Too often in the permitted(or imposed) discourse, white superiority and white supremacy(or white supremacism) are 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 folks 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 innately better than others and have a 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 compensations for those plagued with inferiority-complex. (Mussolini's Italian He-Man huff-and-puff was mostly that.)
What matters 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, '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 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 would stand in their way. Indeed, Muslims in general believed the whole world would be remade by Jihad in accordance to the prophecy of Muhammad. And the Chinese believed for a long time that they were 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 no matter what the Chinese thought of themselves and others, 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 big attitude minus the big 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 promotion of the Great White Hope produced a white boxer who could defeat Jack Johnson. And even if the combined 2.5 billion population of Chinese and Asian-Indians were 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 will do matter but as accents and adjectives to the hefty nouns of power. 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 can run only so fast and for so long. The real advantage comes with the quality of the horse itself. 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/will into reality. While it's true that potential without confidence 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, suddenly out of the blue, got to feeling awfully supremacist and decided to conquer and dominate others. Thus, whites weren't only guilty of feeling supremacist but inventing supremacism. Apparently, all of humanity were into equality, passivity, brotherly love, or peacefulness. Or just plain inertness without much in the way of Will to Power. Such 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 they're in 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 woke up 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 suspended in a historical equilibrium of peacefulness, equality, harmony, or whatever. All of humanity have 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 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 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 yet, their spiritual supremacism 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 possibly lose to the German nation-state that had only recently coalesced into being, but German superiority in industry and military prowess led to crushing defeat for France.
Now, there have been no shortage of historians who 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 shining standard of modernity and progress. So, even as the military conquests and demographic colonization abated and came to an end, 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 non-whites 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 their 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 they possessed some innate right-stuff generally lacking in other races? 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 led 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, and this is especially true of Ashkenazi Jews who, probably through assortative(and assertive) mating, managed to elevate their IQ above goyim. (In contrast, Middle East Jews seem to 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 as, 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. Of course, and 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) today amply demonstrated that. (But then, principles 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 some people are clearly more intelligent, perceptive, and capable than those of another group, principles 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 and resentment, feels that the superior group has accrued its advantages by means foul than fair. 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 feel the rules needlessly favor the inferior and therefore must be circumvented in favor of the superior, and the inferior feel 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 the reasons as to the facts of white superiority(that catapulted the West far beyond the Rest) while warning against white supremacism(that could be dangerous not only to non-whites but to whites who, in supremacist zealotry, might turn overly aggressive, or, in supremacist smugness, might become overly complacent). And there are surely many historians who work in this vein and contribute to our understanding. But scholars and academics don't set the overall/official tone of the Narrative, though, to be sure, most Narratives are perverse simplifications of ideas derived from academia. What nuance or complexity that may have existed in the original theory is overlooked in favor of pat formula and mindless mantra. 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 Narrative. Or, even as they disdain it as fairytale for dummies, they may broadly sympathize with its agenda either out of condescension or due to 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 become 'canceled' over the slightest wrong-think. After all, whites are micro-scrutinized for the slightest 'aggression'. Indeed, not only public debates 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 are hardly pillars of integrity and courage. Western intellectuals are no more likely to stand up to tyranny than intellectuals were in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China. Per chance they do speak out, it's almost always in service of the prevailing Narrative. Thus, it's sham courage, much like a dog barking with the approval of the master. A person can make a show of 'courage' out of 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 submissively 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 Jew.
The sad result of Cancel Culture and other forms of 'wokeness' is the total lack of honesty about history. Then, 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 decided to take down pictures of great medical pioneers and scientists. Portraits of these men had been placed on the wall for their very real contributions to medicine, but honoring them simply could no longer be tolerated because they were white. Any proof of white superiority is automatically dismissed as 'white supremacism'.
In a climate where any demonstration of white/western superiority in any field is a case of 'white supremacy', we mustn't take notice of white merit, just like we mustn't take notice of black demerit(as criminals and louts) and Jewish demerit(as 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 climate is utterly ludicrous, but it's far worse than radical egalitarianism. Radical egalitarianism would at least be sincere in its idealism. In the current order, Jewish Power is pushing sham-justice to guilt-bait whites into shame and servitude, all the better to manipulate them into supporting Jewish Supremacism. A dirty trick of bait-and-switch.
The current PC logic, if applied to Muhammad Ali, would insist his victories in the ring were the result of ego-supremacism. After all, Ali was no stranger to arrogance and announced to the world that he was '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. Arrogance doesn't guarantee apogee, no more than supremacism ensures dominance. 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 simply 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 was on their side and they were justified in the Jihad against the infidel. Plenty of American Indian tribes thought they were the best and toughest warriors. With such supremacist attitudes, they should have been able to fend 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 non-white peoples and cultures as 'tragic victimhood' than as relative failures in global competition. There should be no great shame for any people to have fallen behind(as it happened to all peoples), 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 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... 'supremacism' of the then Global South?
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 far more than Northern European folks 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 and deepest 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 antisemitic assumptions about Jewish achievements. Because Jews have often been vicious, nasty, arrogant, and contemptuous, Anti-Semites assure themselves that EVERYTHING accomplished by Jews must have been by hook or by crook. So, all Jewish achievements become suspect. Perhaps, Jews feel they are getting even with the historically 'antisemitic' West by encouraging the same kind of mindset against white achievements, i.e. whatever great or noble things whites achieved were always somehow tainted with 'white supremacism', 'racism', or 'antisemitism'(or were stolen from others). In other words, every white achievement, however astounding 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 furthered and expanded the power of White Supremacism. It wasn't just the guns and bombs that tyrannized and terrorized the non-white races. Everything achieved by whites INDIRECTLY oppressed the world because it boosted the power of the white world inspired by '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 non-white territories. Better ships led to not only increased travel and trade but white domination of non-white 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 remarkable 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 surely a kernel of truth to such a worldview as it is true enough that the Power uses whatever means available to further its reach and control. Thus, nuclear science/technology in both the US and USSR could never be independent of politics. But, this has been true of all social orders, and it also applies to the spiritual realm. Has God or gods ever been neutral? Not only will both Domain A and Domain B exploit the latest technology to make better weapons but they will claim god or 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 used their knowhow and technology?
It's an interesting topic for discussion, but hardly something the West has been uniquely guilty of. Some controversy surrounding Hayao Miyazaki's THE WIND RISES raised this very question. Should we admire the dreams and the craftsmanship of an airplane engineer because his achievements were used by the Japanese Military in acts of imperialist aggression and war? A sane person should be able to both acknowledge the real achievement and critique how it was used. After all, we can both admire the superb design of the samurai sword and despair of how it was often used. Or the Winchester 73 as a piece of brilliance and a killer of Indians. That the West and the white race often abused their great power is true enough, but that's been the timeless story of power, and the white race is no more or no less guilty than the rest. The main 'guilt' seems to be its pulling ahead of the rest and breaking through the sound barrier of history that no one had thought possible or even imagined as a possibility.
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 of power. (Consider what was done to Detroit by whites and blacks. Whites built it, blacks wrecked it.) Still, it isn't always the case. A people of real ability could become mired in a civilizational trap, like traditional East Asia prior to Western Imperialism or like Jewish intellectual culture prior to Emancipation and Secularization. Or, a people of ability could be situated in a harsh climate with poor soil, or they could exist in crippling isolation from the rest of the world. In contrast, a people of no special ability could be favored by fortune: Fine arable land with lots of water. And they could have warlike spirit(like the Ottoman Turks) and gain control of the inventions of other more gifted peoples. Thus, people who possess innate abilities could be severely limited in property(due to external factors), whereas a mediocre people with good fortune and warlike spirit could gain much in the way of property. Also, quality often loses to quantity. The upper classes have been brought down by mob uprisings, and talented minorities were set upon by the envious, resentful, and/or desperate majority. 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. Instead of a single factor, it was probably a combination of traits. Some believe it owes to higher IQ among Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, but then, why did East Asians lag 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, just like the yellows. The spread of PC and the ideological & idolatrous consensus in the current West is a testament to that. If most whites are truly individualistic, how come so many fell under the spell of PC and other officially sanctioned nuttery?
Then, what really made 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 set it apart. 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 provided just enough added window space to allow for more innovation and discovery. So, even though the great majority, 98 in the East and 94 in the West, were always communalist than individualist, the West had just enough MORE individually-minded folks to create just enough extra space for more freedom necessary for innovation and revolutions. But because entire civilizations are defined by their most iconic figures, many came to assume that the entire West is marked by individualism. But the actual history of the West is more often of herd-mentality, mob-mentality, and ideological conformism. In reference to Ayn Rand's THE FOUNTAINHEAD, it was more about the masses bound to Toohey than individuals standing tall like Howard Roark. Still, having a society where 6 out of 100 are Roarkians than merely 2 out of 100 could make all the difference. It's like 6 strikes with flint-stones than merely 2 are more likely to provide the spark that lights the tinder on fire.
Genetics cannot provide all the answers, especially as the abilities of one group may be closer to those of another group that is genetically more distant. 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 and ability, Japanese are closer to Germans than to Malaysians. Europeans in general are closer in ability to East Asians than with Arabs even though both Europeans and Arabs belong to the Caucasian race. Even among various groups within a single broadly defined race, different cultural-historical-geographical factors could have led to 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 weather, 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 the order. 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(to draw inspirations from them) 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 mostly developed in isolation. Thus, it drew fewer inspirations from foreign civilizations other than India, which, by the way, was more notable for spiritual contemplation than vigor in science/technology. So, while certain white advantages were possessions(innate), others were matters of properties(external) that accrued to the white world because of the 'accident' of its geographical location that was just close enough to and just closed off to the non-European world.
In the long run, Northern Europe especially gained much from the 'backfield advantage'. As it was further removed from the Cradle of Civilization, it naturally lagged behind Southern Europe that came into regular contact with North Africa and Near East. And yet, this contact also meant endless conflicts of invasions and being invaded. Over time, the endless conflicts 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. Indeed, the US had this advantage to a much greater magnitude over Europe in the 19th and 20th century. Notwithstanding the horrors of the American Civil War, the US could develop with far greater security, stability, and freedom than Europe where Great Power politics led to endless tensions and eventually to World War I and World War II. The American advantage was like that of historical Britain but on a much larger scale. Whereas UK was a small island nation(relatively speaking) separated from the Continent by a narrow channel, America was separated from the Old World by an ocean and furthermore, had limitless empty space to stretch out across for 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 expression and realization in America.
If white 'possessions' are forms of superiority owned by whites regardless of their fortunes — it's like Jews will possess high IQ even if robbed of wealth and blacks will possess athletic abilities even if robbed of freedom — , white 'properties' are forms of superiority that whites are fortunate to own. 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. After all, the reason why the Chinese refused to expand northward was they regarded the Northern Tribes as hopeless barbarians who should be kept out with massive walls. If the Mongols weren't there, Chinese might have grown bolder and more expansive. So, even the monstrous misfortune like the Mongols proved to be a fortune for the Russians.)
One may argue that white properties shouldn't qualify as evidence of white superiority as they are external to whiteness. After all, if Bill and Bob are equal in strength but if Bill gains an advantage over Bob by wielding a rock or a stick, his superiority depends solely on an external factor. Bill isn't any stronger than Bob because he has a rock or a stick, and if the rock or stick were to end up in Bob's hand, things would be reversed. For much of modern history, the white world had the better weapons, what Omar Sharif's character calls 'guns' in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Especially since the end of World War II, non-white 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 certain spark affected the way one particular ape(the Howard Roark of apes) began to see things. No longer were bones merely lifeless matter strewn on 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 of spaceships with lifeless matter. The ape turned the bone into a property of power because he came to possess a spark, which in the film was gifted by the monolith controlled by extraterrestrials.
It's possible that the revolutions in thought and technology in Europe were purely a matter of accident, as Jared Diamond argues 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 external factors. But then, even accidents can indelibly alter the future course of organisms in profound ways. After all, mankind had nothing to do with the creation and formation of Earth that was an accumulation of series of cosmic 'accidents', but mankind, like all life forms, was profoundly shaped by these 'accidents' at the genetic level. Mankind didn't create the Arctics 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 races. Even random events have deep repercussions.
Now, if the world were turned upside down by relentless series of accidents, nothing could be for certain. It's like a game of poker would be meaningless if cards were endlessly shuffled; the game is possible because it progresses in accordance to a certain logic once the cards have been shuffled.
Suppose the Earth was constantly bombarded with asteroids. Everything would be in a mad state of chaos and flux. But such major 'accidents' that fundamentally reconfigure and realign the world are rare and are usually followed by long stretches of relative stability in which the divergences set off by the Great Accident lead to long 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 other folks, 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 to create the sparks that led to the fire of modernity. It isn't a certainty but should at least be considered, but the gods of the current order cannot tolerate any heresy.
