Last week I published an article titled ' No, the Afrikaners were NOT "The Heroic White Tribe of Africa" '. I tried to demonstrate that the Afrikaners were, in fact, guilty of dooming themselves, because of their innate racism and refusal to share the wealth of their country with other groups, races and cultures. (The article aroused a fair amount of controversy, if not outright racist replies. I didn't censor any of the latter; you can read them for yourself below the article. I recommend you do, as an insight into the mindset of those who refuse to examine an issue objectively.)
Adam Piggott, whose views I generally respect, took issue with my thesis in his own article titled "There is no such thing as a black middle class". Here are a few excerpts.
But this idea that the Afrikaners sowed the wind by being mean and nasty to the colored folk is completely incorrect. Rather, their biggest mistake was letting them into the country in the first place.
The Afrikaners settled what is now known as South Africa. They didn’t have to drive out any native population because there was none. But their success was attractive to the African tribes. Another article at American Renaissance which was written as a warning to Anglo nations, gives an indication as to the source of their fate.
. . .
Homogenous nations survive. Diverse nations perish. In layman’s terms this is also referred to as, pick your own damn cotton. The apartheid system to which Grant is so morally outraged was a last ditch attempt to correct the fatal mistake of letting in so many unassimilable outsiders in the first place. It was doomed to failure, not because of its barbarity, but rather because it didn’t go far enough. The Afrikaners sought a balance between controlling the uncontrollable while still benefiting from the vast labor source that the immigrants provided. Their greed was their downfall. Rather than seeking to retain the source of cheap labor, their only possible chance of survival was to expel them.
. . .
But it was another line from Grant’s article that really piqued my interest.
If Afrikaners had been willing to create a genuine black middle class, and open the economy to allow everyone to aspire to their fair share of it, earning their way to prosperity by the sweat of their brows, South Africa would be a very different country today.This sort of nonsense seems to be so prevalent in the Boomer generation, no matter on what side of the political and religious spectrum they lie. This quote is buried up to the neck in the magic dirt theory that if only we treat everyone in a nice way then all of these incompatible blow-ins will magically adopt Western Civilization; after all, it’s just a value system.
This is completely false because everything is downstream from biology and culture, in that order.
The idea of a genuine black middle class is a complete fantasy. There is no native black country on the planet that has a natural middle class. That is because black culture is tribal, and tribal cultures have a few people on the top and everyone else on the bottom. The middle class is a feature of white culture. It cannot be grafted at will onto other races, which goes likewise for all of the other features of Western Civilization. Black middle classes that exist in white countries are parasitical and thus temporal in nature. If the whites disappear then so too will the middle class. One only has to look at countries where this has occurred to see it in action, with Rhodesia being the classic and deliberately forgotten example.
There's more at the link. By all means, please read his response in full. I don't agree with him, of course, but his arguments represent widespread opinions.
I'd like to respond to some of his points.
- The Afrikaners did not settle an empty land. The long, brutal history of clashes between white settlers and black tribes speaks for itself. Black tribes were moving south and west; Afrikaner "trekkers" were moving north and east. They ran headlong into each other. The situation was complicated by the so-called "Mfecane", the widespread (but temporary) depopulation of parts of the interior by clashes between black tribes (partly over land and resources, partly fueled by white commercial pressures such as the slave and ivory trades). The so-called "Kaffir Wars"; wars during and after the Great Trek; conflicts between various groups (including white-on-white, white-on-black, black-on white, black-on-black, etc.) between 1879 and 1915; all demonstrate conclusively that the Afrikaner was anything but alone in an otherwise empty, deserted land. (If they were alone, who were they fighting?) Suffice it to say that they didn't "let anybody in" - they were already there. Afrikaners tried hard to portray "empty land" as an historical fact, but they ignored, twisted or actively undermined real historical facts to do so. Sadly, the myth they established lives on in certain quarters, despite its falsity.
- The "other article at American Renaissance" to which Mr. Piggott refers is a piece of what I can only describe as racist propaganda. The author remains anonymous, but confesses: "Many of us knew that the dream of a non-racial democracy would end up as a black dictatorship. Many of us fought desperately to stop the takeover, but the West had a bizarre need to see black rule in this part of the world, whatever the consequences. Being right doesn’t mean you win. Giving 'democracy' a chance here was a death sentence for our country." Uh-huh. I talked about that some years ago, having witnessed at first hand the violent assault on a democratic solution in South Africa mounted by "conservative" (IOW, racist) whites. You'll find an interesting video on the subject in an earlier article in these pages. I highly recommend you watch it. It's eye-opening.
- "Homogenous nations survive. Diverse nations perish." That's a nice sound-bite . . . but how many homogenous nations have also perished, ground down beneath history's inexorable onward march, or absorbed into a more powerful homogeneity that overwhelmed them and subsumed their culture into its own? A hell of a lot of them have died like that. Just look at most European nations today. Besides, homogeneity can be measured in many ways. Race is only one of them, and it's of minimal importance compared to culture. I think South Africa is, indeed, an example of a multicultural society that failed. However, I also believe that if there had been a real, serious attempt over decades to promote a common South African culture, rather than "divide and rule" on the basis of race, tribe, ethnicity and culture, that might have been avoided. It was the all-out effort to prevent the establishment of a common culture, one that could unite diverse groups in at least some ways and lead to joint efforts to preserve the country rather than every group and individual fighting for its/their own benefit first, that doomed apartheid South Africa to what we see there today. (See President Theodore Roosevelt's comments about "hyphenated Americans". There were too many hyphenated South Africans, made so deliberately and forced to be so by the policies of apartheid. Q.E.D.)
- "The idea of a genuine black middle class is a complete fantasy. There is no native black country on the planet that has a natural middle class. That is because black culture is tribal, and tribal cultures have a few people on the top and everyone else on the bottom." Uh . . . sorry, Mr. Piggott, but you're wrong. Apply your statement to every European nation prior to the Industrial Revolution. It fits all of them - and there wasn't an African tribe in sight. It took the Industrial Revolution to gradually devolve power to the people and undermine the all-powerful aristocracy - that, and the wars that accompanied it. The French Revolution started it, and many other revolutions, peaceful and violent, continued the process through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. There was effectively no widespread middle class until economic reality forced those in power to allow it to develop - just as would have happened in tribal society, had economic pressures been allowed to do their inevitable work. You can equate aristocracy with tribal chiefs and leaders, if you wish - I think the similarities outweigh the differences. By legally enforcing the dominance of old, outdated tribal systems and culture, which stymied the development of a black middle class, the Afrikaners effectively condemned themselves to oblivion when the inevitable backlash arose - just as the aristocracy was effectively removed from power in most of Europe when it lost control.
- "Everything is downstream from biology and culture, in that order." Culture? Yes, I'll agree with that. Biology? Not so much. The biological distinction between races is so tiny as to be infinitesimal. The cultural differences matter far more, IMHO, and in the opinion of many who've studied the field in depth. Race is only skin deep. Culture is soul deep. If we leave primitive cultures in place, and fail to provide education, example and opportunity for them to evolve, we end up with crippled countries. How many colonial powers actually tried to educate the inhabitants of their colonies? Almost none. They wanted to exploit them, not develop them. How might Islam be different today if the various nations that colonized Muslim lands had provided real education, real economic opportunity, real separation of church and state? Because they did none of these things, we're stuck with an Islam that has yet to experience even a cultural Renaissance, let alone a Reformation. The result is the widespread violence and terrorism that plagues the Islamic world and our own societies to this day.
I'm a Christian pastor, so my responses are shaped and formed by my faith. From that perspective, I have to say that the situation in South Africa today seems to me to be a perfect illustration of the reality of the Biblical Golden Rule and its corollary passages in the New Testament.
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
"And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise." (Luke 6:31)
"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." (Galatians 6:7)
"Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you." (Luke 6:38)
Isn't that exactly what the Afrikaners did in South Africa? They "did unto others"; and, in due course, what they did was "done unto them" in turn. They sowed division, greed, oppression, injustice. What are they reaping today, if not the harvest they sowed for themselves? As they gave, so they are receiving, in "good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over".
May God grant that we avoid the same mistake. I hope and pray that Mr. Piggott, and the authors of the two articles in American Renaissance that have been referenced, will find food for thought in that.
Peter
EDITED TO ADD: Just to demonstrate how racist attitudes dominated the Afrikaner 'tribe': There are four dominant racial groups in South Africa: whites, blacks, indians (dot, not feather) and so-called "coloreds", meaning those of mixed race. The Afrikaner right-wingers were always hot under the collar about the latter, insisting that no, their existence didn't prove that Afrikaners had sexual relations with their slaves, or any other black people for that matter. They blamed the British. In fact, in the 1970's, an Afrikaner academic proclaimed loudly that the colored people were the result of "relations" between blacks and "visiting British seamen". A Cape Town newspaper retorted that, given the millions of colored people, "they must have been very Able Seamen!" Hilarity ensued.
It was around that time that another Afrikaner academic, this time of a liberal persuasion, calculated that almost every prominent Afrikaner family had between 6% and 9% of black ancestry, thanks to miscegenation over the years. He was (literally) tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail by outraged, rather less liberal Afrikaners.
*Sigh*
35 comments:
Had the Boers been a bunch of black immigrants it would have all worked. Being a tribe is easier when you all look alike.
White people have done more to bring stability and civilization to more of the planet than any other race.
Look it up.
I am getting really tired of all the bullshit being spread.
Glad you are tiring to educate people still, Peter.
It does not go 'from biology to culture.' As you well know, being a pastor, CULT precedes (and informs) culture.
This implies that Christians will get along well in Christian cultures, no matter 'biology.' (We assume all the usual human nature attributes here.)
By and large, Muslims who--like Jews--believe in God have assimilated well here, even though their theology does not admit the Trinity, which is a significant difference. It can be argued that the problems we have experienced with Muslims are directly attributable to their NON-Trinitarian theology.
Since US populations of non-Christian Chinese and Indians are relatively small, they are not a consideration.
BTW, your observation that there is always some conflict in ANY society is correct, and should have been mentioned in my above comment.
Both Rhodesia and South African whites were doomed by math and birth rates. When whites controlled blacks, they brought with them better farming and more food, also, medicine. Which meant many black children lived who would otherwise have died. I understand that in South Africa, black didn't outnumber whites until about the 1940s. In Rhodesia, it happened even faster. The white downfall was inevitable.
But what was not inevitable was the western liberals turning on the African whites and backstabbing them. Immigration out of SA was deliberately limited to keep the whites from leaving, since the national infrastructure planned, built, and maintained by them. In recent years that has changed as Australia has figured out they have a large continent and a small population and has welcomed SA whites to immigrate.
Meanwhile, Capetown is on the edge of losing their water supply, as under black rule, public infrastructure has been falling to pieces.
And also meanwhile, despite active suppression, research on IQ happened anyway. Average IQ throughout Africa runs into the 70s, even the 60s. Below 83 IQ, people have trouble learning to ty a shoelace.
Two things come to mind. "Africa wins again>" And what Lincoln said and proved he understood. "A house divided cannot stand."
The day Lincoln was killed, he met with the Navy to discuss his plan to use all the ships built for the Civil War... to ship the freed slaves back to Africa. He understood, one land, one culture, one people. It isn't a cure for all war and strife, but it can save you from a lot of it.
But it is too late to change or fix this here in America without creating hell on earth and ending the Constitution one way or another. Regardless of who wins, the rules of the land will be rewritten.
In the 60s, whites were 90 percent or more of the population. Now we are 60 percent and dropping, because we were stupid enough to let Ted Kennedy change the immigration laws to stop most European immigration and open the gates wide to non-white and non-Christian immigration. We are built this land and we are going to see the day when we are outnumbered in this land. And except for maybe Australia, there is nowhere else a white Christian can go is there?
Sing kumbaya all you want. In any land, someone will be the boss, someone will be on top and in control of what the rules are. In America, that was whites. But now that is changing and rapidly, mostly because at least half of whites are too stupid to see what will come of it. White are the only race who have even voluntarily given up slavery. All other races that gave up their slaves did so at gunpoint, forced by White Christians to do so. And of course in much of the world, slavery still goes on.
What is replacing white christian power in America and the West in general is deeply corrupt and by any measure not an improvement. This keeps on and "Africa wins again" will apply to the USA.
All this mess could have been prevented a long time ago, but was not. The only cure I can see for it now is lots and lots of bullets. And like I said, it does not matter who wins, either way, the America we thought we knew will be destroyed.
(((Immanuel Cellar)) spent 40 years trying to loosen immigration laws. Ted Kennedy was just his dupe
Acts 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
Matthew 25:31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. "All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
Peter, I'm a long time reader and follower of your blog and a South African of "mixed, ie English father, Afrikaans mother descent", who find it somewhat strange with the two recent articles that you seem to take "dooie rus" on the Afrikaners? "Dooie rus" means shooting from a support or rest.
I understand your stand against Apartheid, but fail to see why you would now single out one group of people, just because another person wrote an article about them? Would a rebuttal posted as an answer or comment to the original article not be in order? Why move the discussion to another arena?
"Biology? Not so much. The biological distinction between races is so tiny as to be infinitesimal."
It doesn't require much distinction genetically to make a huge difference in what is expressed. Don't make the mistake of equating % difference in geneome with % difference in physical and mental development. My recollection is that there is only 6% difference genetically between humans and chimpanzees. But there is far more than a 6% difference in what results. And since not all genes are the same, you can't analyze their impact in the aggregate.
So while I appreciate you broaching the topic, I think your conclusion is badly flawed.
@RobertG: I didn't start out to do so: I tried to respond to a highly inaccurate (even dishonest) article in another source. It was so off-beam that I felt an honest reply was necessary.
If I'm not accurate in anything I've said about the Afrikaners, I invite anyone to point that out here in Comments. I won't censor their response; I'll leave it up for everyone to read for themselves. Adam Piggott did so on his own blog, and I've responded to his response today because I believe he was/is misinformed. Anyone can do likewise. That's how one gets a dialog going.
The important thing is, WHAT IS THE TRUTH? I think the historical truth of the situation is well known by now. Sadly, it's become obscured by emotional smoke-screens. I write in order to try to cut through the obfuscation and get to the facts.
@ruralcounsel It's funny that you bring up chimps having only a 6% genetic difference between humans, because that's a myth that I've come to despise. There's only 6% difference in the genes that we share, but chimps have a bunch of extra genes that humans do not have, a whole extra set of chromosomes (46 in humans versus 48 in chimps). If that extra pair is taken into account the difference is much larger than 6%.
If a mixup in the shuffling of chromosome separation results in a human having an extra chromosome the result is typically that the fetus dies before birth. In the instances that are not immediately fatal typically result in deformity or retardation.
In summary there's a hell of a lot of difference between humans and chimps, very profound differences that make how fundamentally identical humans are on the genetic level all the more amazing.
I'm more sympathetic with Adam's viewpoint when it comes to minorities.
In Texas, all the minorities in the Texas legislature, a combination of blacks, Asians, and Mexican Americans, along with the effeminate white poop libs, voted against Constitutional Carry. The minorities, even ones with allegedly high IQ like an Asian seem unable to grasp things like limited government and the natural right to self defense. Surely there are other countries they could repatriate to. I've asked my Indian with a dot friend why his people come to America, and admittedly work their butt off to do well, and then vote for leftard stupidity.
America and Europe really need to become majority White again. I know that White Europeans are superior collectively speaking because all the non whites and even non Christians come to White countries. None go to Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, or Zimbabwe or a Muslim country to make their money. Yet, when they get to a White country, most of them proceed to support policies that denigrate their new home to that of where they left.
And yes, I will capitalize White.
Johnnyreb's demographics are completely incorrect. The first South African census, conducted in 1904, shows that whites only made up 21.6% of the population then, a percentage that proceeded to decrease. The rest of his comment is also dismissable as nonsense.
LabManager's demographics are also incorrect. White people make up the supermajority in Europe and Anglophone North America. As to whether white people are innately superior, I ran into this quote, and it's completely accurate: "Take away the toga and the cross, and the European is nothing more than a white-skinned savage."
Peter I enjoy your viewpoints, that's why I read you almost daily.
However there is nothing new about taking lands from other folks.
EXAMPLE from the Bible 16 “Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 “But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, 18 in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 29:16-18).
Wiping out whole nations to take their lands seem to have a long and storied history eh?
The solution proposed could be judged based on the experience in the US after the Civil War. The experience of African Americans in regard to racism is nothing in comparison to that in South Africa in the same time periods.
Did a black middle class develop in America? If so, did it have the effect of establishing a peaceful multiracial society that we enjoy today? If so, what was the cost, and could South Africa have afforded to pay it?
@Michael: Beware of using the Old Testament as a justification for anything. The New Testament changed a lot of things. Also, remember that many of the earlier books in the Old Testament were written down centuries after the events they described. Divine sanction for what was done back then was often assumed, and elaborated upon. See my post "Paris and the pain of being human" for a description of how that worked. (A quick Internet search on that title will find it.)
Some good points raised by all, but I don't have enough 'education' to say one way or the other...
As to whether white people are innately superior, I ran into this quote, and it's completely accurate: "Take away the toga and the cross, and the European is nothing more than a white-skinned savage."
Right. I use so much African and Asian technology and science from eons past on a daily basis, it's astounding. And don't forget things like a Bill of Rights, private property, and a system of law that allowed over the long run the most economic advancement of all.
It's true the ancient Chinese did some great things, but no one remembers it since their culture was unable to promulgate these ideas or destroyed those who could have some technological advances. See the voyages of Zen He.
I guess we could still live like the Aztecs of Mexico. They did have some nice buildings and math and science. You have to organize those human sacrifices somehow.
Since you really believe your own stupidity, which black run African country would you move to? Or maybe we could compare the demographics or is it dummagraphics of a number of American cities with dumb-verse populations and look at things like crime and income.
https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2020/07/white-men-responsible-for-almost-all-greatest-achievements.html
@Labmanager: two thousand years ago, you ignoramus, your ancestors and mine were painting themselves blue and charging into battle naked. They were the colonized ones, and when they had the opportunity they went elsewhere.
Were they inherently inferior to the Chinese, Indians, and Mesopotamians, who had built great civilizations? Or had they simply not been sufficiently exposed to civilization?
Read some actual history rather than propaganda put out by people who have to rely on their investor's achievements because they have none of their own. You might learn something.
Tom, so what? If you read some history, it was probably Whites who settled most of the European steppes and even built impressive things in what is now China and India.
Why don't you read some history and find me a functioning first world African country?
You are another retarded boomer civnatter who really thinks Western values can be grafted onto other butt backward cultures. Talk about ignoramus.
Maybe you could explain why all the crappy non whites vote for anti gun and other leftard stupidity?
What doomed S.A was the same thing that dooms every nation that tries it in more modern times , diversity , export/import dependence and cheap labor.
And before anyone screams about race and all that b.s., the Boers and English were no more compatible than the other groups.
You want a stable society one people, one religion per society ,a strong but not total limit in acceptable ideas a strong enough defense against people as well as bad ideas and no immigration or cheap labor period. Make sure you societies core economy is internal and you'll do fine subject to nature.
Any more deviation from that norm, by more than 10% in any area and your society will be destroyed.
Occasionally nations end up with people that are ethnically variable but see themselves as one people but S.A was never going to be that way. Heck the US isn't that way. Our European descended elite hate most other European descended groups
Tom as far as civilization, Europeans built lasting monuments like Stonehenge and the even older Gobleki Tepe (12,000 years old if not older!)
Stonehenge predates the Mesoamerican Pyramids by 20 centuries, Gobelki Tepi does by over a hundred!
Those woad painted savages were highly capable. If you doubt me look at Celtic weapons and jewelry. They also may have invented mail armor which was in regular use for nearly 2 thousand years.
Its perfectly possible to determine if IQ is genetic or not . Our nonsensical ideals about equality make even thinking it a thought crime so in order to avoid unpleasant truths one way or another, we chose not to do it.
In re: the allegedly non-existent black middle-class.
I haven't been to east Africa for 3 decades, but my understanding is that Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda are all developing an urban middle class. I believe the same is true in Rwanda and Burundi (though both are also plagued with black-on-black tribal animosity at a level that makes the US racists of all stripes sound like quaker pacifists)
There's barely a whitey in sight in any of those countries - most of the ones that were there were farmers who have since been driven off the land by either government actions or (in Kenya particularly) government inactions - and the ones still there are mostly employees of the UN or some NGO not settlers.
@Labmanager: Sorry, not a boomer, though I am a civnatter, and boy howdy is your history bonkers. The Chinese never got hit by the Aryans, and the Indians and Mesopotamians had a thriving civilization before they showed up. A simple study of linguistics and archaeology shows that.
Whatever. Your insecurities about your accomplishments in life are your problem.
Tom, I have zero insecurities.
It's clear that you are a civnatter moron and I can only hope in the future that some dumb-versities give you a very violent introduction to your stupidity. It's clear you are oblivious to the majority minority issue in this country. This country needs zero non white immigration. If you disagree, then I can't fix stupid.
If you could only find me those majority of pro-gun and pro-limited government minorities. But like the libertardians and others, you refuse to address the issue. And again, show me an African country run by blacks on par with anything in the West.
I've presented you with a list of things White Europeans have accomplished and that is why we better than the rest of them. The Asian can copy somewhat at least. The Africans are hopeless along with most of the Muslims.
I am disappointed to see some of the comments here. I agree with Peter. Apartheid is a blasphemous, evil ideology but many commenters here think it is a shinning ideology.
Culture is really the only aspect that defines a group. And in large groups there is a prevailing Culture and acceptable sub-cultures. Since the United States of America has Judeo-Christian roots even if some of the Founding Fathers had different views of religion, we have been developing a Culture that is inclusive, not in the Leftist sense of that word but in the dictionary definition. I believe that Western Civilization tempered by Christianity has produced the best version of civilization to date. It is not perfected and never will be; it can be better. If one strove to be part of the American Culture as many did in the past, race and ethnicity become background to being American.
Blacks, Asians and other races can be part of a vibrant middle class as long as they are Americans first and their race is secondary. That is except in the mind's eye of those that are racist.
As to some comments about African IQ, I call bull scat. If you try to measure IQ by Western standards you can get failing grades. They way you measure intelligence is often distorted by the persons trying to measure intelligence. It happened in WWI in the U.S. when the gentrified, city people who occupied the military ranks tried to use knowledge that they knew to test young men who came from farms and the countryside. Often those young men had little or no education because it wasn't needed for their survival at the time. They were asked question of which they had no comprehension and so were graded as unintelligent. However, many of them could solve complex problems that the test givers had no knowledge of. So I personally discount this hypocritical bull scat of African IQ. I bet if they grabbed a bunch of you white boys off the streets of what ever city you lived in and threw you in the middle of the jungles of Central Africa with no help you would be dead in a week (or maybe two). Yet there are people who live there their whole lives.
/rant
Racism is not a sin.
Segregation or Apartheid is not a sin.
They are not evil. They are not abominations. Segregation is the natural result of genetic descent and a common culture. It is the natural preference of both Blacks and Whites.
Denial of simple racial reality in favor of fantasies of Kumbaya is also not a sin. It is however a good way to turn your prosperous middle-class nation into a third-world hellhole.
As has happened in every place Democracy has been imposed on Africans.
@Labmanager: so, your first sentence just told me that you're a liar, a fool, or both. Not that I thought otherwise, but the confirmation is nice.
Meanwhile, I'm not surprised at all that a guy who nicknames himself Snidely Whiplash sounds like the villain from a badly-written historical drama.
People, it's entirely possible to comment - and to disagree - without calling each other names or getting personal. Kindly do so in future, or I'm going to start deleting comments.
@Ferric Thanks for the clarification about chimp genetics. However, none of that actually refutes my basic point, which is that very small genetic differences can have significant impacts. Comparing percentages doesn't tell you much of the story. We certainly see significant physical differences, so there is no reason to believe that there are not brain-caused behavioral differences. In fact, it would seem rather odd if there were not. It may be difficult to ascertain, given that almost every genetic expression is going to generate a bell curve of results. And there will be plenty of overlap in those curves among the different races. But to insist that all the curves will perfectly superimpose themselves is statistically impossible and more than a little absurd. Especially since we know they don't when it comes to physical characteristics.
So the assertion that all humans are very much the same genetically is rather meaningless when we are discussing subtle mental or behavioral predispositions. Could those be cultural instead? Certainly. But there is no reason to toss out the genetic explanation without actually investigating it. Unfortunately, it has become taboo to mention, let alone investigate such things.
You managed to hand over a civilized country to murderous savages, and now you want to repeat your evil over here.
You have to go back.
But it's pretty amazing how the cross can transform someone...
The Jesus in me keeps bad fred on a leash. The low culture lowlifes in power are bound and determined to unhook that leash.
The most important thing to remember is that our battle isn't against flesh and blood, but against power and principalities, and spiritual forces. Our weapons are powerful and mighty to pull down strongholds.
I think the white anglo saxon spiritual paradigm has done more to benefit the world than all other world views combined.
@Ominous Cowherd: I can't go back. The Kiowa, Comanche and Navajo have paid me too much to put them back in power, so they can kick out the whites. Until I've done that, I'm contractually obligated to stay. Sorry about that.
;-)
@Peter I hope you got your money up front.
The native tribes can try, but it would likely just result in their total extinction. They weren't that good at working together in the first place, and in the second place, there are untold tribes that came before them that they exterminated, so they have no more moral right to complain that it was taken from them by force. What goes around, comes around. Thieved from thieves.
@Tom,
You have a good reflex for completely avoiding the point. "You sound like a bad guy!" doesn't mean "You are wrong!" What it does mean is " I refuse to engage the point because it makes me feel bad."
Did I make you feel bad?
What is now called racism is not a sin, is not evil, is not even wrong.
If you disagree, try to form a coherent thought about why you think I'm wrong.
@Tom,
You have a good reflex for completely avoiding the point. "You sound like a bad guy!" doesn't mean "You are wrong!" What it does mean is " I refuse to engage the point because it makes me feel bad."
Tom refuses to address the pertinent issue of why non white minorities come to a White country like the US, and then vote for destructive leftist stupidity. Most blacks refuse to vote for limited government and seem incapable of understanding it. Even successful immigrants like Asians vote for leftardism.
Also, I would like to know why Africans can't bring themselves to White European standards by themselves. YT colonialism has been gone from Africa for a long time now.
I'm guessing Tom lives no where near 'duh-versity' and in all White neighorhood. He is incapable of analyzing statistical data regarding crime.
Anyone who denies race, IQ, and culture matter have nothing to add to any conversation.
I think far too many responders to this post have lost sight of its original intent, which was to argue that the Afrikaners of South Africa basically "sowed the wind, and are now reaping the whirlwind". Some responders have tried to address that issue, but many others have focused on race (and racism) as a whole, getting off the point.
I'd also like to point out that there's a difference between arguing the facts, supported by authoritative studies and investigations, and arguing opinions, unsupported by anything except "That's what I think - now prove me wrong, if you dare!" Basically, it's hard to the point of impossibility to change opinions, because when someone's mind is made up, facts are the last thing they worry about. Witness the number of responders who've focused on the negatives attached to black people in general, and refuse to change their focus to anything else. That, in so many words, is naked racism. There's no other way to describe it.
I'm not going to be able to change anyone's mind, I know. However, I hope that stating historical, verifiable facts, as I have in both articles on this subject, will at least give food for thought to those with open minds. It won't get anywhere with those who've closed their minds.
Post a Comment