We haven't the time for pleasantries. You are under attack. War was declared long before your birth and will rage long after you pass. Your children are at the mercy of the results of your actions as a belligerent; regardless of your willingness to engage or accept the call before you. A capable, cunning foe has seen fit to re-imagine the populations of the Western world so as to consolidate and entrench control of the fractured and weakened states. There's nothing particularly devious regarding this specific struggle for resources and political power within the scope of recorded history.
The throne is awash in blood and betrayal. Through struggle and pain the societal foundation is laid, body by body, tear by tear, but ever vulnerable to time and a patient, persistent enemy. Western society has dominated the world in most areas of human endeavor for thousands of years. Nevertheless, the majority of our brothers find themselves in denial and unprepared for the reality that our defenses have been breached and existence itself is not only uncertain, but often appears certainly out of the question.
The breach in subject was not physical in nature. It wasn't by sword the conquerors arrived to rape and plunder with ever-increasing impunity granted them by corrupt, rabidly hostile rulers implicit in the invasion. The weapon of our undoing was merely words, fanciful emotive targeting the empathetic fantasies of low T men, championing perhaps their last avenue in the pursuit of female attention after growing soft, useless, and despised in modernity. The short term, critically miscalculated reproductive strategies of deluded, timid men with little else to offer besides sensitive: but with a penis has borne nothing but the further disgust of women and the importation of their genetic replacements: Arabs in Western Europe, Conquistadors in the USA.
What was it that made the West so susceptible to the egalitarian mind virus? Could 60 years of globalist propaganda and Marxist infiltration in learning institutions really convince the conquerors, inventors, and explorers of the world of such blanket similarity as to abandon interest in the survival of their own children "if equality wills it"? Did 2000 years of Christianity convince whites of the virtue of pacifistic suicide so thoroughly as to respond to the destruction of their people with the cold, lifeless indifference of "if God wills it"? When were libertarians convinced to accept the abolition of speech and property rights "if the market wills it"?
Was it the result of surrounding ourselves with self selected samples, individuals of similar aptitudes and outlooks, ultimately convincing ourselves that anyone in my environment would be and think like me? Are we confusing the nature of interaction between two individuals with the function of the body politic, believing that if we can get along well enough, for example, with an Indian shopkeeper to buy a 6-pack from his convenience store, that Indian and American society can coexist in the same living space without conflict? Have people truly believed themselves capable of convincing everyone to adopt the same beliefs? Is it reasonable to simultaneously posit that all outcomes are the result of environment except the genes of humans subjected to vastly dissimilar environments for tens of thousands of years? Does anyone legitimately believe that a society can be peacefully maintained with populations approaching parity possessing utterly conflicting values?
The late Jonathan Bowden said:
"A large number of people on the conservative ground, or way of looking at things do not feel comfortable about arguing for naked inequality, do not feel comfortable about arguing for naked hierarchy, do not feel comfortable in arguing from an upper bourgeois or aristocratic position as it once was, in a democratic society filled with an increasing deficit to anyone who argues for rank inegalitarianism, and it’s because the Right‘s been morally defeated in its mainstream forms that it’s powerless and quivering in relation to the Left."
There is no such thing as a 'multicultural' society. Any who advocate a 'multicultural' society mean to replace the current culture with another. There are societies, they have mono-cultures, and subcultures can exist within them. The mono-culture establishes the dominant norms and beliefs held by those of sufficient numerical strength within a living space to enforce and normalize them, such as the code of law. The subculture can exist within the society because it is irrelevant to the ability of the mono-culture to impose its values and institutions. When the mono-culture no longer possesses sufficient means to maintain the normalization of its customs, the subordinate culture does not ask to share power but vies to wrest dominance. It isn't a particularly pretty prospect for the dominant culture; and most possessing the dominance of their living space around the world, rationally, desire and act to avoid their own destruction.
Enough Western men have simultaneously sworn allegiance to egalitarianism, pledging eternal devotion to the false exclamation of individual and cultural equality. As the mono-cultures in Western countries erode, whether simply by their men withholding support or actively working toward their destruction, a tipping point will be reached and the benefactors of Western suicide will have sufficient means to impose their own values upon their newly conquered living spaces. This doesn't require a crystal ball or a PhD in history to comprehend. Nobody will have been made any more equal. If God is coming, it won't be for those who actively aided in the abolition of their own religion and the enslavement of their women and children. The market won't be free, or even as free as it previously was, but virtually abolished for who knows how many generations.
So: what can you do? Probably not much. But, if you're resolved to fight anyway (good for you), the most important step at this time is to accurately frame the conflict so that others may come to better understand it. We aren't in a war between socialism vs capitalism. It's not Christianity vs Islam. State vs no-state is a red herring. It's not men vs women. The frame in which our conflict has shaped is egalitarianism versus meritocracy. Are we to surrender our own existence in the name of false virtue to pretend that no values are superior to others or are we to accept the natural variations of beliefs and abilities in human populations and act in accordance with reality instead of emotional grandstanding? Do you hold your principles dearly enough to -gasp- be disliked by your enemies? Are your principles important enough that you would impose them within your living space? If you aren't, there are plenty of other people happily approaching to impose theirs.