Are Whites Necessary For Modern Civilization?

A White nationalist commenter comments on the Neandertal thread:

Robert, I don’t get your strange form of ethnocentrism. You claim to think “we’re the best,” as a sort of superstition, while knowing that we’re not really the best; while in many respects “we’re the best,” is obviously true. You can’t compare Black supremacist ideology with White supremacist. The former may take things a bit too far and sometimes be a bit off the facts, but the latter is simply laughable.

Whites may not be perfect, but they do have a fairly high IQ and the most impressive track record in terms of scientific progress and high culture.

As far as the West not always being dominant– the Chinese had not discovered that the Earth was a sphere or that the sun was larger than the Earth by 1600 AD. We beat them to it by more than a millennium.

They were also amazed by Euclid as they had nothing comparable in mathematics; they had no system of formal logic or precise scientific method; excluding the Great Wall, no ancient architecture to compare with our great Cathedrals and monuments etc. you could go on and on. The Asians today have more great pianists to play Chopin, but where is the Asian Chopin? They are impressive people, but clearly less innovative.

The Arabs had a bit of a renaissance partly due to having better access to ancient Greek manuscripts; but it was short lived. Who’s following in the tradition of Classical Civilization today?

This whole “the West has only been ahead for a few hundred years,” line is silly. We really are in a different league than everyone else.

I get your point about it being in ill taste to constantly harp on and on about your own group’s superiority. But when we’re under attack – being flooded with nonwhites and told that Western Civilization really isn’t anything to be proud of, and even if it is, nonwhites will do just fine preserving the West despite having historically shown little to no ability to do so – well then we need to start making the case for being able to do something they can’t. The facts are on our side, we just need to have the nerve to use them.

If we want to preserve the civilization we love we’re going to have to accept that we can’t avoid hurting nonwhites’ feelings by telling them that they’re unable to maintain Western Civilization on their own.

As far as my form of ethnocentrism, well, it’s completely normal. Most ethnicities do think that their people are better or the best. It’s normal thinking. Many of these folks are also often non-racist to anti-racist. The two things are quite compatible. I don’t want to get into scientifically proving that we Whites are superior. What for? It’s a disgusting enterprise, and probably won’t be fruitful anyway.

I have some extremely serious problems with this line of thinking. For starters, its presumptions.

I do not think that NE Asian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Siberian, Taiwanese, Singaporean, or Vietnamese people lack the ability to produce a great modern civilization. They can clearly do so. I see them as continuing to be able to produce great and modern civilizations into the future. I don’t even have a problem with the civilizations produced by SE Asians in general.

I doubt if the problems of Indians, South Asians, Central Asians and Arabs are due to their genes. After all, the UAE right now is one of the most spectacularly modern places on Earth. Saudi Arabian cities look like Tuscon suburbs. Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are quite similar. What’s so inferior about that? Sure, Islam is fucked, but there’s nothing in these folks’ genes that keeps them from producing great modern societies.

The North Africans should do pretty well too. Last I heard Libya is quite a modern country.

The Turks and the people of the Caucasus can produce modern societies, as can the Iranians. Iranian weaponry now is considered to be dangerously lethal by both the US and the Israelis. Recall the Iranian anti-ship missile that destroyed the Israeli warship off of Lebanon in the last war. Kickass product.

The Pakistanis and Indians produced nuclear weapons. No small feat that.

I do have a lot of worries about the abilities of Africans to produce great societies, but it’s basically their problem, not mine. We are not going to let Africans flood in here anyway.

Furthermore, looking at history is not too relevant. Sure, Africa did not produce much in the past, on their own. But Africa is no longer isolated from all outside influences. The great leaps of knowledge, science and innovation that occur in the rest of the world are readily available to educated and skilled Africans soon after they are invented or thought up. Therefore, Africa has a much better chance to become successfully modern than in the past.

Caribbeans, I don’t know. Trinidad and Tobago has a PCI of $20,000/year with totally free health care for all and 100

As suggested in the African example above, the modern world is changing so much that it can hardly be compared to older worlds. Technology is global, and it reverberates around the globe like lightning, as does knowledge in all forms. The smart people anywhere produce innovation and knowledge, and then these facts and things move around the planet faster than you can blink your eyes.

They are made available from more skilled societies to societies that are not as skilled. Therefore, the differential IQ factors are somewhat modulated as knowledge and innovation produced in high-IQ societies flows to lower IQ societies for free.

The Hispanics are flooding in, it is true. Their societies seem to be rather chaotic and violent, but if you go to their capital cities in the wealthier districts, you will think you were in any large US city. There’s no real observable difference. Their problems are mostly due to issues of wealth distribution.

It’s hard to use national IQ’s to calculate national potentials. For instance, Cuba has 2

Medical discoveries and breakthroughs occur regularly in Cuba and are published in scientific journals. Cuban biotechnology, a high-IQ industry, competes effectively with biotech from huge Western corporations and sells its excellent competitive products the world over.

All of these achievements have been done with a Cuban IQ of 85, lower than that of US Blacks, who White Supremacists consider to be a failed people, mostly due to an IQ of 86.8 or so. If Cubans can do so well with an IQ lower than US Blacks, how can US Blacks be a failed people due to IQ?

I don’t really believe that other societies produce inferior musicians or music, but maybe my tastes are different from yours.

What I would like to do is to eliminate illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration. I don’t care what race or ethnicity comes here, as I don’t buy your arguments that they are genetically inferior per se.

I would say that the combined average IQ of the immigrants we let in cannot be lower than the US average (either 98 or 100 right now, depending on scale used). So if 100 immigrants of whatever constellation of groups is let in, let their combined average IQ be 98-100. If the Jamaicans, Nigerians, Filipinos, Mexicans, Palestinians, Indians, Thais and Algerians we let in all average 98-100 IQ, what’s the worry? I don’t buy your argument that a 98-100 IQ person from one of these ethnicities is still somehow genetically inferior to a 98-100 IQ White American.

You say that Whites are going extinct and we are being flooded with non-Whites, but how are you going to save the White West? Even if you cut off all non-White immigration, you will still be only 66

Not to mention cutting off non-White immigration will be politically impossible. All the non-Whites will oppose it. Now you need to get 79

Do you honestly think that you can pull that off? It sounds impossible. Both political parties, the entire MSN media, etc will be deadset against it and will flood society with propaganda against it calling those who support it KKK, White Supremacists, Nazis, racists, etc.

Please follow and like us:

23 thoughts on “Are Whites Necessary For Modern Civilization?”

  1. Hey Robert, what’s wrong with Chinese nationalism? They have always been the leader in Asia before the British fucks came in with their opium. And when you say you support the Tibetans and Uighurs, don’t you realize that they are essentially CIA pawns to destabilize China, a serious rival to Western/Jew hegemony?

    1. It’s evil. It’s fascist.

      China has no right to rule over Turkestan and Tibet and nationalities have the right to self-determination. China wasn’t the leader of anything back then. Nationalist or pre-revolutionary china was a shithole. China only started developing after the revolution.

    2. Actually, if you look at GDP, it is India which has dominated the world for thousands of years and much of human history. Yes, of course they were very poor people in India, but the elite of India were the most advanced in the world. This is why so many empires came to India.The Persians, Romans, the Greeks, the Kushans, the Arabs and others all came either to invade or to trade. The Chinese use to come to ancient India and took a lot of ideas across the border.

      And there are theories that the Aryan invasion of India might be a lie (concocted by the British and later by Germans to justify rule and hatred) and it was Indians, in fact, who populated other parts of the world, including Europe. So, Indians are probably the ancestors of Europeans.

  2. I agree that Chiang Kai Shek’s China was shitty.
    What do you think about Russian nationalism.
    And don’t you realize that US imperialism has always had a strategy of dividing large continental rivals such as Russia and China by using Chechens, Tibetans, ect. I thought you were opposed to US imperialism?

    1. I don’t like Russian nationalism all that much. It was better under the Soviets when they gave the nationalities so much freedom. It was the internationalism of the USSR that gave those nationalities so much freedom that allowed all of those nationalities to express their self-determination and secede from the USSR to form their own states. Also the USSR’s internationalism allowed the nationalities to preserve their languages and cultures. Stalin really threw a monkey wrench in all of that by supporting Great Russian nationalism at the expense of the other nationalities.

      For instance, the USSR made alphabets for most of the USSR languages, made learning materials for their schools in their languages, made printing presses for their languages and published books in their languages, etc. Under Stalin, a lot of that stuff really slowed down due to Russification. And Russification really royally pissed off the Baltics and the Ukrainians and these are now outposts of reaction, anti-Communism and Nazism.

      It’s unfortunate that the US is promoting secessionism in China and Russia, but I think that something could be worked out, maybe allowing Russia to keep bases in Chechnya or Chinese to keep bases in Turkestan, or integration of armed forces. Russia and China need to be assured that these countries will remain allies and not turn into enemies.

  3. I think its hypocritical for the US to tell Russia and China to let their minorities go free when US has bases all over the freaking planet. I thought the Ukrainians were generally pro-Russian? They are both East Slavic Orthodox nations, essentially the same. Does the Baltics’ anti-Russian sentiment originate from Tsarist times or just the USSR?

    1. You’re right in a way. In general, the US totally hates separatism, and often funds states finding separatism to the hilt, including Spain, France, the UK, Turkey, India, Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Morocco.

      But when it comes to separatist groups fighting against states the US doesn’t like, the US is suddenly pro-separatism. That’s why imperialism is a shit ideology. It’s morally void. You’re either for separatism or not, or give a good reason why sometimes it’s good and sometimes it’s bad.

      Sorry, but good when separatists are fighting the people we don’t like, but bad when fighting our friends, doesn’t exactly cut it, especially while the US is continually screaming about the inviolability of national borders and shit. If borers are so inviolable, why were the US scum imperialists so quick to recognize Kosovo? Like the very next day.

  4. Great post! The answer is no, as you have demonstrated. But the West played (and continues to play) an integral role in the creation of our modern world. As a black guy, I can’t deny that.

    As for Africa, revolutionary changes need to be made in how its nations are run.

    1. Oh, I think I misunderstood what was being asked. You should have phrased the question as “would modern society, as we know it today, exist without whites?” My answer to that is maybe.

  5. It’s also important to mention that what we call “the west” was an extension of Mediterranean culture into the northwest. Europe only became “Western” after the Roman Empire expanded north and made it so by force. Those that think whites are predisposed to high civilization have to explain why N. Europe was so relatively backwards and why it produced no great indigenous civilizations. I could be wrong, but I’m not aware of any system of writing or mathematics or great architectural movements that emanates from N. Europe. So why didn’t all those superior Nordic genes produce this given thousands of years to do so?

    It’s my opinion that most(keep in mind I said “most” not necessarily ALL) the IQ differentials we see between population groups are due to environmental/nurture/cultural reasons. I just don’t believe that if you raised Aborigine or Khoisan children under ideal circumstances, they’d end up retarded. Sorry, I just don’t buy it. Maybe there are some studies out there where white Australians have adopted Aboriginal children. I’d like to see how those kids fared in school and life in general. I’m sure they would turn out fine.

    1. Well Tulio, I’ll post it before someone else does. Many people making these arguments about IQ and the wealth of nations also bring up the Bell Curve’s study supposedly debunking/limiting an environmental component. But they’re full of logical fallacies as you alluded to in your comment. I visit this blog called gnxp, and I always come across posts by frustrated geneticists who are tired of people using their data to confirm an emotional bias. For instance, I read one scientist say causation is not the same as correlation and he didn’t understand how people could jump to conclusions based on the data found in aggregate racial IQ scores.

      1. It seems like all the race realists are using IQ and and Wealth of Nations as their source of IQ data for various populations, but why is that source so trusted? The authors admit that they get some scores by simply taking an average of other nearby countries. What the hell kind of methodology is that?

        I’m also curious how they are getting high Asian IQs. For example, are they mostly testing Chinese people who live in large urban centers like Shanghai and Beijing? Are they also using IQ scores of impoverished rice farmers out in the countryside? Were the IQ tests given to blacks in Africa culturally biased? I don’t have answers to these questions.

  6. regression to the mean, man

    if you let in nigerians, they have to be of at least 110-115 iq, so their kids dont fuck everything up

  7. Thanks for your response Robert.

    I certainly agree that many nonwhites and partial Whites/mixed societies, are capable of having pretty civil countries. However, they are borrowing so much from Whites as you mention: “knowledge and innovation produced in high-IQ societies flows to lower IQ societies for free.” I would take issue with it necessarily being fro high-IQ to low-IQ as the Asians are quite high and have also had a flow of knowledge and innovation.

    In the past you’ve voiced some skepticism about G and whether there might be a “Black intelligence,” “Asian intelligence,” etc. which comes into contact with what G measures, but is cannot be measured very well at present. I think this is likely the case and if so would part of the reason why whites have been more innovative than Asians for some time and have been such a “revolutionary,” race.

    Even if nonwhite groups can have decent modern cities, are they capable of revolutionary progress the way Whites are? Think of it this way, it wouldn’t be unfair to say that without Whites, humanity quite possibly wouldn’t know that the Earth is a sphere smaller than the Sun today, in the year 2012. If whites become near extinct, or so marginalized that there aren’t any White societies, just think what kinds of things we might not have by 2200 that we would have had with Whites still strong.

    As for the last part of your post, yes I do think its possible, though right now we can’t see a clear path to it. Where there’s a will there’s a way. We don’t have the will and that’s precisely the problem. RP Oliver, though kind of a conspiracy theorist, always said that besides conspiracies, the more important problem facing the West is a lack of will to live; stated otherwise, wanting to shirk off the burden of civilization. That’s really what the struggle is about at this stage, rediscovering a will to exist and the strength to confront the mental strain brought on by civilization.

    1. “Even if nonwhite groups can have decent modern cities, are they capable of revolutionary progress the way Whites are? Think of it this way, it wouldn’t be unfair to say that without Whites, humanity quite possibly wouldn’t know that the Earth is a sphere smaller than the Sun today, in the year 2012. If whites become near extinct, or so marginalized that there aren’t any White societies, just think what kinds of things we might not have by 2200 that we would have had with Whites still strong.”

      Whites inherited civilization from the middle east, so you could argue that if it weren’t for Arabs, whites may not have discovered what they did. Civilization didn’t start with whites. The torch has been passed around quite a bit over the last 10,000 years, it happens that whites have contributed the most over the last 500 years. If you go back much further, someone else contributed the most at whatever their time was and they could make the same type of claims. Every group that’s at the top of their era thinks they are the pinnacle of advancement and nobody will ever be more advanced than they are.

  8. That’s a bit simplistic and exaggerated. The Arabs inherited what they passed on mostly from the ancient Greeks with a lot of help from their connections to Iran and Turkey, owing to the former Byzantine influence in that region. If you’re talking about the ancient Greeks, they had some influence from Egypt (which wasn’t Arab, hard to say if they were White or not, depending on your definition of White, I’d say at the least Caucasoid and part White), Sumer, etc. but they came up with most of their ground breaking stuff on their own and largely due to the fact that they were able to achieve relative isolation to develop themselves.

    So you do have a point with Arabs preserving parts of Greek civilization that would have been lost, but on the other hand, without the Greeks it would have never been.

    NW Euros owe a lot to S. Euros, but really only Euros have been following in the tradition of Classical Civilization for much longer than 500 years with the exception of a relatively brief “Arab Renaissance,” when they started reading and taking seriously Greek manuscripts.

    There are times when other civilizations have been dominant in some aspects, but none have been able to match the radical cultural and scientific heights of Whites.

    1. Ok so Whites have reached great heights in technological advances and cultural advances. But do you acknowledge that whites benefited from many inventions from Asia? Whereas how many inventions benefited Asians from whites before the last 500 years? In the last 500+ years, yes it’s been all White lol. But what about prior to these past 500 years? And Asians not being innovative is a strange stereotype when you look at inventions from China alone. And I thought the Mayans developed a form of astronomy as well as the Egyptians prior to contact with Whites.

      But what is the premise of stating the greatness of the white race as a collective? For instance when you look at inventors and brilliant scientists, how many come from Scotland or Ireland? How about Sweeden compared to Russia or Germany or America? When Russia got into outerspace I remember America needed Nazi scientists to assist them with space exploration. As far as I know different groups of whites have had different levels of success. You can’t just speak in such broad collective terms. Just like individuals have different levels of success and can’t/shouldn’t speak about his/her glorious collective.

    2. I don’t think it’s exaggerated. I was referring to previous cradles of civilization such as Sumeria and Egypt. If Southern Europeans hadn’t been exposed to that civilization that were in close proximity, they’d have been like the pre-Roman whites of N. Europe.

  9. Here’s a parallel question. Are men required for civilization beyond the obvious of reproduction?

    Given that women have pretty close to the same IQs as men, why have there been so few inventions or innovations that have come from women? Why are most Nobel Prize winners by far men? That doesn’t make sense does it?

    I will hear WNs say all the time, why have blacks accomplished nothing great in science? Well they must be unintelligent. How come they don’t say the same about white women?

  10. It is so surprised to read such a article, but only before I found that it is from a white nationalist. I think now most people in the West have agreed that the basic invention for a modern society were imported from Eastern countries, some appeared thousands before it appear in the West. Many so-called Western invention were actually originated in the Asian and Middle East countries, especially China, then developed by Westerners and came back to Asia as European inventions, as a time when Asia stagnated.
    The so-called seven Wonders of the World, all are of Western civilization, were small in scale if being compared to Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern, Central Asian and even Maya structures.
    I should list here some basic inventions and advanced things from East Asia which Europe has adopted:
    Modern governmental structure:
    1. Modern centralised governmental structure, with Prime minister and ministers for Education, Defence and Industry: originated in China perhaps since Han dynasty.
    2. Meritocracy system: only in China, Vietnam and Korea. It did not exist in the Western societies until around 19th century, while started in China since early Han dynasty (around 100BC). The national civil examination were held every 3 years and only people who passed the exam could become a mandarin.
    In China and Vietnam, there were absolutely no aristocracy and existed very subtle form of slavery. The grandson of a farmer could become prime minister if he had talent and the grandson of a prime minister became a farmer if he was stupid. Can you imagine how modern societies look like if they still adopt aristocracy system like Europe.
    Modern economy:
    3. Bank note and credit note: all appeared in China hundreds years before Europe
    4. Basic form of banking system
    Modern weapons
    5. Fire weapons: landmines, rocket launchers, naval mines, muskette, cannon, etc were invented by either Chinese or Korea. Just google for “Huolongjing” or “Korea ancient inventions”.
    Modern daily amenities
    6. Daily Newspaper:
    7. Printed book
    Modern technology
    8. Many agricutural technologies imported from China to Europe so the European could increase their harvest.
    Modern science:
    9. Many science terms, like Pascal triangle in mathematic, were invented in China hundreds years before in Europe.
    And many more, like vaccinating methods, mechanical clocks, etc…

    All these invention are essential, without which, there will be no modern societies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)