Is lower intelligence the reason why Africans/blacks fail to thrive in the west on average?

wannable alpha

Woodpecker
Are all dog breeds equal? No. Everyone knows that. Dogs of different breeds can interbreed and create new breeds as a result of that. But no one doubts that different breeds have different strengths, weaknesses, and temperament. Certain breeds specialize and excel in certain things and certain environments.

I think it is the same with us humans. We, homo sapiens, also have DNA from other hominid species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans and maybe a few others that haven't been discovered yet. But even with homo sapiens, there are sub-species that we incorrectly label as race. The right term IMO should be breeds.

When it comes to race issues both communists and Christians try to impose an ideology over biological realities. Communists talk of systemic racism and ask for more welfare while Christians talk of absentee fathers and ask for more spirituality. But no one wants to address the fact that there was never an advanced African civilization no matter what religion they followed.
 
So, I'm black but I gotta ask this question.

The reason why black " communties " , in the Anglosphere, are amongst the lowest earners, most obese and least educated due to lower median IQ?

Let us not get it twisted : there are intelligent African ( descent) people in the west but there might be fewer.

Thoughts?
The answer is, 'post-slavery'. Where one group of people consider the other group as a 'less human' kind of movable goods and chattels, there the representatives of the latter are tended to fail socially for generations. It is a kind of viscious circle, an evil matrix installed into group thinking, values and believes, for both groups.

Being born in Russia, another post-slavery country myself, I can say that it has nothing to do with race, for Russia experiences the same post-slavery traumas and problems as most Black people in American ghettos do. Russia has never been a racist slavery empire, yet for centuries it has been an empire of slavery.

Without freedom, social justice and human dignity restored, the consequencies are likely to be the same for Moscow streets, too.
 
Are all dog breeds equal? No. Everyone knows that. Dogs of different breeds can interbreed and create new breeds as a result of that. But no one doubts that different breeds have different strengths, weaknesses, and temperament. Certain breeds specialize and excel in certain things and certain environments.

I think it is the same with us humans. We, homo sapiens, also have DNA from other hominid species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans and maybe a few others that haven't been discovered yet. But even with homo sapiens, there are sub-species that we incorrectly label as race. The right term IMO should be breeds.

When it comes to race issues both communists and Christians try to impose an ideology over biological realities. Communists talk of systemic racism and ask for more welfare while Christians talk of absentee fathers and ask for more spirituality. But no one wants to address the fact that there was never an advanced African civilization no matter what religion they followed.
The thing is, humans are not dogs. Many humans are less likable than dogs, sure, but that's a way different story.

Speaking of 'advanced', that depends on criteria. E. g. schizophrenia score is noticeably less and remission persentage for severe mental disorder cases are much better for modern African countries than for so-called 'advanced' Trans-Atlantic civilization.

If you know world history well, there are a lot of examples of prospering civilizations founded by Blacks; Maly Empire, Ethiopian Empire or Yoruba cities confederation, or Chaka empire, you name it.

Darn, the people inhabbiting British Islands about 10 000 ago were dark-skinned and blue-eyed.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
I think the Democrats have the lion's share of the blame for the cultural issues facing Blacks but it's not like the Republicans are doing them any favors either.

Capitalist "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" garbage is not very helpful when you're born to an IQ of 90 and the vanishingly few low IQ jobs are being hoovered up by "path to citizenship" international scabs imported by fiscal conservatives (corporate whores) who think Miguel and Pajeet ought to have the job instead of an American because they're willing to do it for a dollar less an hour, because if Karen has to pay fifty cents more for a punnet of strawberries then society will collapse.

The Democrats are offering enough money to get by on. The Republicans are offering homelessness and starvation. Of course, that's not what they call it, but when you're born slow in the head into an automated and mechanised nation rapidly filling with international scabs then homelessness and starvation is exactly what the Republicans are putting on the table as their offer.
 

bucky

Pelican
In the 4th grade I had this black guy named Ken shut down a history lesson because the topic was slavery. Sadly that history class became a silent reading class for the remainder of the semester.

That was long ago, from that point on I witnessed blacks just like Ken make crazy arguments like Blacks can't be racist, etc. I've not had good exchanges with blacks as a whole but I have much experience with them. More than people that think they know blacks, I know a good many. One gal thought she knew more bc she dated a Christian black for a couple of months. The Black women were racist toward her and so they broke up. Outside of that she worked for a world famous research institute where not one (1) black person ever worked. She was surrounded by whites, jews, Hispanics, french, asians, ukranians and Italians.

IQ, I don't know.
Jordan Peterson would talk about competence and hierarchies.

What I do know is this; three (3) blacks have abandoned fatherless kids in my family (bastards) and extended family. One black dude, separately, left the family through divorce. That's 4 total and it's not over yet.

All of this is on the whole, some generalities. There seems to be little-to-no conscientiousness. They don't have a healthy fear of the future where they worry about getting educated no matter the cost. They are fearful. It takes bravery to spend 4 to 8 years in post High school education. It takes bravery to stand before a Professor.

I think generally their IQ suffers by who they associate with; i.e. SJWs, Poverty Pimps, welfare check distributors, socialists, marxists, communists and godless Wrappers/Gangsters.

Blacks as a whole could use a major transformation by infusing the Fruits of the Spirit into their DNA (But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control).

Every other ethnic group has their issues but when it counts many of them, not all, make it count. Many whites have been slaves too, slaves to mid-east arabs and northern africans.

As for slavery, my question is Does God care about slavery?
God definitely cares about lost souls being saved. The Great Commission.

I could probably share more but that's it for now.

God Bless

John 3:16
About slavery, that's one I've wondered about a lot. It's never questioned in the Bible. The Old Testament outright supports it, and the New Testament is ambivalent, just commanding that masters treat their slaves well and that slaves obey their masters.

Nevertheless, slavery seems like a great evil to me. As just one example, look at how much both black and white Americans have suffered because of slavery. As far as I know some of the 17th and 18th century popes were the first to ever question its morality, to their credit. That said, I don't see any scriptural evidence that God is against the practice.
 

bucky

Pelican
People have evolved to be best fitted to their environment.

Africa favored the more athletic and strong humans. Africa is a place where there is no winter, so humans fitted to live there never needed to develop the foresight and critical thinking needed to survive a winter.

In Africa, as long as you are strong and healthy you can go into the jungle kill something and eat it. Or take from another tribe.

In northern environments where winter occurs, you have humans who developed to survive the winter. To survive a winter you need to provision for months. The ability to plan long term, have delayed gratification, and other traits of people who evolved with winter is a result. Humans who lived with winter might not be on average as athletic as the Africans, but on average their mental abilities and IQ are higher.

Civilization is the end result of the environmental pressures of winter being applied to humans. The only people who have created and maintained civilization are people that had to live with winter.

From the book The Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant (1916):
The ice people/sun people theory. Basically that Europeans and certain types of Asians are ice people, evolved to cooperate with others in an orderly manner and stay with their nuclear family because all of that was necessary to survive the winter in Europe and colder parts of Asia.

When the Indo-European peoples first arrived in northern Europe there were probably lots of men who were womanizers who had children with multiple women and then abandoned them, but their offspring mostly starved and froze to death in the winter without a man around to provide, so that genetic tendency towards womanizing and carousing largely died out. Meanwhile, in places like Africa and Mesoamerica, the children of such men lived badly without a father around but didn't starve to death because there's always some fruit or something around to eat and it doesn't get cold enough to literally freeze to death.

Back when I was more of a civnat, I had this idea that good, traditional values lead to strong nuclear families. Then I moved to one of the most backwards and dangerous parts of Central America for a few years and saw that although values about men and women and sexuality there are extremely traditional, nevertheless families are horribly broken, not much better than among black people in the US. Most men have multiple children by multiple women, it's rare for a father to live with his kids, and you get more-or-less the same resulting, violent, dysfunctional society that you get in black America. This confused me greatly until I encountered the ice people/sun people theory. I'm not saying I know enough about genetics to know that this theory is legitimate, but it seems like the most likely explanation to me. White people, especially of northern European descent, and Asians like the Japanese and Chinese, are ice people and tend to have stable families and stable, advanced civilizations. Black people, American and otherwise, and most Latin Americans, are sun people and are mostly incapable of those things unless forced into them by something like a military dictatorship or an Islamic or Christian theocracy.
 
Capitalist "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" garbage is not very helpful when you're born to an IQ of 90 and the vanishingly few low IQ jobs are being hoovered up by "path to citizenship" international scabs imported by fiscal conservatives (corporate whores) who think Miguel and Pajeet ought to have the job instead of an American because they're willing to do it for a dollar less an hour, because if Karen has to pay fifty cents more for a punnet of strawberries then society will collapse.
Couldn't agree more. There are a lot of white trash with IQ even below those measly 90 points, since their jobs were taken by proverbial Miguels and Pajeets.
 
The ice people/sun people theory. Basically that Europeans and certain types of Asians are ice people, evolved to cooperate with others in an orderly manner and stay with their nuclear family because all of that was necessary to survive the winter in Europe and colder parts of Asia.

When the Indo-European peoples first arrived in northern Europe there were probably lots of men who were womanizers who had children with multiple women and then abandoned them, but their offspring mostly starved and froze to death in the winter without a man around to provide, so that genetic tendency towards womanizing and carousing largely died out. Meanwhile, in places like Africa and Mesoamerica, the children of such men lived badly without a father around but didn't starve to death because there's always some fruit or something around to eat and it doesn't get cold enough to literally freeze to death.

Back when I was more of a civnat, I had this idea that good, traditional values lead to strong nuclear families. Then I moved to one of the most backwards and dangerous parts of Central America for a few years and saw that although values about men and women and sexuality there are extremely traditional, nevertheless families are horribly broken, not much better than among black people in the US. Most men have multiple children by multiple women, it's rare for a father to live with his kids, and you get more-or-less the same resulting, violent, dysfunctional society that you get in black America. This confused me greatly until I encountered the ice people/sun people theory. I'm not saying I know enough about genetics to know that this theory is legitimate, but it seems like the most likely explanation to me. White people, especially of northern European descent, and Asians like the Japanese and Chinese, are ice people and tend to have stable families and stable, advanced civilizations. Black people, American and otherwise, and most Latin Americans, are sun people and are mostly incapable of those things unless forced into them by something like a military dictatorship or an Islamic or Christian theocracy.
I think what you've written here tells more about a paternal fugure within national American mythology than of actual state of things. Back in Neolithic times 'Native Europeans' were most likely living in a matriarchal society. Patriarchy and a Deus Pater figure are Indo-European things, but elsewhere the societies were ruled by women.

I bet some of those societies had a lot of good traditional -- in their terms -- nuclear families, also led by women, but that was long before the Indo Europeans came there.

Also, I think you've got some strange ideas about Hispanics -- who are mostly Catholics and therefore very loyal to their families and family ties.
 

bucky

Pelican
I think what you've written here tells more about a paternal fugure within national American mythology than of actual state of things. Back in Neolithic times 'Native Europeans' were most likely living in a matriarchal society. Patriarchy and a Deus Pater figure are Indo-European things, but elsewhere the societies were ruled by women.

I bet some of those societies had a lot of good traditional -- in their terms -- nuclear families, also led by women, but that was long before the Indo Europeans came there.

Also, I think you've got some strange ideas about Hispanics -- who are mostly Catholics and therefore very loyal to their families and family ties.
Who knows. Like I said, it's just a theory that makes sense to me. Might be legitimate, might not.

About my "strange ideas about Hispanics," they were formed by years living among them in their own countries, speaking their language, and marrying into a Latino family. Where have you lived in Latin America? Do you speak Spanish? I can't get too specific about where exactly I lived, but it was mainly in some of the most impoverished and dangerous parts of Central America. In spite of their allegedly strong Catholic values, families are almost entirely broken there for the reasons I stated above. Not to single out Catholics, there is also a large Evangelical minority in my wife's country. Catholic, Evangelical, or indifferent to religion, the men rarely remain faithful to their wives, most children don't grow up with their dad in the house, and the general society is roughly as dysfunctional and violent as anything you'll see in an inner city in the US.

It might be different in other parts of Latin America, but from what I've heard of South America and seen in Mexico, I doubt it.
 

KingDavid

Sparrow
The ice people/sun people theory. Basically that Europeans and certain types of Asians are ice people, evolved to cooperate with others in an orderly manner and stay with their nuclear family because all of that was necessary to survive the winter in Europe and colder parts of Asia.

When the Indo-European peoples first arrived in northern Europe there were probably lots of men who were womanizers who had children with multiple women and then abandoned them, but their offspring mostly starved and froze to death in the winter without a man around to provide, so that genetic tendency towards womanizing and carousing largely died out. Meanwhile, in places like Africa and Mesoamerica, the children of such men lived badly without a father around but didn't starve to death because there's always some fruit or something around to eat and it doesn't get cold enough to literally freeze to death.

Back when I was more of a civnat, I had this idea that good, traditional values lead to strong nuclear families. Then I moved to one of the most backwards and dangerous parts of Central America for a few years and saw that although values about men and women and sexuality there are extremely traditional, nevertheless families are horribly broken, not much better than among black people in the US. Most men have multiple children by multiple women, it's rare for a father to live with his kids, and you get more-or-less the same resulting, violent, dysfunctional society that you get in black America. This confused me greatly until I encountered the ice people/sun people theory. I'm not saying I know enough about genetics to know that this theory is legitimate, but it seems like the most likely explanation to me. White people, especially of northern European descent, and Asians like the Japanese and Chinese, are ice people and tend to have stable families and stable, advanced civilizations. Black people, American and otherwise, and most Latin Americans, are sun people and are mostly incapable of those things unless forced into them by something like a military dictatorship or an Islamic or Christian theocracy.
Germanics used to be barbarians too; lived in tribes; sacrificed people in masses.

The reason Europeans are civilized is because of a thousand years of Christianity - Africans and Natives have had very little time with it and we must give them that.

As far as the East Asians, they have extremely dysfunctional societies as well, with extreme social shaming and a lot of recluses and outsiders who don't leave their apartments. Sweden and Norway have this problem as well.

It's give and take, but God loves all his creations.
 

bucky

Pelican
Germanics used to be barbarians too; lived in tribes; sacrificed people in masses.

The reason Europeans are civilized is because of a thousand years of Christianity - Africans and Natives have had very little time with it and we must give them that.

As far as the East Asians, they have extremely dysfunctional societies as well, with extreme social shaming and a lot of recluses and outsiders who don't leave their apartments. Sweden and Norway have this problem as well.

It's give and take, but God loves all his creations.
Like I said, sun people/ice people is just a theory. I don't know that it's legitimate, but it mostly seems to be to me, if you don't nit pick. I nit picked it a lot at first when I encountered it too, desperate to hold on to my comforting civic nationalism. I finally had to gradually let that go as I spent years actually living among other cultures while speaking their languages. The mounting evidence that no, we're not all the same, finally overcame the cognitive dissonance necessary to sustain my safe, pleasant civic nationalism.

Of course, to the bolded part about God loving all His creations. It doesn't follow that all His creations are equal in every way or that American ideals of democracy and free markets are ideal for all people. That's a pretty ludicrous idea if you think about it, like believing that whatever they're doing in China and Japan would be ideal for Americans. My wife's country in Central America used to function very well as a military dictatorship, then for whatever reason they decided, or it was decided for them, that they would ape American democracy and it descended into the barely livable hellhole it is now.
 

bucky

Pelican
Germanics used to be barbarians too; lived in tribes; sacrificed people in masses.

The reason Europeans are civilized is because of a thousand years of Christianity - Africans and Natives have had very little time with it and we must give them that.

As far as the East Asians, they have extremely dysfunctional societies as well, with extreme social shaming and a lot of recluses and outsiders who don't leave their apartments. Sweden and Norway have this problem as well.

It's give and take, but God loves all his creations.
I wanted to address the bolded part separately. There's so much to contradict this that I don't know where to start. To begin, in case you're not aware, in the ancient Greco-Roman world the term "barbarian" simply meant "not Greek or Roman" and had nothing to do with being civilized or not. For example, the highly advanced Persians and Chinese were barbarians to the Romans.

Millennia of highly advanced human civilization proceeded the advent of Christianity, both European and non-European. Africans and Latin Americans have had something like 500 years with Christianity, which seems like it should be enough to produce an advanced civilization if that were something that Christianity inevitably does. The idea that Christianity always eventually leads to advanced, stable civilizations seems highly doubtful to me, but none of us will be around in a thousand years or so to see for sure.
 

Blade Runner

Kingfisher
Millennia of highly advanced human civilization proceeded the advent of Christianity, both European and non-European.
Just for clarification I presume you mean "preceded" correct?

You are missing the point here. You can be "advanced" but still have parts of society in which it is ok to have sexual relations with children, rape women, sacrifice others, crucify dissidents, etc. That is, you don't have a basis upon which you see the image of God in others and you still have astoundingly repugnant ways of life in every corner of the empire. Ultimately, any structure of order will be of this world (and thus lacking), but providing ways of virtuous and harmonious living were taken for granted by people of this day (they benefit from christian foundations) and not understanding this, they have thrown it all away for the idol of egalitarianism - something good (equality under the law, never seen before non christian civilizations) taken too far.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
The difference between civilization and Christian civilization makes more sense if you accept the reality of the influence of demonkind, particularly those that prey on bloodlines generation over generation.

Christian societies undertake what amounts to a constant exorcism played out on a civilizational level over many hundreds of years.

Presently we are backsliding quite heavily. If God wills it and we do our part we can turn things around and start making progress again. That is unfortunately unlikely for Christian denominations which either do not believe in infernal influence or lack the centuries of documented spiritual warfare the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have undertaken.
 

bucky

Pelican
Just for clarification I presume you mean "preceded" correct?

You are missing the point here. You can be "advanced" but still have parts of society in which it is ok to have sexual relations with children, rape women, sacrifice others, crucify dissidents, etc. That is, you don't have a basis upon which you see the image of God in others and you still have astoundingly repugnant ways of life in every corner of the empire. Ultimately, any structure of order will be of this world (and thus lacking), but providing ways of virtuous and harmonious living were taken for granted by people of this day (they benefit from christian foundations) and not understanding this, they have thrown it all away for the idol of egalitarianism - something good (equality under the law, never seen before non christian civilizations) taken too far.
Yes, "preceded" not "proceeded." I meant "came before."

I think we might be working with different definitions of "civilization" and "advanced." I'm defining civilization in the way an anthropologist would, as a society having established cities, agriculture, and a writing system. I'm defining advanced as technologically advanced. Nothing in my definitions of either term has anything to do with being moral, good, or Christian. I don't believe there's much correlation between being good, moral, or Christian and being civilized and technologically advanced, or that God much cares about things like civilization in the way I'm defining it or advanced technology. People can be good Christians with or without those things.
 

STG

Robin
The ice people/sun people theory. Basically that Europeans and certain types of Asians are ice people, evolved to cooperate with others in an orderly manner and stay with their nuclear family because all of that was necessary to survive the winter in Europe and colder parts of Asia.

When the Indo-European peoples first arrived in northern Europe there were probably lots of men who were womanizers who had children with multiple women and then abandoned them, but their offspring mostly starved and froze to death in the winter without a man around to provide, so that genetic tendency towards womanizing and carousing largely died out. Meanwhile, in places like Africa and Mesoamerica, the children of such men lived badly without a father around but didn't starve to death because there's always some fruit or something around to eat and it doesn't get cold enough to literally freeze to death.

Back when I was more of a civnat, I had this idea that good, traditional values lead to strong nuclear families. Then I moved to one of the most backwards and dangerous parts of Central America for a few years and saw that although values about men and women and sexuality there are extremely traditional, nevertheless families are horribly broken, not much better than among black people in the US. Most men have multiple children by multiple women, it's rare for a father to live with his kids, and you get more-or-less the same resulting, violent, dysfunctional society that you get in black America. This confused me greatly until I encountered the ice people/sun people theory. I'm not saying I know enough about genetics to know that this theory is legitimate, but it seems like the most likely explanation to me. White people, especially of northern European descent, and Asians like the Japanese and Chinese, are ice people and tend to have stable families and stable, advanced civilizations. Black people, American and otherwise, and most Latin Americans, are sun people and are mostly incapable of those things unless forced into them by something like a military dictatorship or an Islamic or Christian theocracy.
Yes and this theory can be seen in the real world.

What do you get when you move sun people into ice people homelands? The same ghettos and poverty that you find where they come from.

What do you get when you move ice people into sun people homelands? You get Rhodesia, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, etc.

Trying to force the sun people into being replacement ice people will not work as it goes against their nature.

It would be like trying to substitute a German Shepard with a pitbull. It can't be done as the differences are genetic.

If we actually accepted these truths and actually "celebrated diversity" the world would be a better and happier place for all.

No different then how the modern system forces women against their nature to act like men and we wonder why they are miserable.
 

STG

Robin
I recommend reading this book, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. Its from 1920, long before everything became politically correct and has some harsh truths that are likely to ruffle some feathers.

Keep an open mind and you will be surprised what you can discover.

Latin America’s evolution was predetermined by the Spanish Conquest. That very word “conquest” tells the story. The United States was settled by colonists planning homes and bringing their women. It was thus a genuine migration, and resulted in a full transplanting of white stock to new soil. The Indians encountered were wild nomads, fierce of temper and few in number. After sharp conflicts they were extirpated, leaving virtually no ethnic traces behind. The colonization of Latin America was the exact antithesis. The Spanish Conquistadores were bold warriors descending upon vast regions inhabited by relatively dense populations, some of which, as in Mexico and Peru, had attained a certain degree of civilization. The Spaniards, invincible in their shining armor, paralyzed with terror these people still dwelling in the age of bronze and polished stone. With ridiculous ease mere handfuls of whites overthrew empires and lorded it like gods over servile and adoring multitudes. Cortez marched[Pg 106] on Mexico with less than 600 followers, while Pizarro had but 310 companions when he started his conquest of Peru. Of course the fabulous treasures amassed in these exploits drew swarms of bold adventurers from Spain. Nevertheless, their numbers were always infinitesimal compared with the vastness of the quarry, while the proportion of women immigrants continued to lag far behind that of the men. The breeding of pure whites in Latin America was thus both scanty and slow.

On the other hand, the breeding of mixed-bloods began at once and attained notable proportions. Having slaughtered the Indian males or brigaded them in slave-gangs, the Conquistadores took the Indian women to themselves. The humblest man-at-arms had several female attendants, while the leaders became veritable pashas with great harems of concubines. The result was a prodigious output of half-breed children, known as “mestizos” or “cholos.”

And soon a new ethnic complication was added. The Indians having developed a melancholy trick of dying off under slavery, the Spaniards imported African negroes to fill the servile ranks, and since they took negresses as well as Indian women for concubines, other half-breeds—mulattoes—appeared. Here and there Indians and negroes mated on their own account, the offspring being known as “zambos.” In time these various hybrids bred among themselves, producing the most extraordinary ethnic combinations. As Garcia-Calderon well puts it: “Grotesque generations with[Pg 107] every shade of complexion and every conformation of skull were born in America—a crucible continually agitated by unheard-of fusions of races.... But there was little Latin blood to be found in the homes formed by the sensuality of the first conquerors of a desolated America.”[56]

To be sure, this mongrel population long remained politically negligible. The Spaniards regarded themselves as a master-caste, and excluded all save pure whites from civic rights and social privileges. In fact, the European-born Spaniards refused to recognize even their colonial-born kinsmen as their equals, and “Creoles”[57] could not aspire to the higher distinctions or offices. This attitude was largely inspired by the desire to maintain a lucrative monopoly. Yet the European’s sense of superiority had some valid grounds. There can be no doubt that the Creole whites, as a class, showed increasing signs of degeneracy. Climate was a prime cause in the hotter regions, but there were many plateau areas, as in Colombia, Mexico, and Peru, which though geographically in the tropics had a temperate climate from their elevation.

Even more than by climate the Creole was injured by contact with the colored races. Pampered and corrupted from birth by obsequious slaves, the Creole[Pg 108] usually led an idle and vapid existence, disdaining work as servile and debarred from higher callings by his European-born superiors. As time passed, the degeneracy due to climate and custom was intensified by degeneracy of blood. Despite legal enactment and social taboo, colored strains percolated insidiously into the creole stock. The leading families, by elaborate precautions, might succeed in keeping their escutcheons clean, but humbler circles darkened significantly despite fervid protestations of “pure-white” blood. Still, so long as Spain kept her hold on Latin America, the process of miscegenation, socially considered, was a slow one. The whole social system was based on the idea of white superiority, and the colors were carefully graded. “In America,” wrote Humboldt toward the close of Spanish rule, “the more or less white skin determines the position which a man holds in society.”[58]

The revolution against Spain had momentous consequences for the racial future of Latin America. In the beginning, to be sure, it was a white civil war—a revolt of the Creoles against European oppression and discrimination. The heroes of the revolution—Bolívar, Miranda, San Martín, and the rest—were aristocrats of pure-white blood. But the revolution presently developed new features. To begin with, the struggle was very long. Commencing in 1809, it lasted almost twenty years. The whites were decimated by fratricidal fury, and when the Spanish cause was finally lost, multitudes of loyalists mainly of the superior social[Pg 109] classes left the country. Meanwhile, the half-castes, who had rallied wholesale to the revolutionary banner, were demanding their reward. The Creoles wished to close the revolutionary cycle and establish a new society based, like the old, upon white supremacy, with themselves substituted for the Spaniards. Bolívar planned a limited monarchy and a white electoral oligarchy. But this was far from suiting the half-castes. For them the revolution had just begun. Raising the cry of “democracy,” then become fashionable through the North American and French revolutions, they proclaimed the doctrine of “equality” regardless of skin. Disillusioned and full of foreboding, Bolívar, the master-spirit of the revolution, disappeared from the scene, and his lieutenants, like the generals of Alexander, quarrelled among themselves, split Latin America into jarring fragments, and waged a long series of internecine wars. The flood-gates of anarchy were opened, the result being a steady weakening of the whites and a corresponding rise of the half-castes in the political and social scale. Everywhere ambitious soldiers led the mongrel mob against the white aristocracy, breaking its power and making themselves dictators. These “caudillos” were apostles of equality and miscegenation. Says Garcia-Calderon: “Tyrants found democracies; they lean on the support of the people, the half-breeds and negroes, against the oligarchies; they dominate the colonial nobility, favor the crossing of races, and free the slaves.”[59]

[Pg 110]The consequences of all this were lamentable in the extreme. Latin America’s level of civilization fell far below that of colonial days. Spanish rule, though narrow and tyrannical, had maintained peace and social stability. Now all was a hideous chaos wherein frenzied castes and colors grappled to the death. Ignorant mestizos and brutal negroes trampled the fine flowers of culture under foot, while as by a malignant inverse selection the most intelligent and the most cultivated perished.
 

bucky

Pelican
Yes and this theory can be seen in the real world.

What do you get when you move sun people into ice people homelands? The same ghettos and poverty that you find where they come from.

What do you get when you move ice people into sun people homelands? You get Rhodesia, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, etc.

Trying to force the sun people into being replacement ice people will not work as it goes against their nature.

It would be like trying to substitute a German Shepard with a pitbull. It can't be done as the differences are genetic.

If we actually accepted these truths and actually "celebrated diversity" the world would be a better and happier place for all.

No different then how the modern system forces women against their nature to act like men and we wonder why they are miserable.
Exactly. I'm willing to admit there may be exceptions here and there and I'm very willing to be patient with those who can't see it because I resisted buying the sun people/ice people theory myself for years, but it seems obvious to me now.

This is not to say that I consider people from advanced first world countries inherently superior to third worlders or more valuable in the eyes of God or anything like that. Like I said above, my wife's country is a miserable place, widely recognized as one of the more terrible and hopeless places in Latin America, but it wasn't always like that. It was once a safe place with very little crime or hunger, and relatively prosperous for that part of the world. Then, for reasons I don't entirely understand, it was decided that a population made up mostly of Mayans and other indigenous Americans should give up what was working for them and adopt a system of government painstakingly developed by Anglo-Saxons and other western Europeans over the course of centuries in an entirely different place and culture, and the country fell apart. It's so stupid it would almost be funny if the results weren't so tragic and the suffering it caused so terrible.

One thing that occurred to me when I was living in my wife's country is how the size of the country in square miles and the size of the population is very similar to Switzerland, another place where I've lived. The main tangible difference would be that Switzerland has much, much less useful land and natural resources. According to civnat logic, people in my wife's country could just adopt the Swiss system of government and Swiss business and economic practices, and they'd eventually have Swiss levels of prosperity. Does anyone really believe that places like Guatemala and Honduras will ever be like Switzerland? It's a ridiculous idea, it obviously wouldn't work, and what's more, Central Americans would be even more miserable trying to be Swiss than they are already, because they would be trying to live in a way that's utterly alien to them.
 

STG

Robin
According to civnat logic, people in my wife's country could just adopt the Swiss system of government and Swiss business and economic practices, and they'd eventually have Swiss levels of prosperity. Does anyone really believe that places like Guatemala and Honduras will ever be like Switzerland? It's a ridiculous idea, it obviously wouldn't work, and what's more, Central Americans would be even more miserable trying to be Swiss than they are already, because they would be trying to live in a way that's utterly alien to them.
Switzerland is what it is because of the Swiss people. You could exchange the entire population of Switzerland with the entire population of Guatemala and in time the new lands of each population would be close to their original lands.

Here is a picture of Windhoek, Namibia a country in southern Africa.

In 1971, there were roughly 26,000 whites living in Windhoek, outnumbering the black population of 24,000. About one third of white residents at the time, at least 9,000 individuals, were German speakers.

Today you have African countries that have access to the same information and technology that anyone in the world does, and large amounts of foreign aid, yet you will never see them building cities like Europeans do (did?) in Africa.

Why?

 

thedarkknight

Kingfisher
Looking at the answers so far: a compelling argument has been made.

Solution seems to be repatrition or extremly strict immigration from lower IQ countries, which should have taken place along time ago.
 
Top