Too often in the permitted(or imposed) discourse, white superiority and white supremacy(or white supremacism) are conflated, confused as interchangeable, or as if superiority is the cause-and-effect of supremacy. In truth, one(superiority) is a condition, the other(supremacism) a contention. Many PC scolds and ‘woke’ tards argue that the West, Europe and America, gained world hegemony and domination over other races due to the ideology of white supremacism than through the industry of white superiority. Now, supremacy and superiority are partly interlinked. It’s natural for a people who gain superiority to believe they are somehow better(even innately) than others and reserve the right(and/or a responsibility) to rule over them. This rule could be ruthless and exploitative or conscientious and constructive — the Others’ burden or the burden for Others — , but in either case, it means dominion of one group over another.

While superiority all-too-often leads to feelings of supremacy, supremacism per se hardly guarantees superiority or domination. If anything, supremacist attitudes can lead to dissipation and downfall, as with the story of the hare that slacks off in the race with the tortoise. Or, exaggerated displays of supremacism could actually be therapeutic compensation for those plagued with inferiority-complex. (Mussolini’s Italian He-Man huff-and-puff neo-Roman fantasies were mostly that.) Of real importance is that attitude doesn’t translate into aptitude. White people with all the supremacist attitudes in the world couldn’t have gained domination without certain superior aptitudes resulting from genetic, cultural, historical, or material factors.

In supernatural movies, the sheer force of ‘psychic’-will often determines outcomes, but reality doesn’t work that way. If reality did, Germany and Japan would have prevailed in World War II, or at least fended off invasions by Allies. Nazi Germans certainly had a supremacist worldview and believed themselves to be invincible at least against the slovenly Slavs. Japan, though severely disadvantaged against the US in manpower and materials, felt imbued with a divine spirit that would favor its destiny. In an earlier period, the Ottoman Turks thought the divine will of Allah was on their side, and in time, nothing could stand in their way. Indeed, Muslims believed the whole world would eventually be remade in accordance to the ultimate prophecy of Muhammad. And the Chinese believed for a long time that they were the most fortunate people of the Middle Kingdom, the summit of civilization, wisdom, and power. Now, if indeed what-ism determines what-is, the Ottomans would have defeated Europe, and China-as-Middle-Kingdom would have been impenetrable to Western Imperialism and Japanese aggression. But whatever the Chinese thought of themselves, reality led to a rude awakening. Chinese ‘supremacism’ or ‘Sino-centrism’ didn’t ensure Chinese superiority.

This is why it’s idiotic to fixate on White Supremacism as the cause of the Rise of the West over the Rest. If, like the Ottomans and the Chinese, white Europeans possessed the attitude minus the ability, the white world wouldn’t have been victorious. Indeed, this has been amply demonstrated in sports. No amount of white supremacist attitudes led to white victory over blacks who possess genetic superiority in athleticism. No amount of the Great White Hope-Hype produced a white boxer who could defeat Jack Johnson. And even were the combined 2.5 billion population of Chinese and Asian-Indians to adopt supremacist attitudes in the 100m and 200m sprints, the odds are blacks of West African descent will dominate the finals.

Now, attitude and the power of will do matter but as accents and adjectives to the hefty nouns of actual power/prowess. It’s like yells, spurs, and/or the whips can make the horse run faster but they can’t substitute for the horse itself(or turn a weak horse into a strong one). Furthermore, their effectiveness has limits as the horse, even under pressure, can run only so fast and for so long.
Indeed, a mild-mannered man on a horse will win a race against a strong-willed man on a donkey. Attitude is a matter of inches, not yards. A man with supremacist confidence armed with a knife will lose to a moderate man with a sword. It’s like the story of the train-that-thought-it-could. Its attitude played a role, but what really mattered was the powerful engine that could turn wish into reality. While it’s true that potential without confidence and motivation won’t get far, confidence without potential won’t get anywhere. Supremacism without superiority is just talk without walk.

According to PC, modern history is as follows: One day, white folks woke up on the wrong side of the bed and began to feel ‘supremacist’. And this supremacism suddenly drove white people to invent better weapons, build bigger ships, develop better medicine, advance science & technology, create new forms of arts & music, set sail to other lands, and dominate the modern world that they created. This Narrative implies that all of mankind and all of history were a stranger to supremacist attitudes BEFORE white folks who, suddenly out of the blue, got to feeling awfully supremacist about themselves and began to conquer and dominate others.

Thus, whites weren’t only guilty of feeling supremacist but inventing supremacism. Presumably, all of humanity were into equality, passivity, brotherly love, or peacefulness. Or just plain inertia without much in the way of Will to Power. Such a historical view is like the soccer match between Greek Philosophers and German Philosophers in the Monty Python skit. All the thinkers just wander about the field, lost in thought without a clue as to what game is about or what the ball is for. But then, suddenly a Greek philosopher has an idea to KICK THE BALL and sets off a chain reaction among the Greeks who win bigly.

Supposedly, all the world was in a slumber of pacifism or just plain lethargy until white world suddenly ignited with the will of supremacist domination, and THAT was the real catalyst for the Triumph of the West. It’s all so laughable.

First, as stated before, attitude doesn’t ensure aptitude. Even if it was true that whites or Europeans, alone among all peoples, stumbled upon a supremacist view of the world, that in and of itself wouldn’t have guaranteed anything. After all, any person can claim to be a genius, but it doesn’t make him so. Any person can claim to lift a ton with his bare hands, but he’s no Hercules. So, to focus so much on white attitude without investigating the whys and whats of white aptitude is to ignore essential history.

Furthermore, it’s simply not true that the Rest, unlike the West, was balanced in a historical equilibrium of peace, equality, harmony, or whatever. All of humanity had been at war since time immemorial. Just ask those vanquished by the Persians, Mongols, Turks, Zulus, Assyrians, Aztecs, Mughals, and various American Indian tribes in which every male was brought up to be a fierce warrior. So, supremacist or domineering attitudes have been part and parcel of the human DNA forever, and they also exist among animals in instinctive form; organisms of all kinds seek expansion and dominance. Among humans, the supremacism could be clannish, tribal, ethnic, racial, national, religious/spiritual, philosophical, or whatever. Whenever someone or some group insists ‘my/our way is better than yours’, he or it is setting the world up for future competition, conflicts, and even all-out wars.

One thing for sure, winners are decided less by supremacist attitude than superior aptitude. If wishes come true, Byzantium wouldn’t have fallen to the Ottomans. After all, Byzantine Christians believed they belonged to the superior civilization and God was on their side; and they were proud of their glorious Greco-Roman heritage. Yet, their spiritual supremacism and cultural confidence didn’t ensure protection against the Ottoman juggernaut. Of course, the Ottomans were also spiritual supremacists, but they prevailed because they had superiority in leadership, organization, manpower, and strategy. The Franco-German War of 1870-1871 was a clear example of how supremacist attitudes guarantee nothing. The French, having been the dominant power on the European Continent for as long as they could remember, didn’t believe they could be so quickly crushed by the German nation-state that had only recently coalesced into being. But, German superiority in industry and military prowess led to ignominious defeat for France.

Now, there have been no shortage of historians who’ve explained as to why the West gained superiority over the Rest. Not long ago, Niall Ferguson came up with his list of ‘killer apps’ that pushed the West(especially Northern Europe) over the top to dominate and remold much of the world. As Ferguson pointed out, the domination wasn’t merely military as, even with the fall of European empires following World War II, the Rest adopted so much from the West as the preferable standard of modernity and progress. So, even as the military conquests and demographic colonization abated and ended, the Rest continued to be scientifically, technologically, culturally(especially in dress and manners), and ideologically ‘colonized’ and reshaped by the West. If indeed the only thing the West had going for it was nasty ‘supremacist’ and ‘racist’ conceits, why did the Rest adopt so much from the West, and why does it continue to do so? An honest look at reality would indicate that there was much that was indeed superior about the West that was worthy of being adopted and emulated by the Rest.

People like Ferguson are careful to note that Western Superiority had NOTHING to do with any racial/genetic advantage but, even if correct, there’s no getting around the fact that the West did achieve real superiority in so many crucial spheres of power projection: Transportation, Communication, Hygiene & Medicine, Science & Technology, Political Philosophy, and even Theory of Justice(not least because even anti-white nonwhites resort to Western theories, ideals, principles, and values to make their case against the West; blacks who find slavery to be evil didn’t get that idea from African culture, which was more about killer apes than killer apps).

Western superiorities didn’t arise from ‘white supremacist’ attitudes but certainly fueled them, but then, whites were far from alone in their ‘guilt’ in this regard. So many civilizations, upon reaching an apex, believed themselves to be innately superior to other peoples for reasons of blood, spirit, or divine providence. Given the unprecedented breakthroughs of the Modern West that surpassed all previous achievements by the greatest civilizations around the world, was it so surprising that white folks(especially in the North) came to believe in their innate advantages? If blacks, who’ve contributed close to nothing in science and technology, can’t help indulging in supremacist fantasies of fictional Wakanda, was it so out of line for whites who created the Modern World to feel that there was something special about themselves?

Besides, in areas where black superiority is obvious, especially in sports, no one is troubled by black confidence or even arrogance. Blacks are encouraged to feel maximum pride in black domination over other races. One thing for sure, black domination in sports is proof that supremacism isn’t the same as superiority. A white guy with a supremacist attitude in the sprint is likely to lose to a humble black guy with sportsmanship. Of course, superiority can be wedded to supremacism. A black guy can be superior in the sprint and be filled with supremacist arrogance against non-blacks, but still, his victory on the track field will have owed to real superiority in muscle than supremacism in attitude.

It’s similar with Jews in the brainy fields. Jews do have a superior edge in intellect and verbal skills, which naturally favors to Jewish preeminence in science, medicine, finance, academia, letters, high-tech, law, and etc., and many Jews are obsessed with recording and relating how awesome and stupendous they’ve been as a people, culture, and community.
On the basis of the Covenant, Jews have had a supremacist worldview for eons, but the Jewish Advantage hasn’t merely been a matter of attitude, which is especially true of Ashkenazi Jews who, probably through assortative(and assertive) mating, managed to raise their IQ above goyim. (In contrast, Middle Eastern Jews have the supremacist attitude but not the superior aptitude of the Ashkenazis, the ‘tribe’ of Jews who managed to conquer the world by conquering the Anglo elites who’d done most to conquer the world; conquer the conquerors, and then, you don’t have to conquer the world.)

Anyway, we must be careful not to confuse supremacist Jewish attitude with superior Jewish aptitude because, once again, attitude doesn’t guarantee aptitude. Jews possess real talents in excess of other groups, and that accounts for Jewish dominance in certain fields. Again, pride of superiority can foster arrogance of supremacism, and current Jewish Power is undoubtedly both conscious of its superior advantages and contemptuous of goyim as inferior cattle.

One thing for sure, superiority of power doesn’t guarantee higher morality or commitment to principles. Both Nazis at their peak and Zios(Zionist-Imperialists) made that crystal clear. (But then, principles are bound to become problematic among unequals. After all, we don’t have the same set of rules for adults and children, let alone for humans and apes. Within a population where most peoples and groups are more or less alike, adherence to principles is viable. But when people one group are clearly more intelligent, perceptive, and capable than those of another group, principles tend to break down because the superior group develops a low opinion of the other group that seems incapable of grasping, let alone practicing, the fundamentals of principles, while the inferior group, in its envy, fear, and resentment, feels that the superior group will exploit its advantages by means foul as well as fair. On the other hand, if the superior group, out of either compassion or ‘guilt’, decides to compromise principles to accommodate the inferior group, it will have ceded the moral high ground, and then, the inferior group, out of stupidity or spite, will exploit the situation to further erode rule by principles. Generally, the greatest harm to principles come from those with superiority-complex and those with inferiority-complex. The superior feels the rules needlessly favor the undeserving inferior and, therefore, must be circumvented in favor of the superior, and the inferior feels the rules favor the superior and must be circumvented in favor of the inferior. In the current US, intellectually superior Jews subvert principles in favor of intellectually inferior blacks to erode the pride & confidence of whites to guilt-bait them into serving Jews. Jews encourage blacks to blame everything on ‘white supremacism’ to break the white spirit, but then Jews manipulate guilt-ridden whites to support Jewish supremacist hegemony. It’s really messed up as bait-and-switch.)

In a sane world, people would freely explore and discuss the reasons that led to white global superiority(that catapulted the West far beyond the Rest) while warning against white supremacism(that could be dangerous not only to nonwhites but to whites who, in their arrogance, might turn overly aggressive, or, in their supremacist smugness, might become overly complacent). Surely, there are historians who work in this vein and would welcome an honest discussion.

But scholars and academics don’t control the official tone of the Narrative, though, to be sure, most Narratives are perverse simplifications of ideas derived from academia. What nuance or complexity that might have been in the original theory is ignored in favor of pat formulas and mindless mantras. Politicians, bureaucrats, and mass media decide the Narrative that, more often than not, is history turned into mass myth for morons.
Generally, scholars are either too powerless, craven, or fuddy-duddy to question the myth or dogma. Even as they disdain it as a fairytale for dummies, they may sympathize with the agenda due to condescension or consecration. In the US, Jews control the gods and made the Negroes noble & sacred, yet blacks have failed miserably in many fields, and that has led to eggheads seeing blacks as both gods to worship and children to save. Also, if they don’t play along, not only will they be smeared as ‘racists’ by blacks but as ‘white supremacists’ by Jewish Power.

In such a climate, honest and sane discussion is nearly impossible as anyone can be ‘canceled’ over the slightest infraction or deviation from dogma. After all, whites are micro-scrutinized for the slightest ‘aggression’. Not only public statements but private conversations could be jeopardous for honest scholars because ‘cancel culture’ in media and parts of academia reward people for ratting out thought-criminals.
One thing for sure, academia has taught us that intellect and erudition aren’t necessarily pillars of integrity and courage. Western intellectuals are no more likely to stand up to tyranny than their counterparts in Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China, even though they don’t have to face the firing squad or be sent to the Gulag. Perchance they do speak out, it’s almost always in service of the prevailing Narrative. Thus, it’s sham courage, much like a dog barking for the approval of the master. So many make a show of false courage with toady cravenness. It’s like all those tough-talking US politicians who bark at Russia, China, and Iran are just ass-kissing tools of Jews and the Deep State. All those who ‘courageously’ denounce ‘white supremacism’ are just bowing down before Jews. Would they courageously support BDS and denounce Zionist Imperialism or call out on the facts of black criminality? Fat chance. They got big mouths and cold feet. Michael Moore will never name the Jewish Power.

The sad result of Cancel Culture and other forms of ‘wokeness’ is the total lack of honesty about history. Then, it’s no wonder that White Superiority has been conflated with White Supremacism and all that it implies: All white achievements and demonstrations of civilizational superiority are products of evil and ‘racist’ white supremacism. Thus, even white achievements of genuine merit are deemed ‘supremacist’, like when Yale Medical School took down the portraits of great medical pioneers and scientists. Pictures of these men had been placed on the wall for their very real contributions to medicine, but honoring them was (mis)construed as celebrating evil whiteness. Any sign of white superiority is automatically dismissed as ‘white supremacism’.

In a climate where any demonstration of white/western superiority in any field, even the most objective, is a case of ‘white supremacy’, the culture has grown wary of white merit(no matter how worthy) and also allergic to black demerit(as criminals and louts) and Jewish abuse of merit(as all-too-clever subversives, seditionists, radicals, fraudsters, and crooks). If you notice the good about whites, you’re aiding and abetting ‘white supremacism’, and if you notice the bad about blacks and Jews, you’re taking part in ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’. The Current Year is utterly ludicrous and worse than even radical egalitarianism. Radical egalitarianism would at least be sincere in its idealism and insistence on equal outcome for all people in all areas. In the current order, Jew, blacks, and homos might as well be above the law. For all the talk of ‘equity’, almost no one talks about the spectacular wealth of Jews and their overrepresentation in key fields.

The current PC logic, if applied to Muhammad Ali, would insist his victories in the ring were the result of ego-supremacism. Ali was, after all, no stranger to arrogance in announcing himself ‘the greatest’. Whether one characterizes Ali’s attitude as colorful or contemptuous, the fact is he had the aptitude to match the attitude. It wasn’t just bluster, which any boxer can dish out. The walk has to back the talk. Whatever one thinks of Ali’s talk, he sure had the walk. This was no less true of a far less likable boxer, Mike Tyson, a truly grotesque personality. If Ali’s arrogance had a comic touch, Tyson’s outrages were demented. Like Ali, he claimed to be the very best that no one could beat. Yet, only a fool would say Tyson’s power owed to his ego-mania, ego-centrism, or ego-supremacism. At his peak, he really was the most fearsome heavyweight boxer who steamrolled the opposition. So, one mustn’t conflate his very real superiority as a boxer with his ego-supremacist rhetoric. His talk didn’t make him the dominant figure in heavyweight boxing in the 80s. For a time, he really was the best with unmatched power and speed. No amount of ego-supremacism in an inferior boxer could guarantee victory.

Then, it’s similarly ludicrous to attribute the epic rise of the West to ‘white supremacism’. If ‘supremacism’ leads to great power, why didn’t Arabs take over the world? Armed with Islam, they sincerely believed Allah favored their Jihad against the infidel. Plenty of American Indian tribes thought they were the best and toughest warriors. With such supremacist attitudes, they should have fended off Pale Face. African tribal warriors were just as convinced of their prowess as warriors and killers, but many of them ended up on slave ships.

Blaming ‘white supremacism’ for everything is a cheap trick to enshrine the backwardness or stagnation of nonwhite peoples and cultures as ‘tragic victimhood’ than as relative failures in global competition. There should be no shame for any people to have fallen behind(as it happened to all peoples at one time or another), and there should be no special blame for any people to have pulled ahead. There was a time when North Africa and the Near East were far ahead of Europeans, especially those way up in the North. So, are we to assume that the great achievements of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia were the results of ‘supremacist’ attitudes whereas Northern Europeans lagged behind because of… the ‘supremacism’ of the southern civilizations?

Perhaps, Egyptians, Libyans, Babylonians, and such folks really did believe their great achievements owed to something innately superior in them, but regardless of their attitudes, the fact is they achieved more than most in ancient times. Jews certainly developed a supremacist attitude, but the power of their spiritual vision cannot be attributed to tribal arrogance alone. Along with Hindus, Jews took spiritual imagination to the highest levels, and there was genuine superiority in the vision and wisdom, which explains why so many goy folks eventually adopted the God and sacred texts conceived by Jews.

In a way, PC denigration of white achievements is like Anti-Semitic assumptions about Jewish achievements. Because Jews have often been vicious, nasty, arrogant, and contemptuous, Anti-Semites assure themselves that EVERYTHING Jewish accomplishment must have been by hook or by crook. So, all Jewish achievements become suspect.
Perhaps, Jews feel they are getting even with the historically ‘Anti-Semitic’ West by encouraging the same kind of mindset in regards to white achievements, i.e. whatever great or noble things whites achieved were always tainted with ‘white supremacism’, ‘racism’, or ‘antisemitism'(or were stolen from others). In other words, every white achievement, however remarkable or beneficial to humanity, was the expression, product, partner, accomplice, enabler, or some such of White Supremacism. Whiteness is now akin to Nazi Lite, and the logic goes as follows: Werner von Braun may have been a great scientist/engineer, BUT his genius was in service to an evil ideology, therefore his genius was evil; likewise, whatever good whites may have done, it is morally questionable because it came about within the context of White Supremacy.

Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that positive white achievements were especially dangerous because they expanded and justified the power of White Supremacism. It wasn’t just the guns and bombs that tyrannized and terrorized the nonwhite races. Every white achievement INDIRECTLY oppressed the world by boosting the white world as the bastion of ”white supremacism’. Medical advancements meant healthier white soldiers to invade other lands and lay waste to indigenous folks. Improved food production meant explosion of white demographics, setting off waves of white colonization of nonwhite territories. Better ships and navigation led to not only increased travel and trade but white domination of nonwhite lands via control of sea routes and formation of coastal colonies. If whiteness is indeed the foundation of evil ‘white supremacism’, then white achievements, however noteworthy in and of themselves, are to be judged within the context of history in which whites used their advantages to gain dominance over the rest of the world.

There is a kernel of truth to such a Narrative as it’s been true enough that the Power uses all available means to further its reach and control. Thus, nuclear science/technology in both the US and USSR could never be independent of politics. And even the best German scientists under National Socialism inadvertently contributed to Hitler’s regime.

But, this has been true of all social orders and, furthermore, in regards to spirituality as well as to science. Has gods ever been neutral? Not only will both Domain A and Domain B exploit the latest technology to forge better weapons but both will claim the gods as being on their side. So, if achievements in the West were used to further Western power, how was this different from how the Mughals, the Chinese, or the Persians utilized their knowhow and technology?

The controversy surrounding Hayao Miyazaki’s THE WIND RISES raised this very question. Should we admire the vision and ingenuity of an aircraft engineer because his achievements were put to questionable uses? Sane people should be able to draw the distinction between achievement and application, a timeless problem for mankind, beginning with the first weapon made by primitive man.

Now, what were the foundations of White Superiority? Here, we need to make a distinction between ‘possession’ and ‘property’. For convenience sake, innate traits among whites will be called ‘possessions’, and external factors owned and/or controlled by whites will be called ‘properties’. So, a man with higher IQ has possession of intelligence, and a man with land & weaponry has property of means. Of course, the two are interrelated as people who possess superior traits usually end up with more properties. (Consider the fate of Detroit under whites and blacks. Whites built it, blacks wrecked it.) Still, ‘possession’ doesn’t always correlate with ‘property’. A people of real ability could be mired in a civilizational trap, like traditional East Asia prior to Western Imperialism or Jewish intellectual culture prior to Emancipation and Secularization. Or, a people possessed of high ability could be situated in a harsh climate with poor soil or could exist in debilitating isolation from the rest of the world. In contrast, a people possessed of no special ability could be favored by fortune: Fine arable land with lots of water. And they could have a warlike spirit(like the Ottoman Turks) and gain control over more gifted peoples. Also, quality often loses to quantity. The upper classes have been brought down by rampaging mobs, and talented minorities lived in fear of the envious, resentful, and/or desperate majorities. One hundred elite troops will lose to 10,000 mediocre troops. A tiger can be brought down by a large pack of wild dogs.

Beginning with ‘possession’, what innate traits favored the West over the Rest? Surely, this is the most controversial topic in our PC age, and even relatively maverick historians like Niall Ferguson don’t want to go there. It probably owed to a combination of traits. Some credit the success to higher IQ among Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, but then, why did East Asians fall behind though their IQs have been shown to be comparable, even slightly higher? Some have surmised that Europeans were more individualistic and innovative because of their racial personality; or European IQ is higher at the tail end.

Does this mean the white race is individualist whereas the yellow race is conformist and/or communalist? Maybe but maybe not. More likely, most whites may actually be inclined toward conformism not unlike the yellows. The spread of PC and the ideological & idolatrous consensus in the current West certainly suggest as much. If most whites are truly individualistic, how come so many fell under the spell of PC and other officially sanctioned nuttery with so little resistance?

Then, what really accounts for the difference between East and West? Rather than individualist West vs communalist East, it’s more likely that the West had just enough extra individualism to push it over the edge. So, it wasn’t as if 100 people in the West were individualist and 100 people in the East were communalist. Rather, if only 2 out of 100 people in the East were individualist, 6 out of 100 people in the West were individualist, and that difference was just sufficient enough to allow for the Great Divergence.
As civilizations are defined by their most iconic figures, it could result in the fallacy of the exceptional representing the generic. The actual history of the West was more often of herd-mentality, hive-mindset, mob-passions, cultural consensus, and ideological conformity. As in Ayn Rand’s THE FOUNTAINHEAD, the masses were more bound to Toohey-ism than uncompromising individualism. Still, having a society where 6 out of 100 are Roarkians(than merely 2 out of 100) could make a difference, leading to the Great Divergence between the West and the Rest. After all, six strikes with flint-stones improve the chance of fire than merely two.

Genetics cannot provide all the answers, especially as the talents/advantages of one group may more closely resemble those of another group despite the greater genetic distance. For instance, Northern Europeans are genetically closer to Arabs than to Northeast Asians who, in turn, are closer to Southeast Asians than to Northern Europeans. And yet, in terms of IQ or cognitive ability, Japanese are more like Germans than Malaysians. Europeans in general are closer in ability to East Asians than with Arabs even though both Europeans and Arabs belong to the Caucasian racial category.
Even among various groups within a single broadly defined race, different cultural-historical-geographical factors could explain the notable divergences. Burmese and Mongols are closer to one another than Burmese are to Arabs or Mongols are to Swedes, but Burmese and Arabs are better adapted to warmer climate, whereas Mongols and Swedes are better adapted to colder weather. American Indians are genetically similar to East Asians, and yet in terms of IQ, Europeans and East Asians are more comparable.
White advantage surely owes to higher IQ but also to racial personality. If blacks evolved to be wild, East Asians evolved to be mild. As such, blacks found it difficult to build complex social order, and East Asians found it difficult to break free of authority. In contrast, Caucasian genetics were somewhere between the polar opposites of Negroids and Mongoloids.

Europeans also lucked out because the core of Europe was sufficiently close to non-European civilizations(as sources of ideas and inspiration) yet also sufficiently separated from them(to fend off attempts at wholesale invasion). In contrast, East Asia was far removed from the rest of the world and developed in considerable isolation. Thus, it drew fewer inspirations from foreign civilizations other than India(though the Himalayas also kept Chinese and Hindu civilizations apart), which, by the way, was more notable for spiritual contemplation than vigor in science/technology. So, while certain white advantages were a matter of possessions(innate), others were more a matter of properties(external) that accrued to the white world because of the ‘accident’ of its geographical location that was just close enough and just closed off to the non-European world.

In the long run, Northern Europe gained much from the ‘backfield advantage’. Being further removed from the Cradle of Civilization, it naturally lagged behind Southern Europe that was in regular contact with North Africa and Near East. Yet, this contact also meant endless conflicts of invasions back and forth. Over time, the friction led to more destruction than construction.

In contrast, once the civilizational formulas that originated in the South crept up North, they could develop in a world of greater security and stability. Early America also had this advantage to a greater magnitude over Europe in the 19th and 20th century. Notwithstanding the horrors of the American Civil War, the US developed with far more security, stability, and freedom than Europe where Great Power politics led to endless tensions, eventually leading to World War I that set off radical revolutions and paved the way to World War II. The American advantage was like that of historical Britain but on a much grander scale. Whereas UK was a small island nation separated from the Continent by a narrow channel, America was separated from the Old World by an ocean and furthermore, had limitless (relatively)empty space to stretch out across in a grand experiment without interruptions of war(especially as the native Reds were easily quelled). In that sense, certain European ideas came to their fullest fruition and realization in America(not necessarily for the good).

If white ‘possessions’ are superior qualities present among whites regardless of their historical/geographic fortunes — likewise, Jews will possess high IQ even if robbed of wealth, and blacks will possess athletic abilities even if robbed of chance to compete in sports — , white ‘properties’ are advantages that came their way via external factors(and their snowballing effect over time). Europeans were geographically fortunate, and Anglos were especially fortunate to have arrived in North America, the best land mass in the entire world. (Russians lucked out because the vast territories of Siberia were mostly unpopulated and simply there for the taking. And despite the horrors suffered by Russians at the hands of Mongols, the yellow barbarian hordes very possibly prevented China from grabbing much of Siberia. The Chinese built walls to keep out the northern hordes, without whom the Chinese might have grown a bit bolder and more expansive.)

One may argue that white properties shouldn’t qualify as white superiority. After all, if Bill and Bob are equal in strength but if Bill gains an advantage by wielding a rock or a stick, his superiority depends on an external property. Bill isn’t any tougher than Bob because he has a rock or a stick. For much of modern history, the white world had better weapons, what Omar Sharif’s character calls ‘guns’ in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Especially since the end of World War II, nonwhite nations have been developing their own technologies and weapons, and what had once been the sole property of the White World now belongs to all the world.

Still, there is a connection between possession and property. Consider the opening part of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Bones and sticks are strewn everywhere. So, any ape could have picked them up to be used as weapons. But, no ape did(or even thought to) until a sudden spark of inspiration led one particular ape(the Howard Roark of apes) to sense new possibilities. No longer were bones merely lifeless matter strewn across the ground. Dead things could be ‘resurrected’ like Lazarus into force & energy by living organisms. A dry bone could be an extension of an ape’s arm, an idea that eventually led to mankind’s building spaceships with inanimate objects. The spark within the ape, an alteration of its possession, made possible the perception of the bone as a property of power(and of course, the ‘properties’ over time impact choices and behavior, which may change ‘possessions’ as well, as those most adept at using certain ‘properties’ are favored for power and privilege).

Some argue that the revolutions in thought and technology in Europe were purely the product of ‘accident’, as Jared Diamond argued in GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL. They could have happened to ANY people but just happened to happen in Europe because of certain factors related to geography and other externalities. Of course, such scholars willfully ignore that ‘accidents’ can indelibly and profoundly alter the future course of organisms. After all, mankind had nothing to do with the creation and formation of Earth, an accumulation of a series of cosmic ‘accidents’, but mankind, like all other life-forms, was shaped by these ‘accidents’ at the genetic level. Mankind didn’t create the Arctic and the Tropics, the ‘accidents’ of geology, but the extremes of cold and hot did lead to divergences in evolution and favored certain genes at the expense of others among the various racial groups. Even random events have had deep repercussions.

Now, if the world were unrelentingly turned upside down by cascades of accidents, nothing could be for certain. It’s like a game of poker would be meaningless if it only involved shuffling the cards.
If Earth were constantly bombarded with asteroids, everything would be in a state of chaos and flux. But such major ‘accidents’ that fundamentally reconfigure and realign the world were rare and generally followed by long stretches of relative stability in which the resulting divergences made for varying trajectories with profound implications.

So, the Occident is more than an Accident. Whatever forces beyond human control led to the geographies and demographics that separated European folks from others, they set off far-reaching divergences that led to real differences and expressions of uniqueness among the races. And it’s possible that Europeans ended up with just the right combination of higher intelligence, inspiration, individuality, and imagination that sparked the flames of modernity. It should at least be considered, but the commissars of the current order cannot tolerate heresy(though, of course, in the spirit of Negrolatry they would welcome any evolutionary theory that shows how blacks came to be innately superior to the other races, Jews excepted).