This reminds me of one of my Stormfront rants . . .
Let’s talk some more. Or you just listen and disagree, then deconstruct my post piece by piece in little quote boxes or something.
There are plenty of tangents in this post, so please watch your step.
How do you see the world today? How do you see it tomorrow? Will Africans still be starving? Will there be peace in the Middle East? Will we all love each other?
I turn on my television and I see all sorts of organizations clamor to give food to the starving African child. How long have they been doing that? Have there been any real results? Let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about the appeal to emotion that something can be done, simply because the gruesome alternative of mass starvation and bloody genocide perpetually tearing a continent apart is too horrible to accept as a very real possibility.
Is this wise? Should a tangible problem be approached with intangible emotionalism? "70 cents a day" hasn't done much.
IMHO, the charity helps to maintain the status quo of Africans not having any real clout in the world by giving the illusion that something can change, when there are undoubtedly forces working against that. After all, water finds its own level.
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime.â€
People can claim there are various reasons for the general dismal situations that sub-Saharan African nations find themselves in. Let’s put the biological arguments aside, which I'm sure many antis have been exposed to. Why the sudden collapse of formerly prosperous African nations? Is it due to simple racism on the part of former colonial empires?
Before Europeans, what did Africans have, nation-wise? Were they much different from the Yanomami? What would happen if a group of colonists/administrators organized them into a single nation, and then simply up and left one day, leaving behind advanced technology and medicine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomamo
How much do the Yanomami differ from the bygone Aztecs or Incas that they wouldn’t be able to recreate those pyramids and calendars? We know that intermittent contact with people higher on the ladder of civilization had severely disrupted the Yanomami way of life. Did this simply occur with sub-Saharan Africans, with a much larger gap between the groups of people which came into contact with each other?
This is something I find myself thinking to more and more, and which no one asks often. Were Africans culturally prepared take the reigns of an entity as massive as a nation? The citizens Pre-Columbian South American empires had literature, agriculture, cities, calenders. South America is far from obviously far from perfect. However, their civil wars are more along ideological lines, and not the wholesale slaughter and destitution we see and hear about in Africa. The bounderies of African nations look like a jigsaw puzzle. The true bounderies exist along
tribal lines.
Many of the members of the civilized world take pride in their respective histories to the point where maintaining unity on a macroscopic scale, like a nation, becomes part of heritage. Africans do not have a comparable heritage, and I respect that it couldn’t be easy to be plopped down on the Earth and wander aimlessly, seeking solidarity based solely on skin color.
Blaming whites for the whole mess makes as much sense as pulling the cement out of a brick wall, and then blaming the cement for the collapse. Blaming whites for being there in the first place is just as pointless. Would the Arabs and northeast Asians be any more considerate to the 'free lunch' which Africa was?
Interestingly enough, I see that very reason cited for not pulling out of Iraq. People will blame whites for not helping Africans more, and for "helping" Iraqis too much. Damned either way.
What of the Middle East? I recall one nutjob anti claiming that Bush's selfless crusade to bring "democracy" to the Middle East is motivated by (you guessed it) racism.
If any of you are really informed of what's going on over there, then you would know how Israel can (and has) gotten away with practically everything. Either way, it is undeniable that there are many problems which plague the Middle East (I personally prefer the term 'symptom.') What's your 'anti' solution to them, contra to our nationalist thinking?
This goes back to the
Realpolitik aspect of the world that is so largely ignored by ‘do-gooders.’ Think about it, antis. It has nothing to do with racism. If India were a First World nation, would it somehow be more inclined to donate food and money than Western nations to Africa because they associate with "brown pride?" I don’t think so. Ask yourself: What ‘sane’ and well-do-to nation would create
more competition for itself on the global market?
The nations of the world are the result of macrocosmic evolution in which only the strong survived. They aren’t going to realistically ‘give it up.' They'll give aid to seem kind, and pull the wool over people's eyes to convince everyone that there
is enough food for everyone, and that the problem boils down to the simple matter of 'getting the books in order.'
Just because we live in some sort of ‘enlightened’ age doesn’t mean the rules of the game have changed – they’ve only been given new names. Instead of “our financial interests in the region,†we hear “to promote peace and stability.â€
Do you think that if some sort of grand Red Revolution washed over the face of the Earth that there would be no more purges and dead people, no more competition and starving children?
I find it laughable when Western nations are attacked because they disrupted cultures they came into contact with, yet they are the prime targets for the experimental monoculture which people expect would be feasible to maintain. All sorts of characters are trying to tear open Western societies and cultures and rearrange what's inside them as they please.
