forward (violent reaction) is their lingering respect for the rule of law, it reminded me of something terrifying that Tucker Carlson once said:
Things change slowly until they change quickly.
Great and sobering piece. Thank you.
I recommend reading the Goodness Paradox. The more domesticated we are, the better we are at proactive aggression (calculated, organized, goal-oriented violence) rather than reactive aggression (impulsive, think most criminal violence).
On the narrow point of decentralization means collapse- I don’t think so in America. America has been naturally decentralized since the Iroquois Confederation, every widescale American political arrangement has always been a Federation.
It is centralization that is unnatural, it seems to be rejected when tried, for example when the Iroquois tried to over centralize their confederation they ran problems and eventually a sort of internal collapse, the British tried to centralize, that led to revolution.
It was the New Deal that was most successful centralization and now it is ending.
This isn’t some libertarian theory; just history.
Every wide scale, American political and social economic arrangement from the Iroquois confederation to the Internet has been a Federation .
Moreover, America today is 85,000 distinct governments spread over 50 states, 4 territories 20,000 police forces. Every state and territory has its own national guard very often air and ground National Guard.
The people are self organizing, competent and yes armed.
There are certain centralized systems like social payments and the common currency that if disrupted are going to cause problems, but the country a whole doesn’t face doom just because of decentralization.
Losing the Capitol doesn’t unravel the rest of the country. We’re just not set up that way, the constitution really just recognized what they had to work with already.
I used to be a more Third Worldist and fantasize about the collapse of Empire, but now, fortunately I realize it won’t be a glorious revolution, but it will be brutal and most of us will die.
No reason to expect current trends continue; things will hit a breaking point eventually? Have you looked at South Africa? There really does seem to be no point where the docility breaks. And being handy with a rifle is different than being an effective military fighter. Most war casualties aren't caused by small arms, and most of those civilian marksmen (myself included) don't know much about and don't train much in small unit tactics. Sure in this hypothetical scenario there'd be vets to teach it, but marksmanship alone does not an effective fighter make. It's probably less than half.
They literally had a couple of weeks of complete breakdown in SA a few years ago which resulted in the exact things I wrote about happening - Whites organising and a bunch of dead niggers that tried to loot.
This is a terrifying example but not long ago there was a school shooting not that far from where I live. (In Graz, Austria.)
Many of my friends immediately suspected that one of the immigrants chimped out, but I immediately said that this one was a local. The tactics, the modus operandi and most importantly staying focused on the task.
I think we can surmise some cultural attributes from history and the general way of things and I suspect that one of the most important edge of the Europeans(and European descended people) was the ability to bring things to conclusion. (For Chinese it would be something like throwing unfathomable meat on the problem.)
That is also why I think that trying to tank peoples attention span is at least somewhat deliberate.
It might be just my perception, but I never saw 3rd world types to line out how will they take over. Import flesh->amass necessary amount->profit(?)
While on the other hand there is a huge amount of content even here how "saving the West" would look like.
One problem with defense of white lands and culture stems from the cowardice of whites themselves. White men and women simply refuse to meet locally, in-person and organize such defense.
Nothing is more abhorrent for them because that means they might have to actually follow-through and do something about their situation. In other words, risk and effort.
An aloof and non-committal posture will produce articles, tweets and shaking a fist at the wind but nothing more.
This essay is terminally internet brained. The vast, *vast* majority of recent immigrants have nothing against America except for very specific things America may have done to their countries of origin (and many of them don't have the English skills or the fancy educations to spout bastardized Said at people on Twitter anyway). Third Worldist blowhards are a tiny fraction of immigrants who come from the highest echelons of their native countries and often return there as powerful aristocrats after a few years in America. Your Uber driver does not hate Western civilization. Fuck, your Uber driver is probably a devout Catholic who believes in the Immaculate Conception and transubstantiation and speaks a language directly descended from Latin. Log off and talk to a real human. I remember reading the blog of Indrajit Samarajiva, a rabid America-hater who lives in Sri Lanka but was raised in a tony Maryland suburb. Back in Sri Lanka he doesn't even drive his own fucking car because he can afford to pay a servant to do it for him. His chauffeur probably wants to move to America just to get away from his spoiled bourgeois ass.
(he once wrote a particularly amazing series of posts where he described the ending of the civil war in Sri Lanka and basically admitted his ethnic group, the Sinhalese, kinda sorta maybe did a bit of genocide against the Tamils, from which people like him personally benefited)