Trump: “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive”


President Donald Trump broke with the Cultural Marxist interpretation of Western civilization during his speech in Poland.

That speech was written by speechwriter (((Stephen Miller))). It reflects the views of Miller and Stephen Bannon, Trump’s strongly nationalist adviser.

The word “will,” commonly used on “Nazi” websites, was spoken by Trump some 40 times. That’s sure to draw the ire of the media pundits. Furthermore, the speech broke with the wimpy philosophy articulated by President’s Bush and Obama.

All in all, a great day for the West, as it has now found someone, however imperfect, who is willing to defend the West via argumentation.

Ironically, as Trump spoke, battles raged on the streets of Hamburg, Germany, site of the G-20 meeting of world leaders, between police and antifa demonstrators who seek the death of the West.

This speech would be viewed as a major historic speech except that the press and academia hate it so much.

Excerpt from Los Angeles Times

President Trump’s speech in Warsaw cast the fight against terrorism as a clash of civilizations, adopting a framework that his two predecessors had determinedly avoided and linking it to his controversial policies on immigration.

The speech on Thursday offered extended praise for what Trump described as the unique virtues of Western civilization, which he said faced “dire threats.”

Those, he said, emanate from the “south or the east” — apparently a thinly veiled reference to the Islamic world — and could “erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition that make us who we are.”

“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” he said, one of nearly a dozen times that he invoked the idea of “will” during the course of the approximately 40-minute speech.

Trump had expressed similar ethnocentric ideas during his presidential campaign, but had never before described them at such length.

“If we are looking for a Trump doctrine, this is as close as we are going to get,” said Michal Baranowski, the director of the German Marshall Fund office in Warsaw and an expert on Polish and European politics. “It is not a foreign policy doctrine — it is almost a manifesto.”

The speech marked a shift from the rhetorical stance Trump took just a few weeks ago when he was in Saudi Arabia. In a speech on terrorism in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, he said that “this is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it.”

The more pointed language of his Warsaw speech reflected the influence of the two strongest advocates of populist nationalism among Trump’s advisors, his strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, and his policy advisor, Steven Miller, who wrote much of the speech. Although Miller had a strong hand in the Saudi speech as well, the language in that address was heavily negotiated in advance.

Trump’s words also departed sharply from the approach taken by his predecessors.

Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama repeatedly rejected the idea that the fight against terrorism should be seen as a battle between the West and Islam or any other culture.

Bush, for example, in one of his most extensive explanations of his policies, five years after 9/11, described the war against terrorism as one in which “all civilized nations are bound together” in a “struggle between moderation and extremism.”

Obama went further, repeatedly insisting that terrorism did not pose an “existential” threat to the U.S. the way communism or Nazism had.

Trump, by contrast, speaking in front of a monument to Poland’s resistance to the Nazis in World War II and praising the country for resisting Soviet domination, explicitly linked the fight against what he labeled “radical Islamic terrorism” to those earlier struggles.

The question now is whether “we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost,” he said. “Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

And he linked that need for defense to his immigration policies. “While we will always welcome new citizens who share our values and love our people, our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind,” he said.

As in the battles of the last century, Trump said, “today, the West is also confronted by powers that seek to test our will, undermine our confidence and challenge our interests. We must work together to confront forces, whether they come from inside or out, from the south or the east, that threaten over time to undermine these values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition that make us who we are.”

The belief that a shared Western culture is under assault in Europe and the U.S. has been one of the underpinnings of the administration’s immigration policies, including Trump’s much-debated temporary ban on travel to the U.S. from six mostly Muslim nations.

Miller and other architects of Trump’s plans argue that high levels of immigration have damaged social cohesion in Europe and threaten to do the same in the U.S.

CNN offers a full transcript of the speech.

7 thoughts on “Trump: “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive”

  1. The real battle is not in the streets or on the borders. It is in the bedroom and I doubt Trump mentioned that. Muslims fucking and Africans fucking are creating enough babies to destroy the entire world, within one hundred years or so, a heartbeat in human history. India is belching out babies. China has dropped their one baby policy which has prevented the birth of 400 million Chinese people. They will catch up quickly. Meanwhile, white women are having less than 2.1 babies in (maybe) every white country. Whites and Nips are disappearing.

    The culture clash will be lost by the whites. The brown and black scum will win. Bill Gates has done his bit by vaccinating African kiddies against disease, then demanding the West take in all the hordes of babies he helped to save – low IQ black useless eaters.

    While the media focuses on ISIS and bombs and mad London Bridge drivers, nobody sees the individual babies popping out of dark women every second or so. 4 babies every second, 24 hours per day.

    “Total births per second: 4.17 Total deaths per second: 1.80 Net growth: 2.37 per second”. This is for the whole world.

    • The problem could be solved if all Immigration form countries like Pakistan and all of Africa was banned in to all white countries. The black population bomb would collapse with an incredibly high death rate, which is most desirable and essential to save the world.
      Trump can’t achieve this and no white country wants to adopt it. Whites want to commit racial suicide. Because being racist is much, much worse. To be criticised by the Jews is a fearful thing, better we all die out quietly. Thus whites will always mostly vote for the Jew approved pro-Immigration parties – all the major parties.

      • Western morality always went in the direction of charity toward the natives. Witness the Spanish missions in the American southwest. San Antonio has six of them, intended to Christianize the natives.

        Africa had Albert Schweitzer and his hospital.

        When the blacks had no way to get to the West, this charity was benign to a degree. Nowadays, it’s deadly.

        I haven’t watched TV in a long time, but there used to be infomericials showing pictures of skeletal little Africans with a sales pitch to send money to some white guy who was saving them.

        To be frank about it, I didn’t give a rat’s ass about those starving Niglets. I might care about them (or might not) if the situation were one of a crop failure or something similar. But the starving African is a permanent fixture. They continue to reproduce even as they starve, apparently. Fucking before food! That could be their motto.

      • I saw an ad a year or two ago in an English newspaper. “Buy a goat for twenty pounds which will feed an entire African family with its milk”. This would mean an even greater Coon population explosion due to these goats.
        I would donate to any charity which said “We will shoot one domestic goat in Africa for every twenty pounds we receive”.
        The death of each goat would help to wipe out one African family. A fantastic charity idea which will never happen.

      • I wouldn’t donate to kill a goat, but I might donate to start a war between two African countries or tribes. “You’re $5 donation will be enough to kill six Africans when our ammo is placed in the hands of the right sharpshooter.”

  2. I support and donate to a charity that provides the pneumonic/bubonic plague to African nations. You can find this charity at

Leave a Reply. Comments Policy Forbids Insulting Other Commenters.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s