Category Archives: Zaire

by | May 9, 2013 · 10:34 PM

Walter E. Williams: Idiot, Tool, Black Conservative

The latest Walter E. Williams article.

A truly insane article by a typical Black conservative nut. This kook points out the logical fact that is known to anyone: What do the Top 10 US cities with the highest crime rates have in common? Guess what? They are chock full of Black people! Duh.

One would draw certain logical conclusions from these obvious facts, but a Black conservative is too much of partisan monkey liar to ever do that. As bad as Black liberals can be (and they can be pretty bad), Black conservatives are by far the worst that the Black race has to offer.

According the Williams, the logical conclusion that we draw here is twofold:

1. These cities are full of Black folks.
2. They are all run by Democrats, for the most part liberal Democrats.

Conclusion: Liberal Democratic administrations cause unbelievable amounts of crime!

I kid you not. Black conservatives really are that stupid. As if Black people would act any better under a hard rightwing administration, not that they would ever elect one.

We have an actual experiment to see if this is true: the South. All Southern states are run by radical rightwing Republicans. Before that, they were run by radical rightwing Democrats. All of those states have been run by Black-hating racist White people for ever and ever. And how do Black people act down South? Perfectly horrible. They act as bad as Black people do anywhere. Why would Black folks suddenly act better if a rightwing Republican racist White massa was in charge, cracking the whip on those niggas? You think is going to stop making them act up? Come on.

The truth is that those cities are full of crime for the precise reason that they are full of Black people. Once you get a city full of Black people, you tend to get a city with lots and lots of crime. Those Black people created all that crime, and they will create about as much crime whether they are under a liberal Democratic administration as when they are under a Republican white racist massa administration.

Williams is truly crazy: a Libertarian Black. Black Libertarians are even more insane than Black conservatives. About 3% of Blacks are Black conservatives. We know this because ~3% of Black voted for Mitt Romney in the last election. However, if you looked at the US news media, you would think that 50% or more of Blacks are conservatives. Black conservatives may be as rare as four leaf clovers, but the “liberal” media loves them, and loves to over-represent them as demonstrative of the politics of US Blacks. If you are a US Black conservative, you are almost guaranteed of getting your own radio or TV show or your own newspaper column.

Does anyone on Earth think that Libertarianism will do anything for US Blacks?

Libertarianism is what exists in the 3rd world. In the 3rd World, the state is almost nonexistent, spends almost no money on the people on social programs, and what money it does have goes solely for police and military to enforce class rule over the lower classes and the workers. If the lower classes and workers get too out of hand, you just call out the cops and army and slaughter them.

Other than that, the government exists solely as an arm of the richest sectors of society and serves to protect their interests. The rich and business classes get to do everything and anything they want to. The state is starved for funds because the businesses and the wealthy pay no taxes, and the elites don’t believe in government spending anyway due to “the threat of a good example.” If the state spends money on pro-people programs, that is socialism, and we oppose socialism. Also the people might come to like this socialism and might want to have a more socialist country. This would interfere with the moneyed interests of the nation’s elites, so we can’t have that.

Libertarianism is what Blacks have in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and a few other places. Probably Haiti is the best example because it is the most Libertarian society ever attempted in a Black country. You can see how well that is working out!

Over in Africa, we can look at Kenya, Nigeria or Zaire as examples of nearly Libertarian Black countries in which elites steal 100% of the money in society leaving the masses with nothing but starvation and disease. As you can see, that is working out just fine!

Most other Black nations are socialist to some degree or another, so it hard to find a Black example of a radical rightwing country, but the above examples are pretty good.

Libertarianism won’t do anything good for Black people. All it will do is turn Black neighborhoods and cities like Detroit and Oakland into Haiti or Nigeria. If you think that is an improvement on the present state of affairs, you are wrong.

10 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Blacks, Conservatism, Crime, Democrats, Dominican Republic, Economics, Government, Haiti, Jamaica, Journalism, Kenya, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Nigeria, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South, US Politics, USA, White Racism, Zaire

by | December 22, 2010 · 9:21 PM

The “Nazis and Soviets Were Friends” Lie

Wade writes:

The hatred between Nazi and Bolshevik was just a surface conflict. The real underlying conflict was between German and Russian which had been going on for long before WWII. 30 million dead is just a result of more advanced technology and policies based on Nazi race hatred.

In the beginning of WWII the Nazis and communists had actually signed a pact. When Hitler invaded the northern part of Poland, the Soviets went into the south. Hitler eventually turned east not because he didn’t trust Bolshevism, but because he didn’t trust the Soviet Union (the new Russian state).

You can’t have it both ways. Fascists and the Left have always been the deadliest of enemies. Sure, there are some crossover 3rd Position type groups like National Bolsheviks, but those are based on a faulty reading of history. You have to pick one or the other. Are you a fascist choosing the Right or an anti-fascist on the Left. You can’t order both.

Fascists and the Left don’t hate each other just because they think alike and are having a lover’s quarrel. They really are polar opposite ideologies in many ways.

Fascism is best seen as a “popular far rightwing authoritarian movement against the Left.”

I’ve spent a lot of time on Left sites. One group they will not abide is the fascists. I’ve also been on a fascist sites. What they hate more than anything else is the Left. They want to kill us.

This is complete nonsense about the Nazis and Soviets being allies. The Nazis raison d etre was the wipe Bolshevism off the face of the Earth. They were an anti-Communist party to the core.

They put people in the camps in this order:

1. Communists
2. Socialists
3. Trade unionists
4. (Last) Jews

If you read Hitler’s writings and those of other top Nazis, it’s all about the danger of Bolshevism to Europe and how it had to be wiped out. The Jews were tied in with Bolshevism, so that is why the Jews were targeted. They were out to wipe Judeo-Bolshevism off the face of the Earth. All the other fascists were like this too. Their deadly enemies were the Communists, socialists and union members everywhere, all through Europe. There was a hot war in Spain. When fascists came to power in Europe everywhere in WW2, they immediately went after the Communists.

Rightwingers the world over supported the fascists, including the Nazis, as the biggest, baddest Commie killers that ever lived.

Stalin knew that Hitler was out to wipe out the USSR from the very start. That was the reason for the breakneck collectivization and industrialization, and frankly for the paranoid purges of the 1937 – Stalin suspected a Nazi plot to overthrow him.

The 1940 pact was just a means of buying time temporarily in the war that Stalin knew was going to happen. The US and UK had been egging Hitler from 1938-1941, trying to get him to attack the USSR and take them out. In 1938 Chamberlain gave Hitler Austria not for peace in our time but as deal for Hitler taking out the Soviets.

For a long time, rightwingers in the US and UK had been hoping to use and control Hitler long enough so that he could be used as a weapon against the USSR. When Hitler first came to power in 1933, the NY Times praised him as an anti-Communist.

If the Left loved fascists so much, why was there a deadly hot war in Spain?

Mussolini came to power as a coup against a resurgent Left in Italy. In the early 1920’s, landless peasants were rioting in the streets and marching in the fields all over Italy.

The rich use fascism as a last ditch effort to save capitalism in the face of an overwhelming threat from the Left.

The postwar fascists of Latin America, the Philippines, Fiji, Ethiopia, Morocco, Indonesia, Turkey, Greece, Zaire, Spain, Portugal, Iran and many other places were admirers of Hitler, Mussolini and all of the other European fascists. The Indian Hindutva fascists hate no one so much as the Left and also admire Hitler.

Fascism is all about “exterminate the Left.”

The conflict is more nationalism versus internationalism than anything else, but it’s also about wealth and priveleges.

Fascists declare the class war dead in the name of class solidarity, but then it goes on nonetheless. All classes are locked into position forever as part of the eternal blood and soil national pact. The rich are rich, the poor are poor, and that’s that.

Especially after WW2, rightwing authoritarianism and fascism has been all about everything for the rich and corporations and screw the people. As the class war grinds the masses into the dirt, the fascists march them off to anti-Communist rallies and have them wave flags. They seek to negate the class struggle but prioritizing nationalism over class. With the cloak of nationalism, they seek to make the class struggle seem to disappear under the flag of the nation.

14 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Asia, Austria, Britain, Capitalism, Central Africa, Conservatism, East Africa, Economics, Ethiopia, Europe, European, Europeans, Fascism, Germany, Greece, History, India, Indonesia, Internationalism, Iran, Italy, Jews, Journalism, Labor, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Morocco, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, North Africa, Philippines, Political Science, Portugal, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Socialism, South Asia, Spain, Turkey, USSR, War, World War 2, Zaire

by | October 8, 2010 · 1:56 PM

Is Conservatism Always Bad?

Yes.

In my opinion, conservatism is always bad. Conservatism is always and everywhere at all times elite rule and only elite rule. Some support elite rule. I don’t. I support popular rule. I say elite rule is bad. Since elite rule is always bad, conservatism is always bad. Real simple.

In addition, conservatism is almost always dishonest. As an elite philosophy, you can either be honest about your goals and say you are working to better the elite and harm everyone else – say, the top 20% will benefit and the bottom 80% will be harmed, or you can lie and say you are out for everyone when you are not. It usually doesn’t work for conservatives to tell the truth, but now and then they do. Most people are not so stupid as to vote for an elite party when they are members of the non-elite group who will be harmed by the elite party. So conservatives, always and everywhere at all times, lie. They lie about their project. They have to, because often that’s the only way to get in.

But this continuous lying results in a destruction of Politics. There’s not much of a democracy left when almost the entire media is lying their fool heads off day and night. The population is bewildered at best or brainwashed at worst. This is the sort of “democracy” we have here in America. It’s hardly a democracy at all!

Erranter asks if we should not be bashing conservatives.

Doesn’t a conservative just mean someone who is fine with the way things are going, the status quo? There are places where the status quo is democracy and none of those above things. I don’t think it’s fair to attach “bad” to the very definition of conservative and “good” to progressive. That’s changing the definitions which people use to communicate and permanently attaching a moral judgment. It’s also unequivocal that conservatives are bad, because a part of this new definition is that they are bad.

Someone who is fine with the way things are going, the status quo – No, that is not what conservatism means.

Conservatism is elite rule. It always has been, it is now, and it always will be. Some things never change. Elites hate democracy. The Republican Party hates democracy. Notice how they are always trying to repress voter turnout. Heavy turnout is always bad for the elite Republicans. Given half a chance, sane electorates generally vote for popular rule (the Left) and against elite rule (the Right). Why would any electorate voluntarily vote against popular rule and for elite rule? They would have to be out of their minds (like the US electorate).

It’s hard to vote in elite rule. People don’t like it too much. So conservatives usually need to rule by dictatorship in one form or another. Once Latin America got rid of the dictatorships, the first thing the people did was vote in the Left.

There are only a few places on Earth where US style hard rightwing conservatives are actually voted into power, and those elections are problematic because the popular, anti-elite candidates of the Left are typically murdered.

The US
Guatemala
El Salvador (though the Left is starting to win now)
Colombia
Chile
Turkey
The Philippines

That’s about it.

The conservatives in El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Turkey and the Philippines all rule by terror. They all run death squads and slaughter the Left.

In the Philippines, conservatives run as populists who will fight and get rid of poverty, so that’s not really US conservatism.

In Colombia, Guatemala and El Salvador, conservatives usually run on a platform of “kill the Communists (the Left).”

Everywhere else on Earth, people generally vote in some sort of a liberal to socialist type government.

All of Africa has generally been run by popular Leftwing parties, with a few exceptions in Zaire and Kenya. They haven’t done a very good job of popular rule, but US style conservatism simply does not exist there.

In North Africa, most of the governments are socialist. Morocco was always the outlier, as it was ruled by a rightwing king, but he’s a dictator.

All of the Arab World is generally run by some type of socialist party or other. US style conservatism never takes power there.

All of the former Soviet Republics are now run by some type of socialist government or other.

All of Europe is being run by some type of socialist government or other, with the possible exception of Great Britain. The UK was always the outlier. US style conservatism ruled under Thatcher, but she was probably the most hated ruler in the 20th Century UK, and she couldn’t get much done.

Russia is run by a socialist regime under Putin.

The Iranian religious government has always been socialist in nature.

It’s hard to characterize the Karzai regime, but it is not US conservatism.

The Pakistani government is very hard to characterize, but it is not US style conservatism. The recently assassinated leader, Benazir Bhutto, was a socialist. The President, her widower, is also a socialist.

Since Independence, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka have generally been run by socialist regimes of one type or another.

Myanmar is run by a regime that calls itself socialist.

Singapore has a social democracy.

SE Asia has been run by socialists since 1975. Thailand typically had rightwing military government. Recently, a progressive, Thaksin, was elected. He was extremely popular, but the conservative elite threw him out in a coup like they often do. At any rate, US style conservatism does not exist in Thailand.

China is run by a socialist party.

Mongolia is run by socialists.

Japan has been a social democracy since 1945.

True, South Korea was always a rightwing regime, but recently they elected a leftwinger.

Taiwan was always ruled by a rightwing dictatorship, but I am not sure who is in power since independence. They have had a social democracy for a while now.

Indonesia was always run by a rightwing dictatorship, but they recently went to democracy. The present leader has begun a number of socialist programs.

7 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Africa, Americas, Asia, Britain, Central Africa, Central America, Chile, China, Colombia, Conservatism, East Africa, El Salvador, Eurasia, Europe, Guatemala, Indonesia, Inner Mongolia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Latin America, Left, Morocco, NE Asia, Nepal, North Africa, Pakistan, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Russia, SE Asia, Singapore, South America, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, US Politics, Zaire

by | July 30, 2010 · 12:05 AM

Musings on Dual Loyalty, Judaism as Zionism, and Anti-Semitism

Repost from the old site.

Always-perceptive commenter James Schipper makes some astute, terse and cut to the chase comments on my post, The “New Anti-Semitism.” In it, he moves beyond the typically vulgar anti-Semitism that much modern anti-Zionism descends into and offers a perfectly logical explanation for the dual loyalty accusation leveled at Jews.

He also brings up some very difficult questions about the differences between Judaism and Zionism and whether there is really any difference at all.

Schipper:

If criticism of Israel = anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, then we should be proud to call ourselves anti-Semites.

What is really wrong with Israel? It is not such a bad country for Jews, or even for the Arabs in Israel proper. I would rather be a Jew in Israel than an Arab in any Arab country. Israel was born in sin, but so was every country in the Western hemisphere. Israel is oppressive in the occupied territories, but by historical standards, this oppression is hardly unique.

The real reason for opposing Israel is that it does not see itself as the country of its citizens but as the country of all the Jews in the world. According to Israel, Jews in other countries are living in exile, are really Israelis and should be loyal to Israel.

In other words, Israel expects the Jewish citizens of other countries to behave like Israel’s fifth-columnists, and that is exactly what Zionists outside Israel are.

No political party outside Israel should accept Zionists as members, and no government outside Israel should appoint Zionists to a senior government job. Instead, Zionist should be encouraged to put their bodies where their loyalties are: in Israel.

Suppose that Italy saw itself as the country of all Catholics in the world and expected Catholics everywhere to defend Italian interests, then it would be behaving exactly as Israel does. That would also be a good reason for non-Catholics in other countries to look at Catholics with suspicion and to regard Italy with hostility.

The late Arthur Koestler wrote in an essay that after 1948 all Jews should choose one of two options: go to Israel or abandon Judaism altogether. He is right insofar as Judaism implies Zionism.

Judaism has always posited that Jews are a people and that Israel is their promised land, which is also the position of Zionism. If Judaism implies Zionism, then Jews outside of Israel, it they want to remain Jewish, should emigrate to Israel or else detribalize and deterritorialize Judaism, which may be denaturing it.

Theological question: Why does Obama allow bad things to happen and evil people to prosper?

More seriously, why did Obama appoint a hard Zionist as his chief of staff? It is not a good sign.

I agree with several things in this post.

First of all, he attacks some of the usual broadsides leveled at Israel and dismisses them.

What I find disturbing, and many Zionists have noted this, is the particular vehemence many Israel-critics level at Israel’s oppression of Jews inside Israel, while they are silent or even supportive of even worse oppression by states against minorities outside Israel.

White nationalists think it’s awesome for Whites to treat non-Whites like shit, except when it comes to White Jews versus “muds” in Israel. Kurds in the Arab World are treated awfully bad, Berbers less so but still poorly, and the Shia are oppressed all over the Arab World. There is open oppression and violence against Christians in Egypt and Iraq.

Baha’i are treated horribly in Iran, Sunnis less so but still poorly, and the Ahwaz have some good beefs. Turks treat Kurds horribly in Turkey. Russia has massacred 20% of the population of Chechnya in what can only be termed a genocide. China’s treatment of the Uighurs and Tibetans is disgraceful. Treatment of Hindus in Pakistan is shameful, and NE Indian Asians are treated poorly by the Indian state.

Japan treats its Koreans, Burakumin and Ainu pretty badly. The Hmong are still treated like shit in Laos, and the Montagnards are not done well by Vietnam. Pygmies are openly genocided and cannibalized as a matter of custom in Zaire, and the Khoisan are nearly murdered at will in SW Africa.

There is a real genocide of Arabs against Africans in Darfur, and another one, Arabs versus Christians, has just ended in South Sudan. Africans are routinely enslaved by Arabs in the Sahel.

We could go and on, but you get the picture. What is disturbing about all of this is that most Israel-critics are either indifferent to, ignorant of or even supportive of, the maltreatment of minorities above. Zionists are correct that this is either ignorance or anti-Semitism.

All, or most all, modern nations were born in sin.

This was due to the nature of the modern nation-building exercise, which typically involved ethnic cleansing or some sort of mass killing or genocide of any existing indigenous people, sidelining, subjection, forced assimilation (cultural genocide) or outright genocide against anyone not part of the dominant nation of the nation-state, and forced destruction of all languages but the one chosen by the nation-state or that is the dominant nation.

The Modern Left in the West, which has adopted Third-Worldism, minority-hugging and European hatred with gusto, errs in singling out Europeans for particular abuse in terms of nation-building. It’s been bloody and awful everywhere and at all times.

Schipper also points out that although Israel is oppressive in the Occupied Territories, by comparative standards, they are relatively mild. Considering the outrageous provocations and attacks of the Palestinians, I am amazed Israel has gone as easy on them as it has.

Arabs do not believe in fighting wars in a civilized manner, and the Geneva Conventions are regarded by them as Western comedy. Any Arab state faced with Palestinian-type provocations by non-Arabs would have been vastly worse than Israel.

Truthfully, just about every nation fighting an insurgency has been more horrible that Israel by orders of magnitude.

Consider this: according to counterinsurgency doctrine, enshrined by the US military and state and promoted by the US media and both US political parties, any civilian who “supports” an insurgency needs to be arrested, beaten, tortured and killed. All counterinsurgencies supported by the US have routinely massacred, mutilated and tortured to death insurgency “supporters.”

This has been true in every counterinsurgency in Latin America, in Indonesia in 1965, the US counterinsurgencies in SE Asia during the Vietnam War, the counterinsurgencies in Mozambique, Algeria and Angola, Russia’s counterinsurgency in Chechnya, India’s counterinsurgencies in India proper and Kashmir, in Sri Lanka against the Tamils, in Indonesia against the Acehese and East Timorese, in the Philippines against the NPA, and in Nepal’s recent Civil War.

In these counterinsurgencies, hundreds of thousands of “supporters” of insurgencies were murdered, tortured and mutilated, while the US cheered, poured in money and looked the other way.

In contrast, almost 100% of Palestinians seem to support the Palestinian insurgency. Clearly, Israel has not been going around killing “supporters” of the insurgency. If they did, they would have killed tens of thousands of Palestinians so far.

Considering the provocations of the Palestinians, Israel has fought one of the cleanest counterinsurgencies in modern times.

Zionists are correct that these criticisms of Israel, combined with support for to indifference to much worse behaviors by non-Jews, are evidence of either ignorance or anti-Semitism.

But Schipper does hit it on the head.

The reason to oppose Israel is that it is not a state of its citizens. Israel openly says that it is the state of all Jews on Earth, not of its citizens. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable for non-Jews in every nation on Earth containing Jews to look upon their Jews as possible traitors and dual-loyalists. Dual loyalty, rather than being an “anti-Semitic canard” as many Jews shrilly screech, is actually grounded in immaculate reason.

Schipper also suggests that the wall between Judaism and Zionism may be little more than a wall of sand, and one that has been hit by so many waves that there’s almost nothing left.

Although anti-Zionist Jews offer various reasons for their non-support of Israel, the fact remains that Judaism has always said that Israel is the land of the Jews. Assuming the Messiah returns tomorrow, even Naturei Karta is willing to head to Israel and become fervent Zionists.

Hence the uncomfortable notion, typically parroted by ferocious anti-Zionists and some vulgar anti-Semites, that it is not just Zionism that is the problem, but Judaism itself, is lent some troubling weight. I don’t want to go near this thesis because to be honest, I’m a pussy when it comes to the Jewish Question.

Schipper finally suggests that the Jews of the world either renounce Judaism or practice what you preach and head to Israel. Once again, troubling stuff.

There’s nary a trace of anti-Semitism in Schipper’s comments, but the issues he raises are toxic as Hell.

Just some thought-meals.

Enjoy.

99 Comments

Filed under Africa, Ainu, Algeria, Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Baha'i, Blacks, Chechens, Christianity, Darfur, Democrats, Ethnic Nationalism, Europeans, Hinduism, Hmong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jews, Judaism, Kashmir, Koreans, Laos, Latin America, Left, Middle East, Mozambique, Nationalism, NE Asia, Near Easterners, North Africa, Northeast Asians, Obama, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Pygmies, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Africa, South Asia, Southern Sudan, Southwest Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, The Jewish Question, US Politics, Useless Western Left, Vietnam, West Africa, White Nationalism, Zaire, Zionism

by | March 14, 2010 · 1:45 AM

Map of the Romance Speaking World

Here is a very nice map of the parts of the world that speak a Romance language, in whole or in part. The main languages covered here are Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian and Romanian.

Nice map of the Romance languages of the world. Click to enlarge.

The heavy Spanish speaking zone is Spain, Rio Muni, New Mexico and Latin America except for Brazil, the Guyanas, Haiti and some Caribbean islands that speak French. To a lesser extent, it is spoken Spanish Sahara and Belize. To a much lesser extent, it is spoken in  parts of the US and in the Philippines where it is a dying colonial language.

The heavy Portuguese speaking zone is Brazil, Portugal, Angola, Mozambique, other parts of Africa and East Timor. In the latter countries, it is a lingua franca.

French is heavily spoken in France, Quebec, French Guyana, French Polynesia, Belgium and Switzerland, less heavily in much of Africa, especially Congo, the Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Gabon, Central African Republic, Chad, Niger, Mali, Togo, Cote d’Ivorie, Burkino Faso, Senegal, West Africa, Central Africa, Djibouti and Madagascar, less in the rest of Canada, and even less in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Louisiana, where it is a dying colonial language overtaken by national languages in Southeast Asia, Arabic in Northwest Africa and English in Louisiana

Italian is spoken heavily in Italy and less so in Libya and Albania.

Romanian is spoken heavily in Romania, Moldova and Serbia.

6 Comments

Filed under Africa, Algeria, Americas, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central Africa, Central African Republic, Central America, Congo, Europe, France, French, Grenadines, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Italian, Italic, Italy, Ivory Coast, Laos, Latin America, Lebanon, Libya, Louisiana, Madagascar, Mali, Middle East, Morocco, Mozambique, North Africa, North America, Pacific, Philippines, Polynesia, Portugal, Portuguese, Quebec, Romance, Romania, SE Asia, Senegal, Serbia, South, South America, Spain, Spanish, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, USA, Vietnam, West Africa, Western Sahara, Zaire

by | December 18, 2009 · 6:11 AM

AIDS began in Africa in 1904

That’s a lot earlier than I thought.

I knew about the HIV-tainted blood and tissue from Kinshasa, Congo, in 1959 and 1960. Sequencing those samples back, it turns out that they were born around 1904.

Previous research has shown that HIV jumped from monkeys to man in Southeastern Cameroon. Contrary to what the racists say, no one thinks it was due to Black guys screwing monkeys. Racists are so stupid! African guys will just about screw anything, I think, but I’ve never heard of them boning monkeys. The traditional thinking is that Africans kill monkeys for food and butcher them up before they eat them. They get monkey blood all themselves when they do this. Presumably, this is how the species jump (SIV -> HIV) occurred.

HIV must have gone on very low simmer for decades until it finally started breaking out in the Kinshasa region around 1960.

13 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Cameroon, Central Africa, History, Illness, Medicine, Modern, Public Health, Racism, White Racism, Zaire

by | September 9, 2009 · 9:24 PM

The “Negro” – A Product of 300 Years in America

A commenter argues that American Blacks (Negroes*) were bred with brawn and not brains and this explains a lot of their problems:

The US only imports the top tier of, for instance, Indian and Chinese immigrants. So from an American perspective, Indians and Chinese seem very clever, even though in their home countries there is a broad variety of ability. It’s the same with Africans. Just look at Obama’s father.

But Africans descended from slaves had a different selection criteria – physical ability. Not only were they selected for this, but they were bred for this. The Atlantic passage weeded out the weak ones, the institution of slavery encouraged physicality over intellect. The results, in both culture and gene expression, are plain to see.

Robert Lindsay often claims that the mere presence of blacks degrades a society. However, would it not be better to import University-level Africans to raise the standard of American blacks? Any white would be happy to live in a suburb of Obamas.

This doesn’t make the tiniest bit of sense. Negroes have IQ’s vastly higher than the Blacks of the Caribbean or Africa, so your thesis doesn’t add up at all. Plus, I think they are a lot more civilized to boot.

I don’t think that Negroes are capable of the mass insanity of The Lord’s Army in Uganda, Charles Taylor’s rebels, the horrors of Zaire where 4 million have died and mass rapes often with extreme violence, are committed against women, where cannibalism is still common especially in the context of war where one’s enemies are eaten after being killed, where humans are murdered for being witches, where people are murdered to get body parts for witchcraft ceremonies!

Good God!

Whether they are less criminal in general is up for grabs, but South African Blacks seem to be much more criminal than Negroes, just looking at figures. Further, many African cities are virtual no-go zones for Whites. A friend used to work for the UN in Nairobi. They had high fences topped with razor wire and armed guards to keep the rabble at bay, plus strict rules about going outside.

I also think that Negroes are less corrupt than Africans. Africans do not seem to be capable of creating a non-corrupt society. Even in Equatorial Guinea, which is wealthy at $21,000 PCI, most of the people are horribly poor, malnourished, and the maternal mortality rate is insanely high.

Nigeria is a a very oil-rich nation. Any other country, especially an Arab country, should have made something decent of the place. Yet a tiny elite has stolen every other nickel and left the average Joe with pennies. The maternal mortality rate is ridiculous, the poverty and crime is horrible, and the place is basically a failed state.

The corruption experiment can be done by looking at the Obama Administration. He’s a Negro President, and he has lots of Negro staffers. Further, reporters on his campaign noted a “basic Black mindset” about the Obama campaign that differed from your typical White POTUS campaign. So, in many ways, the Obama Administration really is a Black administration. If Negroes were naturally corrupt, it should show through. Yet the Administration seems to have markedly low levels of corruption.

Along with corruption, we also find in Africa what seems to be a very low rate of altruistic behavior at the societal level. African states simply don’t do the slightest damned thing for their people. The leadership steals nearly everything, lives in gilded palaces with multiple wives and leaves the populace to sicken and die.

On the other hand, the Obama Administration seems to be quite altruistic. Many of their projects seem intended to provide for the betterment of all, in particular the workers, the low-income, the poor and the most vulnerable. The assumption is that Negroes have culturally evolved a higher level of altruism than their African brethren, possibly from a being discriminated minority that relied on mutual aid and self-help to get by, and the resulting sympathy for the underdog and the oppressed – the preterit as it were.

I have no doubt that Negroes used to act in these ways (see description of Africa above) when they were in Africa, and that they would still act like Africans if they were there. The 15% White genes in your average Negro are not enough to automatically create a much more civilized, altruistic and honest person.

A good argument can be made that Negro is a product of US civilization, which has always been a White civilization. 300 years of this have changed Negroes, probably culturally in the main, and apparently also in terms of intelligence. Living in the US has been great for the Negro’s brain. He is remarkably more intelligent than his Caribbean and African cousins.

An 87 IQ (average IQ of Negroes) is not particularly high, but it’s not that low either. It’s just a bit below the world average of 90. Further,many states with average IQ’s of 87 and even a bit lower have created quite nice and civilized countries. On an intelligence basis alone, Negroes are certainly intelligent enough to create a nice, civilized society. That they often do not is a bit of a mystery, but it’s not because they are stupid!

Give a basically decent Negro man a good job, a suit and a tie and a nice car, and he often acts pretty darn good. You see him walking down the sidewalk and he’s just another regular guy.

Negroes and Whites have co-evolved in the US whether we like it or not. Negroes are culturally part White, and surely we Whites are culturally part-Negro. We’re like an old married couple whether we like it or not. Old married couples sometimes fight a lot, but they’re stuck with each other and neither one is going anywhere, besides, they are sort of part of one another by now.

Race relations in the US cannot be properly analyzed until we realize the extent to which Negroes are part Whitened and US Whites are part-Negrified. Like the old married couple, we are now part of each other.

*I will use the often-racist term “Negro” here to distinguish US Blacks from African Blacks.

26 Comments

Filed under Africa, Blacks, Intelligence, Nigeria, Obama, Race Relations, Regional, South Africa, US, West Africa, Zaire