Anyone indoctrinated in Progressive ideas of race, history and the rise of the West should understand exactly where I’m coming from with this essay. The difference between me and them is that I think the West, purely through luck, was given some magic pixi dust from the Middle East. Confused? Read on.
just imagine a smart hippopotamus
A thought experiment. We know Border Collies are very smart dogs. One Border Collie named Chaser has learned the names of 1,022 individual items. Border collies can herd hundreds of sheep in any direction with instructions given by whistles. As I say, smart as a whip and lovely, if hyperactive, pets. On the other hand, we know the hippopotamus, or ‘river horse’, weighs 3,300 lbs., can run at 20 mph, has 20-inch canines and causes more human deaths than any other large animal. Not a pet. Now, imagine if hippos were as smart as Border Collies. In a matter of months they would have all the other animals in Africa herded in pens, trampled to death or busy planting grassland for their dining pleasure.
In short being big and aggressive, or small and intelligent, isn’t a species-winning strategy. What’s needed is exactly the right combination of smarts and aggression. Too smart and you rest on your laurels; too aggressive and you’re always fighting with other members of your species.
We know aggression is inheritable from our real-world experience with animals; especially dogs, cows and horses. Here are a few examples. I’ve already mentioned how Border Collies are smart, well some other breeds have been bred for aggression, notably Pit Bulls, Doberman Pinchers, Rotweillers, German Shepherds and Bulldogs. In cattle the breeding has gone both ways: in Spain bulls are bred for aggression, in Holland Holsteins have been bred for docility. Likewise with horses. Thoroughbreds can be as tempermental as ballet dancers, but draft horses, like Clidesdales, can put up with practically anything and remain calm, even under cannon fire. None of these attributes is accidental.
OK, back to European and world history. I’m not going to argue with Progressives over whether race is an observable fact, or where the races stand in relation to each other. You can read, or hear, all of this elsewhere, such as here. What I am going to point to is the historical fact that European nations, the “West” in other words, rose to prominence and proceeded to expand around the world: the Dutch Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire and the Russian Empire to name the big ones (there were others). This is generally described as the rise of the west. How and why did it happen?
My thesis is that European man was made up of exactly the right combination of intelligence and aggression to out fight, out manoeuvre and out hustle all the other races in the world. Champlain and the Iroquois, Cortez and the Aztecs and Pizarro and the Incas are examples enough, but there were also the British in India, the Portuguese in Brazil, the Dutch in Africa.
Progressives agree with this history, but they call it by pejorative names such as “colonialism,” “racialism” and “imperialism.” You can agree or disagree with these labels, but neither they nor I disagree over what’s being labelled. The Aztecs, for all their violence, did not invade Europe. They, like a lot of other peoples, found themselves at the wrong end of a musket.
Now, what else can this theory explain? It’s very good at explaining the endemic violence and warfare of Africa and the ability of Arabs to capture and sell Africans into slavery despite the overwhelming ratio of Africans to Arabs. Likewise, it’s good at explaining the Chinese who with admirable intelligence invented gunpowder, paper and much else, but who did not go on an empire building mission (with several notable exceptions). It’s also pretty good at explaining the Japanese who are just as smart and aggressive as Europeans, and who made exactly the same mistake in WWII (before starting a war, add up the numbers).
What about Europe itself? What happens if a very smart, very aggressive bunch of countries inhabit the same relatively small continent? War, war, war is what happens; culminating with the Franco-Prussian war, WWI and WWII. The second world war was as bad as it was because Europeans are very, very good at fighting. Had the Germans been up against anyone other than the Russians, Americans and British, the war would have been over in 1941. Imagine if they had decided to invade Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia with 3.8 million soldiers instead of the Soviet Union. We’d all be buying gas from German companies.
And what of us? What does this mean for North Americans? The most important thing it means is that multiculturalism will be the end of the European race. Progressives think this is a good thing; end white priviledge they yell, along with Black Lives Matter and Not My President.
But if we end the European race we will also end European culture, European scientific advances and almost everything we hold near and dear like individual rights, honest government and peaceful societies. Before we, and they, agree to turn Canada into Brazil, have a look at the crime statistics (Brazil 24.6 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, Canada 1.4 per 100,000) or American ones for that matter (3.9 per 100,000).
Multiculturalism and multiracism means an end to the European genetic advantage.
And before I leave; what was the Middle Eastern pixi dust I mentioned? The concepts of free will, property ownership, monogamy, self-defence and the ethnic nation-state; all of which come straight from the Jews of Israel via Christianity and the Roman Empire. We barbarians hardly deserved that mana from Heaven but we sure went a long way with it.