More Silly Black Nationalist Arguments

A Black nationalist in the comments continues to make arguments that hold little to no real world value these days. His post required a considerable edit for grammar, punctuation and spelling.

So says a white man, the most dangerous race of people to ever walk the earth, responsible for two world wars which nearly destroyed humanity. The Soviet Union alone murdered over 70 million between 1917 and the early 1950s (Oops but that was organized), not forgetting the 20 plus million Hitler’s bloodletting was responsible for (Oops but that was organized). If you want to learn about rape on a mass scale, learn about what the white Germans did in Namibia at the turn of the 20th century (Oops but that was organized).Seems like you already know every single imperfection in the black race. The media, comedians, Hollywood, and the general public, do their bit to ensure no stone is unturned when it comes to black people. However I have noticed an effort from certain whites to sanitize your own history. Whites never talk about how in the 20th century tens of millions died of starvation in Europe, mostly because of a deliberate effort from others, but you often talk of the hundreds of thousands who have died in African famines or Rwanda.
The wars which caused tens of millions of lives in the 20th century are presented just as an historical fact – little mention is made of the fact these tens of millions of lives were taken mainly by white men at arms. But a lot of time of yours is spent talking about wars in Africa, which have seen a fraction as many lives lost.
We hear a lot about poverty in the black community, but most white Americans are extremely reluctant to mention the fact 90% of them (possibly most on Myspace) are the blood line of thousands of years of European peasantry. You will talk endlessly of the advancement of Europe of the ancient Greeks, and how European technology far surpasses that of other races.
But you were never a part of any of it. The Europeans who were advanced, who were elite, who had money, who had wealth are still by and large in Europe! The British royal family still reside in Britain, as do thousands of Lords, Ladies and aristocrats. But millions of peasants from Britain and beyond are now living in America. It’s a sanitized history, which I guess is necessary, for whites to continue the white illusion of a racial superiority when deep down it’s the racial inferiority.

OK here we go. There were no 70 million murdered in the USSR between 1917-1953.
I will acknowledge 3.3 million killings or murders by the state during this period.
There were no famines that killed millions in Europe in the past century. Can you point some out to me?
The point of all of this is a little mysterious. Ok, so Whites have killed more? So what? We also have the best weaponry and most advanced killing machines.
You also touch on an interesting point. The worst murderers of the past century were people who thought themselves superior to everyone else – the German and Japanese fascists. Some race realists would say that they are better than everyone else. So we can see the danger that supremacism can lead to some serious mass slaughter of those deemed inferiors.
The main point is how is the fact that we are the biggest killers important to me in my life? It is not. Whites are the biggest killers. Ok. So I should fear them then right? But I do not. I don’t fear going to White places in the US or in general to White countries outside the US. There’s not a lot of crime to be afraid of, and at the moment, there is no Organized Violence going on in White countries.
You say Blacks have killed fewer. Ok, fine. But how does that affect me? According to this logic, I should be less afraid of Blacks than I am of Whites, since Whites are vastly more dangerous than Blacks. Yet I am afraid of going to Black areas in the US and am afraid of going to many Black countries in the US and Africa. And that fear is based on reasonable things. I am much more in danger from Black people on this Earth than I am from White people. And I have the facts to back that up.
So your argument is little more than empty theorizing. It has little to no real world value. It’s just something to make Blacks feel good and Whites feel bad for no real good reason.
History is history. It’s over, dead and gone. All that matters is now and honestly the future.
Whites have gotten over the mass killing thing, and there have been few wars in Europe in the past 60 years. The only one I can think of was in the Balkans. 200,000 people died there.
Africans have not gotten over the mass killing thing. When will they? Ever? In 30 years max I will be dead. There will have been few to no wars in Europe in that period and many wars in Africa. When I die, Africans will still be slaughtering each other away in mass violence. When are they going to knock it off? Ever?
America has been leading the way in inventions and innovation for some time now. The Europeans pull their weight too. So most Americans are from peasant stock, if that’s even true? My mother’s line is from royalty. I’ve also heard that most Americans are descended from royalty if you go back far enough, because most everyone else’s lines died off. But why does this matter? If we come from royalty or peasant stock, it’s not important in terms of our innovations and progress.
Sure, only a few Whites were the authors of this tech, but that’s always going to be the case. What matter is this? What is important is the achievements of a civilization, not the % of geniuses there, or what % of the population was brilliant enough to be an inventor.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

6 thoughts on “More Silly Black Nationalist Arguments”

  1. Um, what? Obviously this guy is an idiot, so this is shooting fish in a barrel.
    However, 3.3 million murdered by the USSR? No serious person who is not a Bolshevik/Stalinist apologist believes that.
    We can certainly debate exactly what the number is — and smart people have been doing that a great deal over the last 20 years now that some Soviet archives are available — but the Ukrainian famine of 1933-34 killed at least 3 million alone (and possibly 5 million or more, hard to say with any precision). And that doesn’t count the Great Purge, the USSR’s appalling treatment of minorities during 1939-45 (ask the Poles, Balts and Chechens, among others, about how much fun malnourished slave labor in Siberia was), etc. A half-million PER YEAR died at Kolyma from overwork and disease during the worst years in the 1940s.
    So, really, do some research.
    As for famines in Europe, the Allied-caused famine in Germany and Austria-Hungary ca 1915-1918 killed over a million civilians, while the famines that tore through the USSR-in-development during the Russian Civil War ca 1917-1921 killed millions — again, we really don’t know how many.
    I am a proud White, but facts matter.

  2. “Africans have not gotten over the mass killing thing. When will they? Ever?”
    I don’t know. Maybe when the West/North stops looting the continent and fomenting/supporting genocidal wars?
    The USA role and AFRICOM
    Evidence which was presented in a French court in a ruling made public in 2006 claimed that Kagame was responsible for organizing the shooting down of the plane carrying Hutu President of Rwanda, Juvénal Habyarimana, in April 1994, the event that set off the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of thousands of people both Hutu and Tutsi.
    The end result of the killings in which perhaps as many as a million Africans perished was that US and UK backed Paul Kagame—a ruthless military dictator trained at the US Army Command-General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth Kansas—was firmly in control as dictator of Rwanda. Since then he has covertly backed repeated military incursions by General Nkunda into the mineral-rich Kivu region on the pretext it was to defend a small Tutsi minority there. Kagame had repeatedly rejected attempts to repatriate those Tutsi refugees back to Rwanda, evidently fearing he might lose his pretext to occupy the mineral riches of Kivu.
    Since at least 2001 according to reports from Congo sources, the US military has also had a base at Cyangugu in Rwanda, built of course by Dick Cheney’s old firm, Halliburton, conveniently enough near the border to Congo’s mineral-rich Kivu region.
    The 1994 massacre of civilians between Tutsi and Hutu was, as Canadian researcher, Michel Chossudovsky described it, ‘an undeclared war between France and America. By supporting the build up of Ugandan and Rwandan forces and by directly intervening in the Congolese civil war, Washington also bears a direct responsibility for the ethnic massacres committed in the Eastern Congo including several hundred thousand people who died in refugee camps.’ He adds, ‘Major General Paul Kagame was an instrument of Washington. The loss of African lives did not matter. The civil war in Rwanda and the ethnic massacres were an integral part of US foreign policy, carefully staged in accordance with precise strategic and economic objectives.’
    Washington pumped military aid into Kagame’s army, and U.S. Army Special Forces and other military personnel trained hundreds of Rwandan troops. But Kagame and his colleagues had designs of their own. While the Green Berets trained the Rwandan Patriotic Army, that army was itself secretly training Zairian rebels… [In] Rwanda, U.S. officials publicly portrayed their engagement with the army as almost entirely devoted to human rights training. But the Special Forces exercises also covered other areas, including combat skills… Hundreds of soldiers and officers were enrolled in U.S. training programs, both in Rwanda and in the United States… [C]onducted by U.S. Special Forces, Rwandans studied camouflage techniques, small-unit movement, troop-leading procedures, soldier-team development, [etc]… And while the training went on, U.S. officials were meeting regularly with Kagame and other senior Rwandan leaders to discuss the continuing military threat faced by the [former Rwandan] government [in exile] from inside Zaire… Clearly, the focus of Rwandan-U.S. military discussion had shifted from how to build human rights to how to combat an insurgency…
    The civil war in Rwanda was a brutal struggle for political power between the Hutu-led Habyarimana government supported by France and the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) backed financially and militarily by Washington. Ethnic rivalries were used deliberately in the pursuit of geopolitical objectives. Both the CIA and French intelligence were involved.
    In the words of former Cooperation Minister Bernard Debré in the government of Prime Minister Henri Balladur:
    “What one forgets to say is that, if France was on one side, the Americans were on the other, arming the Tutsis who armed the Ugandans. I don’t want to portray a showdown between the French and the Anglo-Saxons, but the truth must be told.” 43
    In addition to military aid to the warring factions, the influx of development loans played an important role in “financing the conflict.” In other words, both the Ugandan and Rwanda external debts were diverted into supporting the military and paramilitary.

    I can’t imagine West Africans were too different from these other small scale gardening societies pictured here. It’s true that they couldn’t feed and sustain many people and so did things on a small scale though. But is their lack of ability to build large scale societies admirable? (Not that I think that Europeans built the societies they did purely because of a genetic advantage but because of material advantages with which a genetic advantage may have coevolved – for instance Africans do and did have a higher disease burden than Europeans at the same level of population).
    “most white Americans are extremely reluctant to mention the fact 90% of them are the blood line of thousands of years of European peasantry”
    True enough, but the demographic replacement of the poor by the elite was to some extent true, both in Africa and Europe. The (ludicrous on the face of it, looking at anything but their arrogance, loudness, pomposity and belligerence) African claim to be “descended from kings” has some truth in it. Having lots of kids is a luxury you can afford when you steal from everyone at swordpoint and some of those kids end up having to do non-elite jobs. Similarly, to hear this fellow talk, European peasants lived more squalid lives than the African gardeners – in a sense this is true in that they were probably up against the limit of starvation more often, since they couldn’t count on disease to thin out their numbers so often, but is largely nonsense and at least the European men worked (unlike the male palaverers of the garden agricultural systems in Africa).

    1. “arrogance, loudness, pomposity and belligerence” – actually this sounds too anti-Black. Black people are only a bit like this, not a lot, and these negative traits are balanced out a bit by higher extraversion and self confidence.

  4. It just doesn’t seem like there were enough people around to be killed at such a rate. Tons were killed in WWII, but the growth rate, while higher than much of western Europe, was not extravagant, and Russia’s population was not higher than it is today (though not much lower), so the numbers must somehow be contrived. Plus, the birthrate fell quickly. Most of the deaths then were probably similar to now, as well, due not to Stalin or the Soviet Union, per se, but probably mostly to alcoholism, murder and easy abortions—what have been killing Russians off like flies over the last 20 yrs.

Leave a Reply

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


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)