The Aryans of India; Bodhidharma, the red-bearded teacher of the Shaolin in China; Quetzalcoatl, the fair-skinned god who brought agriculture to the peoples of Mesoamerica; legends of non-white races the world over speak of white Aryan/Nordic peoples who taught them how to grow food and build civilizations and who brought knowledge of science and medicine and complex spiritual teachings. This is a tradition that continued into the modern age when the western/white world essentially fostered the “development” of Africa and the third world. Looking at everything that has transpired there and looking at the “integration” or lack thereof, of non-whites in western/white countries across the Earth, I am really thinking this whole “sharing civilization” thing that whites seem to do might not be such a good idea.

The best examples of this are the tropical countries and their peoples. I’m talking about sub-Saharan Africa, Central America and parts of South America, the West Indies, and Southeast Asia. I am going to exclude the Middle East from this conversation, as what has happened to the people there, looking at history, appears to be more of a case of cultural degeneration due to Anglo-Zionist sabotage rather than the “fish-out-of-water” scenario I am going to discuss.

I am also going to avoid getting into Solutreans or the “we were there first” argument for the Americas. Likewise, I am not going to go into white “giants” or semi-physical “Nordic” beings or Atlanteans or Hyperboreans or anything else that isn’t very “mainline”. This is not in the least bit to say that I don’t entertain any of these notions; they’re just much harder to prove.

As Europeans began what is commonly referred to as the “Age of Exploration”, they encountered indigenous peoples who had never seen a white man in the flesh before (although as noted earlier, many had legends about them). This tended to result in conflict and eventually, conquest and colonization. History books have had a tendency to paint this as fairly two-dimensional and one-sided. In the old days, it was skewed more towards the colonists. In this new era of “Cultural Marxism”, it is skewed in favor of the indigenous peoples. The fact is that with any conflict, you are going to have wrongdoing on both sides. This was the case with colonization.

However, to say that the white man just pillaged and plundered and left nothing but death and destruction in his wake is an outright lie. Wherever the white man goes, he develops agrarian society, which then gives way to industrial society. Wherever the white man goes, he builds townships and cities. Wherever the white man goes, he brings his institutions of governance, science, medicine, education, etc. The white man cannot help doing these things, they are in his nature. It is in OUR nature.

For all the criticisms of Apartheid Government and the former white ruling class in South Africa, it brought a standard of living and education that had not been present before. Sadly, when the ANC took power and the whites were no longer running things, the entire infrastructure of the country went straight to hell. The black Africans in the ANC and at large seemed only to know how to take the resources and production the Apartheid society had produced, but did not seem to understand how to ensure that it continued to produce economically or otherwise. A quick historical note- black sub-Saharan Africans are not native to what is known today as South Africa. They actually arrived AFTER the white settlers with the Zulu invasions.

Further north, into the sub-Saharan tropics, we see similar problems with blatant government corruption, the infrastructure and quality of life in complete squalor, and people diseased and starving to death, eating out entire populations of rats. How did this happen? After the Second World War, the colonial powers withdrew from Africa, allowing it to develop “independently”- well, not independent of good ol’ IMF and World Bank usurious debt or multinational corporations ensuring the ownership of African resources by buying off and installing corrupt governments. The sub-Saharan nations were “built up” modeling western cities and infrastructure, and given constitutions and western parliamentary-style “democracy”- and they went to COMPLETE SHIT. Similar situations took place in Central and South America as well as Southeast Asia.

Jared Diamond hypothesizes in his book/documentary, “Guns, Germs, and Steel” that there is a geographical component to why certain peoples were able to develop agrarian civilization and thrive in a way others did not. He also gets into why outbreaks of tropical diseases like malaria have become so pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa since being “developed” in the western model. Western cities are typically built along, and make heavy use of waterways. However, indigenous tribes in sub-Saharan Africa have always settled on high and dry ground. Why? Because they knew that in the jungle, the waterways are where the disease spreading mosquitoes live. We see similar problems facing other peoples living in the tropical regions of the world. Remember that the nature of race and folk is intimately tied to the nature of the land – blood and soil.

Not even taking into account the predatory lending practices the IMF and World Bank, there is the unsustainable level of governmental corruption and incompetence that bleeds these countries to a point where they can never get beyond third world status. There is this mentality to take and not produce or sustain money and resources that goes from the top all the way down to the general populace of these nations. Why is this? Again, the nature of race and folk is intimately tied to the nature of the land that produced them. So let’s look at the land that produced the folk.

Hot and humid, full of ravenous insects and known for periods of torrential rainfall, the tropics have not typically been hospitable for agrarian societies, who tend to do better in the more temperate climates on either side of the poles (i.e. Europe, the U.S., South Africa, Argentina, etc.). Rather, it has always been the hunter-gatherer that tended to thrive in the jungle. Hunter-gatherers in the tropics do not need to worry about a winter that will create scarcity, so the mindset of resource conservation or preparing for a time when food will be extremely scarce would not be part of their folk consciousness in the same way way it would be in those whose folk are rooted in lands where absolute scarcity was a very real and inevitable threat.

The “civilized world” and all its institutions and infrastructure are for all intents and purposes, the product of the Aryan’s consciousness mixed in, of course, with that of the Semite rascal. Both of these races, while culturally very different in many ways, are essentially products of the same lands, as the white races had empires in Persia and Asia Minor, as well as Europe, while the Semite also inhabited those same lands. Thus the societies and infrastructure of the modern world that we know today grew out of the consciousness of those people, and likewise mirrored their folk personality and spirit. You can argue as to whether it’s whites or Jews who dictate and control our civilization today, but at its foundation level, white civilization was BUILT for white people by white people. Sure, there were some black slaves here or there, but I’m pretty sure they weren’t drawing up blueprints on designing white western civilization.

So what happens when another group of people from a completely different land with a completely different type of folk consciousness attempts to take the reigns of a society and infrastructure tailored to that of a folk and race that isn’t them? The society and infrastructure go to COMPLETE SHIT. Looking at what has happened in the last century in the “developing world”, it just recently dawned on me that maybe the reason it seems to be such hell on Earth in these places (aside from outside economic forces) is the fact that maybe these people were not designed to live in that sort of a society in the first place. This is not to say that individuals from the tropical races cannot be taught to manage and even thrive in western civilization as long as it is for the most part being managed by its originators (white people), but as a group, as a collective, especially when left to their own devices, it doesn’t look like it works too well.

I know we white folks often pride ourselves on our charity and compassion and our desire to help “elevate” others who appear to be suffering, to our standard of living, but perhaps the attempt to bring western civilization with its schools and hospitals and city infrastructures and forms of governance to the people of Africa, Central America, Southeast Asia, etc., really wasn’t such a good idea after all. These people didn’t create this system, they were given it, and they really didn’t know what to do with it. How could they? It wasn’t theirs. It wasn’t their self-determination and ingenuity that really created any of it. The good-hearted White Man gave them a system he designed and built, the corrupted White Man marketed it while siphoning resources out the back door and the corrupted Jew sold it all at unpayable interest.

Now as the third world completely falls apart, these people are flooding into White European countries by the thousands, and if left to their own devices, will just consume without the inclination to produce and conserve like hunter-gatherers would in a jungle that provides for them. They expect to be provided for as if western civilization is some kind of giving tree, and are told they are entitled to it because of colonialism, etc. However, that is not sustainable in the society we have created. To make matters worse, instead of being thankful for European hospitality as white people are now literally giving these immigrants from Africa and elsewhere their homes, they instead act with hostility, resentment and even violence towards them.

You know, perhaps the black and brown people do have some justification to resent the white man. Not even so much for violence perpetrated against him or placing him in bondage, but more so for placing him into and even giving him a civilization that he was not designed to live in. White Christian folk saw the naked “savage” living at the mercy of nature and took pity on him. They took him into their cities (or built their cities around him) and even gave him the keys. Now he has destroyed these cities and hates us.

What these “good-hearted” white folk did not realize that the “savage’s” perception of and relationship to the natural world was much different from theirs, as he was from a very different land. Perhaps he was happier in the jungle and wishes he would have been left there to his own devices, to develop in a way that was natural to him and his folk. Of course most modern city domesticated black and brown folk might not say this, but this definitely appears to be what the folk souls of these races is indeed saying, loud and clear. In the end, sympathy and pity equates to dis-empowerment, and dis-empowerment inevitably breeds resentment.

So in closing, I’m going to say this: if I could go back in time, I might just tell the Europeans who conquered and settled Africa, Asia and the Americas to just leave ‘em all be, get back on the boat and go home, because it ain’t gonna be worth the trouble. As for the present, let’s just put a cork on the whole “white savior/bearer of civilization” thing- it just seems to get us in trouble. We should take the harsh criticisms of the “White Savior Industrial Complex” along with the harsh realities of nations like South Africa as a cue that we need to focus on cultivating and taking care of the needs of our own racial family, our own folk, and our own lands for a change.

http://renegadetribune.com/maybe-wasnt-good-idea/