The Legacy of the Second World War and the Question of America
Part I: The Legacy of the War
THE MOST ominous trend of our time is the wholesale dispossession of White Europeans from lands they’ve occupied for hundreds and even thousands of years, reducing Whites to a dwindling minority on a global scale and a soon-to-be minority even within their own countries. The ultimate question is what caused this unprecedented demographic catastrophe, and my thesis is that it was the Allied victory in World War Two which did it by eliminating our best blood lines and delegitimizing the basis for European Nationalism.
Unfortunately many otherwise perceptive racial conservatives fail to stake out this position. A case in point is that of Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance. In the preface to his re-issued book Paved with Good Intentions, Taylor expresses skepticism toward the popular explanations for the post-war demographic collapse of Europeans before throwing up his hands regarding the cause of our global meltdown. Says Taylor:
Sometime in the mid- to late 20th century, almost all white governments capitulated. The most striking change was their willingness to accept displacement of their people by non-white immigrants. In the United States, whites are now expected to become a minority by 2042. Western Europe, Australia, and Canada, are headed the same way. Only Eastern Europe, which the cold war protected from the egalitarian folly of the West, has retained an instinctive sense of ethnic and national interests. But for how long?
This is, to me, the tragedy and mystery of our age. Why have whites given up the will to survive as a distinct people?
There is no lack of theories: the demoralizing effect of two world wars, the machinations of Jews, the universalist doctrine of Christianity, materialism, individualism. I do not believe any or all of them fully explain why whites abandoned so basic, so ancient, so legitimate, and so noble an instinct as the preservation of their own people. 
In contrast to Taylor, I attribute the collapse of Europe after World War Two to the fact that the war was not just a battle over land and resources, but also a struggle over the kind of values which would determine our way of life. As William Pierce put it, the Second World War was ultimately “an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a war between two fundamentally different world views.”
On one side were the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to maintain and advance civilization, and should hold onto their position of world mastery.
On the other side were the believers in quantity over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in racial and cultural equality, the people who thought it was wicked for the United States to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain to have a world empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to smash communism, wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over internationalism. And the fact is that the egalitarians won the war. 
This egalitarian victory resulted in a loss of moral standing for Europeans and the delegitimization of our racial existence. The consequent loss of our racial pride, in turn, “made inevitable”:
the opening up of the immigration floodgates for non-Whites into Britain and the United States; the destruction of American White public schools; the enactment of laws curtailing White freedom of association and the rights of White employers and renters (and with them the rights of White employees and tenants); the rise of feminism, homosexuality, and drug use; the breakdown of the traditional family structure; a soaring miscegenation rate; and the displacement of healthy White art, music, literature and drama by a Judeo-democratic-Hollywood ‘schlock’ culture. 
This complete breakdown of the West led to the globalization nightmare that is currently destroying the White race. The demise of Hitler’s Germany led to the rise of today’s “New World Order” which seeks to “equalize living standards around the world,” “break down national and racial barriers,” and “homogenize the world economically, racially, and culturally.” Thus, as Revilo Oliver put it:
The United States is now engaged in an insane, but terribly effective, effort to destroy the American people and Western civilization by subsidizing, both at home and abroad, the breeding of the intellectually, physically, and morally unfit; while at the same time inhibiting, by taxation and in many other ways, the reproduction of the valuable parts of the population — those with the stamina and the will to bear the burden of high civilization. 
Such is the legacy of our war upon Hitler.
Notes (part 1):
1. Jared Taylor, Forward to the Kindle edition of Paved with Good Intentions, 2014
2. William Pierce, Transcript of “America Since World War Two: An Interview with Dr. William L. Pierce by Kevin Alfred Strom” American Dissident Voices broadcast, 1992
3. William Pierce, “In Defense of Hitler and his National Socialism,” a response given to a “Letter to the Editor” in National Vanguard magazine, 1985
4. Revilo Oliver, History and Biology, Griff Press, 1963
Part II: The Question of America
Proponents of European Identity often trace the collapse of the West back to the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment expressed most famously by America’s Founders, who declared that “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” . Perhaps the best evidence for this thesis is the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was able to appeal to these “self-evident truths” in the campaign to end the racial freedom of White Americans .
It is for this reason that I would like to briefly expound upon the degree to which Thomas Jefferson and Company can be rightly blamed for the demise of the Western world. On this subject it must first be noted, of course, that Jefferson and his peers did not believe in racial equality or support racial integration. In fact, in speculating about America’s growing race problem, Jefferson dismissed any notion of trying to “retain and incorporate” Blacks into the state, predicting that such measures would “divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” Jefferson supposed Blacks were a “distinct” and “inferior” race, and he opposed miscegenation on naturalistic grounds, going so far as to compare the sexual “preference” of Blacks for Whites with the alleged “preference” of the Orangutan for Black women “over those of his own species.” Thus Jefferson wanted Blacks removed from White society “beyond the reach of mixture” to prevent Blacks from “staining” the blood of their former masters .
As peculiar and as scandalous as these views may seem today, Jefferson wasn’t unique in endorsing the removal of freed Blacks as the only responsible, long-term approach to America’s race problem. Jefferson’s thinking was echoed by the American Colonization Society, a prominent, illustrious organization of the time which opposed integration on the grounds that “there is an utter aversion in the public mind, to an amalgamation and equalization of the two races: and that any attempt to press such an equalization is not only fruitless, but injurious” . This was the mainstream, conventional wisdom of Jefferson’s day. As Jon Harrison Sims writes in American Renaissance:
The framers of the Constitution agreed that homogeneity of race, mores, language, and religion were the foundation of harmony and a viable republic. They understood that excessive diversity means that politics become a zero-sum game among competing and antagonistic groups. Diverse societies could not govern themselves and could be held together only by a king or an emperor. 
This sentiment was later voiced by New York Congressman Daniel D. Barnard when he rejected the absorption of Mexican Mestizos into the country on the grounds that, “We want our own Republic and Union with a homogeneous people, men of the same general race, blood, education and habits, forming a consolidated nation.”
The desire to keep America White was taken for granted before the Second World War. As Sims writes:
Current distortions of history imply that today’s “celebration of diversity” was inevitable, that with a few regrettable exceptions, Americans have always yearned for the racial mish-mash this nation is becoming. This is deceitful nonsense designed to cut Americans off from their racial roots and to make today’s race realists seem “un-American.” 
The reality of racial differences was openly acknowledged in America and throughout the West prior to the Second World War. In fact, before the war, the American conservationist Madison Grant published his landmark work of anthropology titled The Passing of the Great Race; or The Racial Basis of European History, a book which was well received not just in America but also in Germany amongst Hitler’s National Socialists.
Thereafter Grant’s American colleague Lothrop Stoddard published The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Underman, a work which argues that the survival of any civilization is predicated upon the culling of its founding stock, which is otherwise subject to deterioration via race-mixing and dysgenics. This perspective underlay the worldview of National Socialism espoused by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
The point is that Hitler’s racial views were not, as is commonly thought, some sort of pathological aberration that was exclusive to Germany. In fact, as Mark Weber explains in a review of Lawrence Birken’s study Hitler as Philosophe, Hitler’s racial views comported with “mainstream 19th- and early 20th-century European thinking” and “were consistent with those of most prominent Westerners in the decades before the Second World War” . This is why the Allied demonization of Hitler resulted in a rejection of the West itself. As Birken notes:
In a real sense, Hitler’s defeat implicitly became the defeat of the European nation-state and the Enlightenment values that underpinned it. Germany’s heirs, the United States and the Soviet Union, were both fundamentally transnational, multiracial empires whose territories were seemingly unlimited.
“As a result,” says Weber:
[F]or half a century we have been living in what Birken calls a “consumer capitalist” world in which “the hierarchical order of sex and race which had originally sustained bourgeois nationalism has been disintegrating” and in which “the increasing relativization of values is encouraged by the ever greater globalization of the economy and consequent emergence of a multinational business elite.”
In other words, the Allied victory over Hitler’s Germany led to today’s “New World Order” of racial and sexual leveling for the benefit of an international elite, whose goal, to paraphrase William Pierce, is “to create a New World Population of coffee-colored serfs for their global plantation” in order to eliminate the possibility of “any large reservoir of White people anywhere who might rebel” .
Such is the legacy of our war upon Hitler.
Notes (part 2):
5. See, for example, Gregory Hood’s masterful five-part essay Waking Up From the American Dream: “The American Dream vs. the American Nation,” “The Culture, the Creed, & the Dream,” “Was America’s Decline Inevitable?”, “Obama’s Racial Socialism,” and “The Fatherland vs. the Republic” at Counter-Currents Publishing, 2014.
6. See Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” Speech, 1963
7. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1785
8. Wilbur Fisk, Substance of an Address Delivered Before the Middletown Colonization Society at Their Annual Meeting, 1835
9. Jon Harrison Sims, “Racial Unity and the American Republic: What the Founders really wanted,” American Renaissance, 2011
10. Mark Weber, “Hitler as ‘Enlightenment Intellectual’: The Enduring Allure of Hitlerism,” Institute for Historical Review, 1997
11. William Pierce, “The New World Order,” National Vanguard magazine, 1997
* * *