2 November, 2007

More Trouble in Africa

Posted by Socrates in Africa, race, Socrates at 2:43 pm | Permanent Link

Here’s some trivia: over the past 50 years, Africa has regressed. Despite massive Western aid, daily life there is getting worse. Why? For one thing, many Whites have left that country. The European colonies in Senegal, Zambia, etc., are gone. The White-ruled governments of South Africa and Rhodesia are only a memory. If Blacks are equal to Whites – as the Jews and liberals claim – why can’t they fend for themselves? (Note: a Black columnist wrote in 2002 that Blacks were better off under colonialism) [1][2]:

[Article].

[1] a mention of British and French colonies in Africa: [Here]

[2] Williams’ 2002 column: [Here]


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 04/15/17 South Africa: Whites Could Be Facing Trouble 68% similar
  3. 11/25/13 Africa: The Horror Continues in Zimbabwe 66% similar
  4. 03/13/10 Two Films About Whites in Africa 54% similar
  5. 12/01/13 The Jewing of South Africa 53% similar
  6. 02/28/18 The Negroes in South Africa Just Cut Their Own Throats (It Figures) at the Expense of Whites 52% similar
  7. 11 Responses to “More Trouble in Africa”

    1. Brian Gareth Martivale Says:

      Maybe some day the “intellectuals” will finally figure out that lack of money and resources aren’t the problems in Africa. In fact, giving them money and resources exacerbates the problem. Why? Because white medicine and food keeps them alive longer, therefore they make more African babies. Since Africans are the problem, the problem grows exponentially. Had America left Africa alone, there would be seven million people starving there. Because the U.S. “helped,” there are 30 million starving there. Of course, Jews don’t care if they’re starving. They just want the numbers to grow.

    2. Arminius Says:

      At last good news from Africa! The niggers wanted to be left to their own devices and nature takes care of them. Hopefully Christian and related do-gooders do not try to interfere with God’s will.

    3. Michael Mavros Says:

      African epidemic? “Cry me a river”.

    4. Wolf Says:

      I’m very much indifferent to the plight of these subsaharan blacks.

      I can honestly say that if the majestic lion, noble elephant or the peaceful gorilla were suffering like these blacks I would be alarmed and willing to donate to a wildlife preservation fund. They are innocent and amazing creatures who’s disappearance would be a loss to the world.

      Why do I feel that way?

      Does it make me a bad guy?

    5. r Says:

      All reports of epidemics, genocides, disasters and famines are exaggerated, if not simply made up. In an urban culture the mythological white farmer of WN fame contributes little to the subsistence of the black population or a general rise in the living standard, even when openly courted for that purpose (Zambia’s invitation to Rhodesian farmers). The populations of Africa exist now more or less as they always have, with a few differences of modern technology (guns, apartment blocks, hospitals). When you see that old Sudanese lady squinting through her the flies collecting on her wrinkled eyelids, you are seeing a type that has persisted in just that fashion for millennia, and short of bringing her here, always will. Europeans of the so-called middle ages and the early modern era went through much worse hardships, and all they had to rely on for aid was the sporadic goodwill of their rulers and religious potentates. African suffering is not a myth — it’s rather a part of the European “gaze”, which by beholding the African’s naturally low estate gives to both himself and the African an awareness of economic contrast, impelling the European downward (in fits of remorse and philanthropy) and the African upward (in dreams of emigration and blame of the white man). When it is said that Africans were “better off under colonialism”, this means: Africans were better off domestically, better fed, the material benefits of urban centralization and rural technology filtered down on them, they were “well-kept”. It is precisely this, however, which has strengthened the contrast inherent in European gaze. When WNs cynically remark that niggers were “better off under white government”, they are in fact assenting to the status of blacks as the wards of the Aryan state, rather than its eternal contradiction. Niggers were – from this perspective – much worse off under white government: not because they were vassals, and with no regard to their material well-being, rather because they were lifted out of the natural low state of nigger life, and now must suffer the horrible contrast of being deprived of such amenities as were granted them under white government, this contrast becoming embedded in the white man’s conception of Africa (as permanently in a state of meltdown, crisis, dire need, etc.) with the help of the nihilistic Jew.

      The matter if useless from either angle, left or right, crocodile tears shed for no one who is really suffering more than their people have in the past.

    6. sgruber Says:

      R, do you mean to say that the facts are exaggerated or that our “gaze” misinterprets the facts as being unnatural emergencies?

      The fact remains, that without all that Western aid for a couple of centuries, “slavery” and colonialism then and milk and plumbing now, not as many of these things would have existed or would exist. Look at any SA nigger.

      There is an intriguing alternative theory which states that Western “remorse and philanthropy” were not more than disguised aggression and eventually genocided whatever area of Africa they touched. Peace corps = Nazis? But that theory is more complicated and so would require much special evidence. Whereas fattening from food is plain.

      Now what’s this about “the European gaze”? How does a nigger seeing White man goodies and feeling envious become a European fault?

      When I hear “lenses” and “gazes” outside an opthamologist’s office, I disable the safety on my revolver.

      There is a solution to the jewish problem.

    7. r Says:

      R, do you mean to say that the facts are exaggerated or that our “gaze” misinterprets the facts as being unnatural emergencies?

      Both. There is also the deliberate effort by Jews to construct the picture of Africa as constantly in crisis or need.

      The fact remains, that without all that Western aid for a couple of centuries, “slavery” and colonialism then and milk and plumbing now, not as many of these things would have existed or would exist.

      My point is that technology has only served to throw into greater contrast their basically uncreative station.

      Peace corps = Nazis?

      Ha. Well, if you’ve ever had to deal with Peace Corps people, you’ll know there’s some truth to that, or rather their disagreeable personalities – usually Belgian or German girls – correspond to the disagreeable sentiments called up by the marker “Nazi”. As far as aggression and genocide, that is of course a leftist absurdity. But just here it is also possible to mention “European gaze” as corrupting the negro no matter to what end it is directed, exploitation of labor or the need to exercise a sense of “fairness”. Wherever such organizations go, they create a culture of begging and expectation. If you read old travelogues, like from the 19thC., you don’t read about native kids pawing travelers for “monay monay monay”, for example. This is because they were not artificially raised to capitalist awareness by white infrastructure. When the Spaniards settled in Hispaniola and along the South American coast, their biggest problem with the natives, they found, was that they had no conception of money — so how could they entice them to work for it? This necessitated compulsory labor. The point is, “white technology” is not the unquestionable good the sentiment “blacks were better off under whites” would make it seem. (I would say that blacks were better off under plantation slavery, but that is another matter entirely.)

      How does a nigger seeing White man goodies and feeling envious become a European fault?

      I wasn’t saying that, exactly. But the effect is the same: the savage is turned into a beggar, a suppliant for western services and technology, while the westerner is turned into a voyeur of played-up non-white suffering.

    8. r Says:

      When I hear “lenses” and “gazes” outside an opthamologist’s office, I disable the safety on my revolver.

      I know what you mean, believe me. I used the word ironically, but it does work.

    9. r Says:

      To put a finer point on all this: Hidden within the sentiment that “blacks were better off under whites (in Africa)” is an endorsement of capitalism and consumerism, that is, blacks as otiose, well-kept wards of the Aryan state. This is in contrast, as I alluded above, to the plantation system which in form is actually closer to proudhonian anarchism, despite its exclusive reliance on foreign labor. What you have, then, is the same antagonism between cultural systems which led to the Civil War — which was not so much fought for the sake of equalitarian idealism but to settle the contest of power between these two very different systems. In effect, by endorsing the white African welfare state, one is throwing in with the North, with centralization, Federalism, etc. This also obviates the question: Is such a system good for whites themselves? And here the matter of obesity (“fattening” as you put it) does come into play, for as we know, it is common among African-Americans, whereas it is not among Africans themselves, nor was it under white rule. All we need do to get the clearest conception of the benefits of the welfare state (and that, despite the limitations of apartheid, is what white African rule amounted to) is review what Africans have become on our own shore. Would you say that Africans are better off in any but the most miserable materialistic sense under the craven solicitude of Jew-warped goyish American government? Urbanization, consumerism, enfranchisement are the results of this system — the product is our own beloved domestic nigger.

    10. sgruber Says:

      Would you say that Africans are better off in any but the most miserable materialistic sense under the craven solicitude of Jew-warped goyish American government?

      No. You blasted that pretty well. The races are better off separate.

    11. Arminius Says:

      thank you sgruber and r, your civilized, noble, refined, elegant debate is an intellectual feast and a credit to VNN.