Random Shootings: What’s Whitey’s Problem?

guns
The West’s Gift To The World

Denver, Colorado. Yesterday, yet another unknown white American opened fire on some of his fellow citizens, apparently at random. He attended a premier of the latest Batman movie, threw a smoke grenade, and strolled around shooting (apparently)  complete strangers. This story is so familiar, as is the aftermath: arguments over gun control, heated discussions over why people do this, sick jokes. But who can blame the jokers? We’ve been round this loop so many times before – what else is there to say?

This – and I mean people opening fire on random strangers with no apparent political target or goal – is overwhelmingly an American phenomenon. I found a list of notable school shootings on Wikipedia and crunched some numbers (I realise that this one wasn’t a school shooting, but I wanted a quick global comparison of such events, and this was the first reliable-looking resource I found).

Here’s a breakdown of the above list:

  • USA (current pop: 312m) : 118
  • Canada (pop:34m): 11
  • Europe (pop: 738m): 22
  • South America, Asia and Australia (pop: 4572m): 13
  • Africa isn’t mentioned: although it’s a continent where many horrors have occurred over the past century, kids walking into school with guns and spraying their classmates with bullets may not be among them.

A European like myself may start by smugly noting just how much more prevalent such events are in North America. But this is to miss a wider point. It seems that the “white world” has a random violence problem; factoring in the one incident in Australia, only 7.5% of these incidents happened in Asia or South America, regions comprising well over half of the world’s population (this ignores that two of the “Asian” incidents took place in Israel, which is effectively a European colony too – I didn’t check whether these Israeli incidents were “classic” school shootings, or the result of the Israel/Palestine land struggle).

It is Europe, and its diaspora, that has claimed the moral authority to dominate, invade, bully, occupy, bomb and manipulate the rest of the world’s populations for the past 500 years or so. The collapse of the European empires didn’t end this behaviour, but merely shifted the centre of the Empire from London, Paris and Berlin to Washington DC. Indeed, America has been relentless in pursuing the same claims that Europe had once made: Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Lebanon, Libya, Iran – these (and their resources) were all territories jealously claimed by European powers before the new American Empire came into being.

This article isn’t about analysing why events like yesterday’s in Denver happen – I’m sure even as I write, thousands of blog posts have been published on that subject. I’m merely pointing out what should be obvious: not only does the “Western World” (aka white world) not have the moral authority for its endless wars and occupations; it lacks any moral authority at all. Most of the huge slaughters in the past few centuries have been carried out by Europeans or their descendents; and even those few that weren’t – the Cambodian killing fields or the Rwandan genocide – have Whitey’s fingerprints all over them (America’s secret Cambodian war led directly to the Killing Fields, and The French, Belgians and the Vatican were squarely in the frame for Rwanda).

This shooting is a reminder of something that most of the world is never allowed to forget: the violence that is so much more implicit in European cultures than almost any other (an excellent book, Dark Continent, looks in more depth at this truth). Westerners have deep trouble understanding or believing this, despite the endless wealth of evidence surrounding us. Even today, far-right agitators attempt to persuade us that it is the Muslim world, not us, that is the threat to world peace; a precursor to persuading morons that yet more white violence, just one last push against Iran, or Venezuela perhaps, is the answer to the problems facing the planet.

It’s time for Whitey to get some self-knowledge. When the European diaspora ends its eternal blood lust, the world will take a huge step towards civilisation. While America is incapable of stopping crazy, gun-wielding morons from shooting up schools, McDonald’s or cinemas, how can it possibly justify having military bases (undeclared occupations) in over 150 countries?

25 thoughts on “Random Shootings: What’s Whitey’s Problem?”

  1. The differences in the way cultures lash out was mentioned in books by Eric van Lustbader. Interestingly when comparing cultures where a Japanese might commit Seppuku Americans would externalise their anger/depression and shoot others. When an author recognises issues in his own culture it dos suggest their is a bigger problem.

    Loving the morons who are going on that the audience should have been armed then the shooting would have been over quicker. Can imagine 200 people in a darkened room with guns.

    1. Tony: That’s 200 PANICKING, untrained people in a dark, smokey room, with guns. What fun that would be!

  2. As yet we don’t know why this person went on a killing spree. But what we do know is that violence is not unique to ethnic Europeans. Around the world there are examples of appalling violence visited by people upon people. In this incident it is shocking because, despite everything, we generally expect the USA to be a safe rational place. If someone in Baghdad walked into a cinema and killed some people, we wouldn’t be so shocked because we basically expect it. Is this US person any more insane than another who might claim some justification based upon an allegedly holy text?
    We know that if immature & unbalanced people have access to weapons then there are likely to be similar incidents, and they will find some justification for their acts.
    BTW The Israeli cases are both incidents where “non-white” Palestinians kill large numbers of “white” Israelis.
    Despite the vast reporting of this incident around the world many other people will have been killed and wounded, but it will not be reported, as its simply not newsworthy if one bunch of non-white people slaughter & maim another lot of non-white people. Pls see this link to interactive homicide map http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

  3. It looks to me that the percentage of people in each group is roughly the same. The reason that there are more shootings in America seems to be because there are more people .

  4. @RS Davies

    I was going to say that I thought @moronwatches chosen measure of violence was (and thus his conclusionswere) ill chosen. If for no other reason that the fact that South American and African nations have some of the highest homocide rates in the world. You were kind enough to provide a source @RS Davies, but this was of those facts/stats that was ratteling around in my head anyway.

    It might be reasonable to assert that Europe has excelled historically, and the USA and UK (and Europe?) continue to excel contemporaniously at organised, state sponsored violence. Often times painted, unjustly, as just wars of defence and principle. It would be quit unreasonable to assume some ethnic or cultural root to this. There are pyschopaths amidst every culture, and they tend to weasle their way into powerful positions. If South American and African nations had the sort of millitary power and economic clout (and it’s not for lack of trying) that the USA and UK have, I’ve no doubt that they’d be excerting their influence on the world stage in similarly odious ways. We’re just starting to see this with China; she’s building up her navy at a rapid pace and exerting herself in the South China sea vigourously. Thankfully this has thus far involved nought but a few minor skirmishes over tiny uninhabited island chains, but mark my words, China will be the next great empire (short of unforeseeable geopolitical shifts) and it will throw its weight around every bit as ‘liberally’ as the USA has.

    It’s not ‘whitey’ or the anglosphere/eurosphere were need to be worried about per se; it’s amoral buckets of empathically-challenged pus who creep to the top of every political power structure, in every nation across this globe (white, black, yellow, red, green, pink or blue).

    @Alex B

    It would be far more interesting to see how this numbers stack up against the number of guns in circulation in each jurisdiction (i.e. gun related homocides vs legal guns, illegal guns and both combined). The number iof illegal guns in circulation might be difficult to quantify precisely (being contraband) but there must be reasonably accurate estimations.

  5. While a country like South Africa might be statistically regarded as one of the most violent societies in the world, this type of interpersonal violence is clearly not common at all here. It is not common either in the region from the information available so far and I don’t see how this specific type of violence can become common place. Most personal anger that could turn this violent is usually against the state or some sub-system. So the article does make a lot of sense!

    1. Thwadi/Anubeon. There are cultural as well as political aspects to behaviour. I’ve walked streets of wealthy US cities and poor African ones. The feeling is different. America gives out a palpable hostility/distrust at every level. Africa doesn’t (although, I wouldn’t include Joburg as a typical African city – it’s more American in feel, to me).

  6. “Thwadi/Anubeon. There are cultural as well as political aspects to behaviour”

    I never meant to imply this, so apologies if I’ve led you to that inference. I just think it unfair (and frankly rather offensive) to extrapolate wildly the behaviour of a handful of individuals to an entire culture and/or ethnic grouping, especially when other metrics of violence suggest precisely the opposite conclusion. I also find it rather odd that you skim over South America, whose cultural origins owe a lot to Europe (Iberia in particular) and whose track record on organised violence is significant.

    I’ll grant you that this kind of emotive, irrational violent outburst, wherein the disgruntled take a gun to all and sundry, appears relatively commonplace in the USA. But your own states show that it is far less so in Europe proper, and there is (I suspect) there’s something in the reportage bias that @RS Davies alluded earlier. How much data do we have from Asia and South Africa? How reliable is it? Is this kind of crime ever likely to make it into mainstream and western media outlets and/or research?

    I can certainly see an historical (and continuing) aggression in ‘European’ nations on the world stage. However, as I alluded to above, I ascribe this to means rather than mentality per se. I feel confided in saying that were many of the petty dictators of Africa and South America (past and present) had the sort of military might that the USA, UK and western powers have, they’d be rampaging around the world securing oil pipelines and imposing their national interests on every Tom, Dick and Harry unfortunate enough, or with enough temerity, to get in their way.

    On the individual level, I’m not sure that you’ve convinced me of anything other than that the lack of a rigid honour code (such as in Japan) leads to a failure of individuals to regulate their rage and turn it inwards. Of course neither (a strict honour code that enforces ritual suicide nor a propensity, for whatever reason, to ‘go postal’) is particularly admirable, but you’re a long way off proving (to me at least) that ‘going postal’ is a uniquely European/American/White thing.

    What might be useful it to see reliable homicide data (incidences rather than deaths) plotted against certain variables like guns in general circulation (legally and/or illegally) per nation/region, the price of guns (both on the legal and black markets) per national/regional economy, and socio-economic factors such as inequality (Gini indices). This would be far more compelling than the above data points, which I’m afraid prove very little if anything (the myriad variables could lead to numerous conclusions from this).

    Finally, to blame the US and the west for the atrocities in Cambodia and Rwanda is a little specious (though it certainly has it’s foundations, and I won’t deny that the former played a significant role in setting the stage for these events). Ultimately, these atrocities were undertaken by local forces of non-white ethnic origin. There were no white CIA commanders on the ground, leading the charge; no Catholic clergy (as much as I despise the Catholic church) leading the tribal rabbles to slaughter their traditional tribal foe. At the very least cases like Cambodia and Rwanda point to a latent violence, and a propensity to lash out at ‘the other’ (whether that be another class, another tribe, another ethnic group or just other peoples in general) in times of stress (whether entirely fuelled by political rhetoric, as I believe was the case in Cambodia and perhaps Rwanda, though resource strains played a role in the latter I’m sure). This is a disturbing trait, but it’s one common to all human populations, and we forget that at our peril.

    “Tony: That’s 200 PANICKING, untrained people in a dark, smokey room, with guns. What fun that would be!”

    The NRA’s and gun nuts various pronouncements in this vein are ‘hilarious’. If anything, the USA is a case study in precisely how liberalisation of gun laws can lead to a more violent society. 200 panicking civilians, armed, in a dark room? Can the NRA say ‘mass murder-suicide’?

  7. RS Davies and others using the “this happens all over the world” argument. Of course this is true… but that doesn’t mean it’s evenly distributed. In fact, fear and hate of one’s fellow man is deeply embedded in the psyche of some cultures, and largely absent from others. Europeans (in the widest sense) have an outlook on the world far more hostile to that of other cultures. There are many examples to give, but here’s one: Spain under Moorish rule specifically defended minority rights, including the right of Jews and other minority religions to worship. When Spain returned to European rule, those rights were brutally crushed. That has nothing to do with commercial/imperial imperatives, but simply contrasts two different cultures and their views of those different to themselves.

  8. Nope, I’m sorry, I’m still not convinced @moronwatch.

    There are countless modern examples of inter-tribal conflict (often long standing and frozen in culture) outside of Europe (Indonesia, Africa, Papua New Guinea, etc). These, of course, tend to be more prevalent within rural communities, where tribal identity is rooted (quite literally) in the (small) tribe, rather than the nation, city or the religion. There’s nothing unique about European tribalism (whether inward or outward facing) and all of these non-European tribal conflicts have one thing in common with European tribalism, specifically a sense of superiority (patriotism if you will) comparative to the ‘enemy’ tribe. Europe has advanced somewhat beyond small tribal identity (though not entirely; I remember as a teenager being browbeaten by my friends for confirming to a bunch of Hatfield youths that I was from Welwyn Garden City – apparently this was/is a rivalry there. Go figure) and towards larger tribal identities (primary identification with ones city, ones nation, ones religion or even ones football team). All in all I see little unique about European attitudes to ‘the other’, except perhaps a little snobbery towards the third world (a trait that I do not share, I can assure you. I still don’t quite understand why I should disdain of people from Hatfield). I fear though (and there’s no way to conclusively prove this) that were, for example, China or Africa the central loci for the industrial revolution and the various innovations and economic benefits it brought with it, those cultures would be as snobbish and paternal towards a hypothetically third world Europe as Europe is towards them now.

    Also, if you have to resort to pre-enlightenment Spain (and I don’t think you do, to be honest) for examples of such European tribalism your argument is surely faltering, no? The inhospitality of Spain (etc.) towards non-Catholic groupings was, I contend, imperial (just a tad). It stemmed from an ‘artificial’ tribal construct in the form of Catholicism, which has so often been used as a cudgel to enforce submission to Rome in the past that it gives me a headache just thinking about it. It is of course correct, and indeed speaks well of the Moors (and the medieval Islamic world in general IIRC) that they were more tolerant of other religions. However, let’s not pretend that they were devoid of their own tribal prejudices. They were not so tolerant of polytheists, atheists and any other non-‘people of the book’. Now in many respects it’s impossible to separate religious and secular culture, especially when the religion in question enforced itself so vehemently into the public and political spheres. The Catholic church, it’s attitudes and its various off-shoots (and their attitudes) now doubt impact on European culture to this day. Since a core Catholic attitude was a sense of superiority, a desire to proselytise and convert and a desire for Catholic/European-World hegemony (all very much interwoven and interdependent), this invariably rears its ugly head in European culture(s) even today. However, with the enlightenment and the growing secularisation of Europe (though admittedly, not the USA, with their evangelist traditions very much intact) these aspects of European culture are very much dulled and I’d contend now are nothing special contrasted with global attitudes to ‘the other’. The last remaining vessel for such attitudes (namely overt imperialism) has died a death and with its death went the kind of overt ‘racism’ and dehumanisation that fuelled many a European atrocity (contrast, for examples, modern views of the Japanese with those of pre-WW2 Europe). Of course imperialism, or its covert younger brother capitalist globalisation still exists, and its political masters invariable seek to dehumanise those who are inconvenient to its goals. However, it’s loci is only centred on ‘European’ cultures (mainly the USA) because they got in their first. Give it another 20-30 years and you’ll see similar attitudes and foreign policy out of China and India (such attitudes can already be seen in Argentina, perhaps to an overinflated sense of their own importance).

    Anyway, I fear I’ve descended into incoherent rambling. I don’t think either of us is in a position to prove our points, culture being so mutable, qualitative and intangible a concept. It’s all just so much conjecture, correlating culture with… with… anything.

    I’m in need of a shower and a putting on of clothes such that when I head out to town I neither smell nor offend. So I must bid you adieu, for now @moronwatch. 🙂

  9. Anubeon. Saying violence is global is both true and irrelevant. The question is: statistically, are some cultures more violent than others? The answer is undoubtedly yes: Europeans are by the far the most violent culture in history.

    The reason for this was well explained by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel. Look at a world map; no continent is as geographically fragmented as Europe, with a jagged coastline and mountain ranges splitting up the continent. While China and Africa are a huge, unseparated spaces, Europe is a small, divided space. Therefore, China and Africa have had 1000s of years in which societies could develop without conflict, while Europe’s history has been one of endless conflict.

    This has shaped the cultures of the populations: it’s no accident that Europe developed military technology far beyond that of any other place on Earth.

    While Europe was developing ways to kill people, Africa was building the most stable societies on Earth, with the most complex languages and broad trading networks. These two continents show that human cultures can develop in very different ways, due to different geographies.

    You’re also very wrong to dismiss the Western hand in Cambodia and Rwanda. While Rwanda is more nuanced, Cambodia happened as a direct result of US intervention. It would not have happened otherwise.

  10. And BTW Anubeon – Japan is a very unique case in Asia, and a rare example of a highly militarised society outside the West.

  11. “The question is: statistically, are some cultures more violent than others? The answer is undoubtedly yes: Europeans are by the far the most violent culture in history.”

    @RS Davies has directed you to at least one objective metric, namely homocide rates, that indicate preciselt the opposite. So no, I don’t think it is ‘undoubtable’ that Europeans are a more violent culture. To suggest so is, if I may venture to say, an act of pure hubris on your part. Yes, Europe has been by far the more successful imperial force, but that does not translate to Europe being a more violent culture per se. Tribal warfare has been a mainstay of human history (and pre-history) whichever continent and culture your talking about. The South American empires were particularly fraught with it; smaller outlying tribes made tributaries of the central tribes (the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Incas, the Toltecs, etc) who most certainly resented their subjugation (many willingly joined forces with the conquistadors for example). Likewise the empires of Africa, though less well known to our (and certainly my) western minds, were quit brutal too. Much of the slave trade, for example, traces its origins to tribal conflict. Europeans largely (which isn’t to excuse the practice at all) purchased the already enslaved, rather than venturing into the interior actively enslaving.

    “The reason for this was well explained by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel. Look at a world map; no continent is as geographically fragmented as Europe, with a jagged coastline and mountain ranges splitting up the continent. While China and Africa are a huge, unseparated spaces, Europe is a small, divided space. Therefore, China and Africa have had 1000s of years in which societies could develop without conflict, while Europe’s history has been one of endless conflict.”

    I’m sorry, but this is just nonsense. I’ll certainly check out the reference you provide. But the notion that the whole world aside from Europe is comparatively peaceful (at least within it’s own bounds) is farcical. Europeans have been by far the more successful aggressors outside of the European theatre, I’ll grant you, and perhaps the earlier emergence of the nation state (or something approximating it) in Europe lead to more effective forms of warfare, but this notion of the ‘noble savage’ (not a term I enjoy or approve of by the way, just a useful turn of phrase) that you seem to be advancing is misguided to the extreme!

    One might just as well suggest, by the way, that the geological landscape of Europe would quell conflict as it would create natural borders making expansion and military conflict difficult. As I say, I’ll check out the above reference, but I’m far from convinced… that I’ll be convinced. 😉

    “This has shaped the cultures of the populations: it’s no accident that Europe developed military technology far beyond that of any other place on Earth.”

    Many of those technologies were developed by the Chinese, and it could also be argued that advances in optics and print (the former of which China did not have until much later, the later of which the Arab world shunned for clerical/religious reasons) as well as a European focus on trade (which was not shared in China, which while an expansive empire spent most of its time looking inwards and maintaining its huge internal bureaucracy rather than seeking out new relations and trading routes/partners) spurred the rapid development of technology (both civil and military) in Europe as contrasted with the rest of the world. So it could be contended that the convolution of these various events; acquiring optics from the Arabs, development of the printing press and cultural acceptance of the printed word (other calligraphy) as a means of disseminating knowledge far and wide, and a reliance or focus on trade to and from foreign lands; created a perfect storm for rapid technological development and (eventually) industrialisation. Yes, the rivalries of various European nations directed this innovation towards military applications, but I suggest the same would have happened had a similar ‘perfect storm’ occurred in North West Africa, or even China during certain periods in its history (China, like any large empire, was forged through warfare).

    “While Europe was developing ways to kill people, Africa was building the most stable societies on Earth, with the most complex languages and broad trading networks. These two continents show that human cultures can develop in very different ways, due to different geographies.”

    Stable societies? In Africa? I know for a fact that North Africa (and the area around Mali and the Saharah in particular) was abuzz with the rise and fall of aggressive empires throughout much of its history (and in particular throughout the medieval period). I can’t say I’m equally certain of the history of southern Africa (but Zimbabwe certainly draws its name from an empire which I assume had similar credentials and propensity towards violence as the Mali empire) but I suspect that it too lacked such a golden age of cultural unity and peace. Europe HAS been dominated by similar imperial jostling of course (especially throughout the medieval period, but also during classical antiquity) but their have been relatively peaceful cultures (such as the Celts) that mirror the sort of relative harmony you suggest. Sadly, in the case of the Celts and their like, their lands, peoples and cultures were overtaken by an aggressive Roman empire which has certainly left its mark on the continent. I suspect that there are similarly (relatively) harmonious cultures identifiable in the Americas, Asia and Africa (as well as the primitivism prevalent in pre-colonial Australasia and Amazonia. Although there is plenty of aggression their, see the Yanomami or the various tribes of Papau for example) but I also suspect (sadly) that they too were eventually dominated by aggressive outside cultures. Either absorbing the outsiders propensity for violence or being absorbed outright into the outsiders violent culture.

    “You’re also very wrong to dismiss the Western hand in Cambodia and Rwanda. While Rwanda is more nuanced, Cambodia happened as a direct result of US intervention. It would not have happened otherwise.”

    I wasn’t dismissing the western hand in Rwanda, and I though I made that rather clear. I simply asserted (quite rightly) that the feet on the ground, the ones doing the massacring, were not those said same Westerners. They may have played a role, they may have manipulated the politics, the economics and even played the class/culture tensions in those two nations like a harp (I know that the Belgians very much favoured divide and rule policies, for example, and that certainly played a role in Rwanda). However, if you’re going to draw causation for individual and irrational acts of violence in the West (and the USA in particular) and a perceived European aggressive streak, then I’m entirely within my rights to draw similar causation between acts of organised and/or spontaneous aggressive (such as Rwanda and Cambodia) and a perceived universality of HUMAN aggression across all cultures. Nobody forced the Rwandans to devolve into genocide, nobody forced Cambodians to turn inward and victimise their own urban kin. The West may well have laid some of the ground work, but you can’t turn an inherently peaceable culture to such savagery (and even if one were to accept the premise that such COULD be done, and that such WAS done in Rwanda and Cambodia, then one MUST accept the the populations in said nations are now themselves ‘Europeanised’ and equally as aggressive as European cultures today).

    “And BTW Anubeon – Japan is a very unique case in Asia, and a rare example of a highly militarised society outside the West.”

    Utterly irrelevant, given that my only reference to Japan was pre-war European attitudes towards them (which was superior and down right racist).

    I’m also only vaguely familiar with Japanese history from the early 19th century onwards. Whilst I certainly agree that (at least until the aftermath of WW2) Japan was a highly militarised society, I suspect that this arose from the introduction of European militarism and (perhaps just as importantly) European military technology into Japanese society from the early-mid 19th century onwards (Means breed militarism?). My understanding was that the samurai, those noted warrior, were largely a bureaucratised aristocracy (similar to what existed in imperial China) rather than the romanticised warriors we see depicted today. But as I say, my knowledge of Japanese history and the ins and out of their culture (both contemporary and modern) is far from complete.

    Everything I’ve read about world cultures (and I’ve read a fair bit into cultural anthropology – though not enough IMHO) suggests that European culture is nothing particularly unique. Europe just got ‘lucky’ when it came to the conditions of their development (which granted, are not entirely separate from culture, after all it was a cultural choice for Europe to embrace the printed word and trade as it did) and thus the relative pace and scope of their technological development. If China had chanced upon glass before porcelain (and thus developed optics) and had not sunk into a rut of bureaucratic managerialism (there was IIRC a brief period during the rule of a certain Emporer wherein China DID focus its attentions outwards. It didn’t last though) I dare say you and I would be typing in Chinese ideogams debating the relative aggression of far-eastern as contrasted to other cultures. We’d also have very, VERY tired fingers, MASSIVE keyboards and worn out compose keys. 😉

  12. “Only 500 years? The crusades were closer to 800 years ago.”

    He added the qualifier, “or so” @Bill. :-p

  13. I would counsel caution in citing historic non-European examples of non-violence. Islamic Spain despite the myths that have been built up was a a violent apartheid society in which non-Muslims soon discovered their error if they stepped beyond the pre-defined social boundaries. Africa had one indigenous imperial impulse after another long before Europeans ventured beyond the beaches. China was also established through military power and oppression of minorities.
    The int’l values that are cited today in UN etc are the product of European reaction to the abominations that its industrial might was able to generate.

  14. anubeon: The assertion that the peaceful Celts were overrun by the violent Romans is misplaced. Read texts like the Mabinogion and there’s good evidence that war was pretty common. Although the Romans were imperial, the UK Celts largely adopted their ways quickly and enjoyed the stability & peace that Pax Romana delivered. Following the decline of the Roman Empire the Celts frequently hired themselves out as mercenaries, and the Welsh were the medieval equivalent of the Gurkhas.
    In N. America it is interesting to note that indigenous nations carried out warfare in a manner that horrified Europeans.

  15. Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, and White countries for EVERYONE!!???

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  16. I *think* that you *may* have taken a wrong turning somewhere. This is a blog for the sane of mind @Willi Wonka.

    WOW!

  17. FYI @Willi Wonka: There are PLENTY of white folk pottering around Africa, Asia, Australasia and the Americas. Strange that you see some sort of terrible asymmetry here; poor ickle Europe, being colonised by all the nasty brown people. Sheesh!

    I reiterate… WOW!

  18. The above is intellectually dishonest.

    Whitey’s problem is that Europeans don’t tolerate random violence. Aurora Colorado will still be a nice place to live, because it is mostly White. And White middle class people do not slaughter each other.

    Black people, however do. Randomly: 250 murders in Chicago, nearly all Black assailants, the latest a Mexican man age 61 killed in “Knockout King” by two Black boys age 17 who punched him in the head and robbed his dead body, posting the exploits on Youtube. How they were caught, BTW.

    The murder rate in Black areas is astonishing. Even in NYC, where Whites are 35% of the population, they are responsible for only 2% of the murders, 98% of which are done by Blacks and Hispanics, Asians being over 10% and not even listed. According to NYPD crime stats analyzed by Heather McDonald at City-Journal.org . In Detroit, recently, nine month old Delric Miller IV was shot and killed in a drive by, after a fight at a baby shower over seating. Needless to say, everyone involved was Black.

    Two weekends ago in Chicago, over 25 people were killed, all shot, all by Black young men, nearly all “random” gang disputes. Almost all gun violence in the US is driven by Black and to a lesser extent Hispanic young men shooting each other, and sometimes Whites. Who in turn move heaven and earth to stay away particularly from the permanent Black criminal underclass but won’t admit it.

    White guys go on rare (which is why its newsworthy) shooting sprees against ordinary people they don’t know. About a hundred years ago they’d try and assassinate Presidents like McKinley. Black people shoot each other all the time, and kill plenty of Whites too (8 dead White guys at the hands of Omar Thornton). That of course is too unpleasant to contemplate so its not news.

    In short, Whitey remains very non-violent, even with very rare spree killers by nutcases. Blackey by contrast remains hyper violent, killing without provocation and with a certainty of being caught. Browney is somewhere in the middle, and Yellowey not even present.

    As for genocide, human history is full of Black, and Brown people being no slouches. Trying to find racial original sin is a pathetic post-Christian lunacy. The Mongols, Chinese, Ottomans, Zulus, all slaughtered and exterminated whole nations with abandon. The Rwandans needed no help to bash in the brains of nearly a million people; indeed nearly ALL the killing unlike the Holocaust was done up close and personal — with the total number of slaughtered at nearly a million in three months comparing to that number over nearly four years of Auschwitz’s industrial killing operation. Nearly all victims in Rwanda were hacked to death with machetes or had their heads bashed in with rocks.

    Never let it be said that the African is a slacker in killing, indeed personal slaughter by individuals is the one thing that African men and women beat Europeans (who don’t like getting victims blood on them) handily. Nevermind the utter failure of the Black man and woman to do anything in science and math (which are open to anyone with the will and brains) — the ability to cut open an infant with a machete yourself personally is one that really only Black people possess. Europeans finding that messy and preferring to kill from a distance and without really having to dwell on it. Testimony from the killers and survivors reveal the utter joy the killers took in their tasks.

    Ugliness knows no racial boundaries. Undoubtedly a heritage from primate ancestors.

  19. Willy Wonka “Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, and White countries for EVERYONE!!???”

    I can tell you haven’t travelled much. This era of mass migration began with the European empires, which carried millions of white people all over the world. Some stayed – notable in the Americas and Australia.

    I’ve travelled to Africa a few times (my favourite continent) and there are increasing numbers of whites and Asians both working and living all over the continent. Africans, just like Europeans, will have to learn to accept and mix with outsiders. From observation, Africans aren’t as resistant to migration as Europeans are, although some of the racist attitudes are mirrored there. Just shows, there are morons everywhere.

  20. Human beings have migrated from place to place throughout their existence on this earth. And cultures and civilisations have waxed and waned causing populations to move back & forth. Thus the entire notion of racial purity is an absurdity. The historic barriers to migration have principally been technological, and thus it was with such advances Europeans were able to travel more widely than any previous body of people. In addition rapid population growth compelled people to look for opportunities elsewhere. Thus up to the mid=20th C we saw mass migration to the Americas and Australasia. But as what we call the 3rd world saw massive population growth post 1945, they too began to migrate to where opportunities existed. Will Wonka’s emotive statements are paralleled in historic and current responses to other migrations.
    As for our capacity for violence it is in this that we excel in adhering the principles of equality, where we so profoundly fail elsewhere. We are all barbaric.

Leave a Reply