Short, Nasty and Brutish


Hobbes was right.

Noble savages my ass.


Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Australia, Cultural, Race/Ethnicity, Regional

75 responses to “Short, Nasty and Brutish

  1. Jason Y

    There isn’t much to argue here. Seems like real savage behavior, as ep-gah might say, and this time there is no sarcasm on my part. Of course, I never said all pre-Euro contact cultures were better than the present ones. Ultimately, the myth of the “noble savage” may have been true sometimes, but often wasn’t.

    So do you think the low IQ of the aboriganals played a role, or perhaps it was just having no conflict with civilized people?

    • EPGAH

      Even with THIS you want to defend the savages? Where do you get the idea of “Noble Savage”? That is a more recent concoction of people who lived farther from the savages, either physically or temporally, and thus could enjoy the “culture” without the danger! And of course, any culture that could make such wonderful things couldn’t POSSIBLY be bad, so they invented a nobler culture for them, projecting our nobility on the savages.
      Something like Disney’s Little Mermaid and their reinterpretation of human culture from its artifacts?

      As Robert hinted, “Noble savages my ass”!

  2. Barbarism is the natural state of mankind, civilization is but a whim of existence.

    • Santoculto

      No there a natural state of humankind. There a natural path of beings with higher self awareness development, emulate their “father” universe and seek for balance/harmony.

      • EPGAH

        Civilization, though, is a constant EFFORT, not a toggle or even slider state of being. Spanish Philosopher Ortega Gasset wrote about this:
        In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the civilization by which they are supported … Civilization is not “just here,” it is not self-supporting.

        It is artificial … if you want to make use of the advantages of civilization, but are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization – you are done. In a trice you find yourself left without civilization. Just a slip, and when you look, everything has vanished into air. The primitive forest appears in its native state, just as if curtains covering pure Nature had been drawn back. The jungle is always primitive and vice versa, everything primitive is mere jungle. (José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, New York: W.W. Norton, 1932, p. 97.)

        After this, you wonder how something like Spain could have possibly produced something like Mexico–except that he just said, civilization is NOT self-supporting! Mexico’s–and other–savages very much make use of the advantages of civilization, but are very much not concerned with upholding it!

  3. Jason Y

    I’m sure some incest was going on all these years, along with environmental factors, hence the 61 average IQ.

  4. Jason Y

    However, you can’t use the past of the aboriginals to justify abuse now. That’s like saying we should abuse Latinos cause the Aztec were savage. However, that’s how some white nationalists see it.

  5. Advanced anal negrology

    I am totally mute after reading this.

    This may top the worst excesses of Islamic state and the Congo put together.

    I suppose it would be too much to ask such people to give the educational system in Finland a try.

    And yet I have to try my best in some way to help such people. I have to as Aristotle said to attempt exercise my virtue.

  6. Australian Aborigines have always seemed to be the most primitive race of the human species.

  7. Guy from Montréal

    Oh my, now that is some really fucked up shit, noble savage my ass! primitive people just suck, they really do.

  8. Carl R

    Nothing I’ve come across leads me to believe that Eskimo or Aleut culture was ever like what is described above for the aborigines. I certainly wouldn’t call their pre-contact cultures civilized, although some of the early Russian explorers thought the Aleuts quite civilized in many respects (which didn’t prevent some brutal exploitation by the Russians at first). Without a doubt, the Aleuts had a much more complex social organization, economy, and technology, and the Eskimos at least a more complex and refined technology than the aborigines.

    • Carl R

      Btw, while I’d be the last to call modern civilization equal to that of the aborigines, I think it’s never a bad idea to pause and keep ourselves in perspective. After all, how many armed nuclear warheads do the most powerful developed nations have ready to go at a moment’s notice? Substantially more than 10,000 I believe. If they are ever sent up, by accident or design, and 30 minutes later children are walking though our neighborhood with their flesh hanging off their bodies in tattered strips like the children did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think we’ll wonder how much the word “civilization” ever really applied to us.

    • Basically in our transition from primal to modern development, we became less on average prone to violent behavior BUT we increased in the max of our destructive output due to advancement.

      While I see your point, we are looking at two different aspects of human society.

      • Carl R

        They are indeed two different aspects of society, point taken, but I was speaking of the net level of society as a whole. Increasing “in the max of our destructive output due to advancement” is not something I consider to be advancement of civilization, if civilization has anything to do with social values of any lasting worth. It is, at best, a grim adaptation to a dysfunctional condition. The concentration camps of WWII were, after all, models of efficiency and productivity compared to the GEN-1 versions of the Boer War (far greater “destructive output”), but is such advancement progress?

        If so, I’m no progressive.

        • I agree, as much as savages technically decrease, human ability to be able to destroy just takes new forms.

          Would I say Civiliation, as a whole, is evil, no but indeed is riddled with flaws.

        • EPGAH

          But you leave out, WHEN and HOW that greater destructive potential is use. Namely, PUNISHMENT!

          We did not nuke Japan for shits&giggles, but to END A WAR THEY STARTED! We did not nuke them a second time for show, but the first nuke was dismissed as a “Lucky Punch”! We had to prove our success was repeatable, or to use the slang, “More Where That Came From”.

          Remember, though, our weapons are only TOOLS, and TOOLS can be used for good or evil…depending if they’re used BY good or evil.
          Guns and bombs in the Civilized World’s hands put Hitler back in his place, Japan back in theirs, and ended WWII!
          Look at the guns and bombs in the savages’ hands, from South Africa to Rhodesia to ISIS…Or Black Lies Matter. Murder, rape, and robbery of innocents, burning them alive optional. Would you like links?

          Iran funds and arms terrorists, what would happen if they got nukes?
          So therefore, keeping nukes out of the hands of savages who don’t even fear their own death as long as they can hurt the Civilized World is the best way of preventing the “flesh hanging off their bodies in tattered strips” scenario.

          I am no progressive, either. Especially not by your definition. I don’t want savages getting their hands on bigger firepower–on more destructive toys–until they can behave themselves with their existing toys.
          Jason and other SJWs say we should help savages, but why HELP someone or something kill you?

  9. Shawn

    Andy Kaufman style humor!!

  10. They do similar things in Africa – and they like to eat people (like Michael Rockefeller). The book The Negroes in Negroland gives eyewitness account of all the noble savagery.

    • Jason Y

      In taming the so called “savages” the civilized become just as savage. Above someone mentoned Nagasaki etc.. and also Jim Crow, Spanish conquest of the New World, New World and Muslim Slavery, pacification of colonial Africa etc.. saw people burned alived, preganant women lynched etc…

      Also, Europe wasn’t so civilized in the Middle ages as all the torture from that era will confess.

      • Jason Y

        The response to this thing will be they had to resort to being savage to tame savages. However, there was always probably a different thing that could have been done, but due to evil human nature, everything must be a show.

        One argument given was that the “higher caste” has to “set an example”. However, the higher caste group refuses to help lower caste. If it had helped them, then the lower group might not have been bad to begin with.

        • EPGAH

          No, we use violence, but in a PUNITIVE manner!
          Do you consider it the same when the child hits a parent and the parent spanks a child?

          How do you pacify savages like the above other than hit them harder than they hit you?
          Conversely, how do you HELP them when they’re trying to kill you? And how much help actually HELPS, and when does it just become ENABLING?

          Look at the TRILLIONS of dollars the Civilized World–especially America–have wasted on Africa, and they’ve made little to no progress! We send our Foreign Aid Workers over there, and they rape and murder them! Like I said, until the area is pacified, we can expect more Amy Biehls. Or more Amanda Kijeras, given the crazy masochistic nature of modern Liberals?

          The “torture” from that era was to weed out traitors who might betray them to Moslem Cult invaders. Given current events, I think they missed a spot!

  11. Jason Y

    Note the bombing of North Vietnam, North Korea, Japan, and Germany was quite savage. After doing that, how can modern people claim superiority over aborigines? How about the Nazi invasion of Russia or the Japanese invasion of China?

    • Jason Y

      Note in reference to North Vietnam etc.., if the US suffers even one attack, say at 9/11, then everyone goes up in tears, but compare that to the bombing raids the US does on other nations.

      • Jason Y

        Maybe we can make a draw and say both primitive and modern man is a savage. For instance, in war, often being a savage is the only way to win, unless it was in the case of North Vietnam, where it did not lead to total victory for the US, hence just a sadistic show of murder.

        • EPGAH

          You consider ALL violence to be “savage”? You don’t make exception for punishment?

          Japanese invasion of China was savage. In order to stop it, we had to use VIOLENCE.
          Terrorists overthrowing Vietnam and Korea WERE savage, we tried to stop them with VIOLENCE. Do you get the difference yet?

          In the case of Vietnam, we weren’t “savage” enough. There’s actually a page on this very site that says explicitly the bad guys killed good guys “just because”, while the good guys were more targeted and refused to kill the enemy “just because”.

          To see who is more savage, put North Korea and South Korea side-by-side.

          Also, please don’t misuse “murder”, murder is killing INNOCENTS!
          Viet Cong were not “innocent” even by your stretches of definition!
          We were killing terrorists. Or more bluntly, we were killing those who were killing us and our allies. That is what war is about.

          Although I suppose I should be thankful you aren’t misusing the word “GENOCIDE”?

  12. Crush Liberty

    Is it true that relatively peaceful groups are likely to conquer and destroy very violent groups of people? It seems to be.

  13. Crush Liberty

    It isn’t really true that the world wars mean that civilized people are just as violent. The odds of dying violently in the 20th century in Europe was still much lower than it usually is for primitive tribes. It is true that back Europe was very primitive, the people were very likely to die violently. The odds of dying violently in modern Africa is also “low” in the sense that things used to be much worse.

    • EPGAH

      Yes, peaceful groups HAVE to conquer or destroy the violent.
      If they don’t, the violent will conquer or destroy them!

      The Civilized World was conquered by Moslem Moors, and they would’ve oppressed us FOREVER if we hadn’t kicked their asses back into their own countries–and now they’re trying to do it AGAIN, under pretense of “refugee”.

      IF we don’t use violence on murderers and rapists WITHIN our countries, they will continue plying their trade on the innocent of our civilization.

      IF the Civilized World hadn’t conquered or destroyed Germany and Japan, (And Russia, but that’s hindsight) they would very much have conquered or destroyed the Civilized World! They failed, but not for lack of trying!

      There’s a new series, “Man in the Tall Castle” that explores what would’ve happened if we hadn’t fought, or maybe fought according to the “genteel” rules of post-1960s war. Or just read the book!
      It’s more disturbing than a thousand epics about zombies or Orcs, because it really COULD have happened!

      In sum, in order to have a peaceful society, we have to subjugate the violent–and in order to do THAT, we have to be MORE violent than the savages we’re trying to subjugate! But what you miss is that we are only violent FOR THE TIME IT IS NEEDED, then we switch back. Savages are violent all the time.

      “Road House” arguably put it best, “Be nice until it’s time to not be nice.”
      But notice until the savages pushed him, he was a genial co-host!

  14. Santoculto

    Studies on human behavior look very difficult because human beings are talented liars.

    What is morality when we no have any universal parameter to establish??

    Specially when culture, ideology and religion are mixed with truth/ objective morality, what people say look very superficial. Just with honesty that we will understand clearly how human behavior operates.

    • Jason Y

      Studies on human behavior look very difficult because human beings are talented liars.

      What hypocrisy from santo-culto !! Your saying studies on human behavior are very difficult because of bias and lying?. Absolutely !

      Your argue morality has no universal parameter, yet racial mixing produces ugly children (Does beauty have a universal parameter?) Also, if your saying morality has no univeral parameter, then wern’t the Nazis sort of quick to gas all those wheelchair people? LOL

      White nationalists don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground, those retards !!

      • Jason Y

        White nationalists and santo-culto DO have established standards for beauty, morality etc.. Now santo-culto is arguing there is NO way for anyone to have standards on those things. He’s contradicting his own statements.

        • Jason Y

          Specially when culture, ideology and religion are mixed with truth/ objective morality, what people say look very superficial. Just with honesty that we will understand clearly how human behavior operates

          That’s because so much of it is an opinion. It’s so biased by culture, upbringing and whatnot, that it can all be said to be generally bullshit.

      • Santoculto

        Words no have sense by jay-son, aka, the second blogger of Robert Lindsay. Hyprocrisy to my part** Why**

        Again and again,
        you can call me a hypocrite and or contraditoy, just explain why. I thought will be difficult for you to do it.

        Morality created by humans in specific space and times no have universal parameter, just geographical, but it doesn’t mean that no have OBJECTIVE morality or no have a universal parameter or even SHOULD have. The idea of universal morality basically mean ”what is right and wrong”, whatever the cultural OR contextual backoground.

        Because human tendency to lie, the concept of morality become vague or potentially incorrect, so what is ”morality when we no have a universal parameter to stablish”…

        Without my pedantic try to sofisticate these ideas of universal morality, just by contextual,subjective or (geographically) cultural morality, indeed no have a universal parameter.

        Psychology can produce reasonably good studies about human behavior but the most important piece of it is the intrinsical bias that generally result in ”lies”, intentional and unintentional (ignorance, like SEEMS happen with jay-son).

        ok, i can hadve write superficially or even WRONG. Reading now what i write in this specific sentence, i really commit a mistake. I was dragged by the idea of ”tendency to lie among humans” and my thoughts don’t follow correctly my ideas, in this case. I commit a mistake. Correcting…

        Of course, there are a non-subjective morality AND beauty. I live among one of the most ugliest people on earth, i know well what is beauty and uglyness.

        Again, your argument now would correct if i’m no had commited a mistake, but… 😉

        Commit a mistakes are very common, less common is correct it at the time or be humble enough to admit, 😉

        My intention with this sentence wasn’t what ”she” said. Happen in the best families.

        jay-son continue with their histerical try to debunk their super bad enemies, aka, white nationalists. What jay said here is exactly the same that said by big (exotic) propaganda of mass media.

        for each 10 comments in their comment section, 8 are write by jay-son.

        And to finish this comment,


        if morality no have universal parameter for you, why you ”think” that white nationalism morality is wrong and your morality is good**


    • Jason Y

      As I said before, with humans so full of shit as far as forming a foundation for philisophical ideas, then we shouldn’t play God, as so many tryannical regimes have done.

      • Santoculto

        The walls noted your suggestions, jay-shon, thanks!!

      • EPGAH

        No, but we should fight back when savages try to push their ways on us through violence.
        Being peaceful all the time makes us prey to the tyrannical regimes.

        True Moral Relativism would mean EVERYONE would make their own laws, that is called ANARCHY, and generally considered “bad”, otherwise more people would move to Somalia.

        • Jason Y

          Ep-gah’s attack against savages is at least targeting strong people who can fight back, not the defenseless. Nonetheless, some savages are more defenseless than you think, and aren’t really savages.

        • EPGAH

          Not really savages? What do you call it when they rape and murder and burn things down?

          And what definition of “more defenseless” are you going by?

          South Africa is the ULTIMATE example of “Being peaceful all the time makes us prey to the tyrannical regimes”!

  15. Santoculto

    Sorry, Jay-son, for my lack of education with you. You just should understand that is not ”all” cognitive bias which are false and specially when we are talking about instinctive reactions, but also about most of superficial and relatively subjective rationalizations made by intellectual left movement.

    So again, sorry by my way of being (and way of react), =)

    • Jason Y

      The left can be too compassionate, beyond reason. It’s not always good to baby people. Nonetheless, we should always give people a chance, at the very least when they are children.

      • Santoculto


        Give a chance??

        Less for white people imposing mass immigration,
        Less for black people nurturing their proportional relevant pathologies and creating more problems for their communities with immigrants,
        Less for everyone who have a drop of independent thinking, specially from you left guys.

        You really don’t know what you are talking about because like most people for you every implicit facts will be interpreted as “conspiracy” specially the facts that you repelled.

  16. Santoculto



    worshiped by viril men, what we read about, killed the defectuous babies.

    Rome, India, China… yes, savages are on average brutal, but civilizations are not absolutely superior, comparatively speaking…. technological, cultural, yes, specially for the first requisite… morally, not so…

    Savage heart still live inside us and it just look poetically beautiful, not so…

    Some pre-civilized tribes look still betten, like the Obuntu phylosophy.

    • Oh, you are aware of the teachings!

      It’s an interesting concept that, while not exactly exclusive to Blacks, in which community and the individual works as a system.

      I don’t find this totally outside of African beliefs. After all, them organizing as societies within as sororities and fraternities, forms of self help being found in certain conservative communities, as well as reading of the individual being considered in tribes like the Jola in Senegambia leaves the context of the philosophy not being really atypical.

      Though in actual practice, the potential doesn’t really show likely due to clannish tendencies.

      • Santoculto

        Yes, i thought this philosophy look for individual as a part of organic body called community (if just one person is sad or mad, all people of community will try help him … superficially what i memorize about this subject) while in the capitalistic conservatism, common in greater ”social-economic markets” in Eurasia, individuals are see seeing as ”workers”, euphemism for ”semi-slaves”. Religion like islam and christianism had worked very well with capitalism.

        • Jason Y

          But wouldn’t you consider the handicapped or other races to be disadvantaged people in need of help? Everything isn’t for the healthy or for “inside the tribe”.

        • “But wouldn’t you consider the handicapped or other races to be disadvantaged people in need of help? Everything isn’t for the healthy or for “inside the tribe”.”

          One, what does the handicapped have to do with anything? I think you were getting at that “since handicapped should get support and do, why not oppressed minorities?” AKA, the “other races”.

          I would give the conventional explanation on why this argument is recycled BS but I’m instead going to make a prediction, you babbling on that there ARE still oppressed barriers keeping them like this or circumstances resulting from said oppression.

          Neither of which you have given direct sources about in which I have given you tons for my claims.

          All that the above quote was talking about was how Ubuntu as a philosophy considers the importance of the group but recognizes the condition of the individual as a organ-to-body like relationship.
          So if you DO have a handicap amongst them they likely WOULD help them.
          This is merely a discussion on philosophical principles rather than there direct application to society and ethnicity

          My temporary tolerance for your poor argument skill during Christmas has waned Jason like the past year, now it’s anew.

    • Santoculto

      sorry, Ubuntu and not Obuntu.

    • Jason Y

      worshiped by viril men, what we read about, killed the defectuous babies.

      That’s not giving them much of a chance is it? How do you know the defectives won’t grow up to be strong? Also, that’s the problem with white nationalist, it doesn’t give anyone a chance. It doesn’t give anyone with any disadvantage a chance, simply stating they should tough it out, and in Darwinian fashion, somehow rise above the trash.

      • Jason Y

        Romans would excuse such cruelty by saying the Gods would take care of defective babies or people born in horrible circumstances. But really? The Gods? Sounds like just another Hindu way of justifying mass inequality.

        • Jason Y

          Note also with white nationalism or extreme capitalism, that many incompetent weak people gain power thru nepotism, money etc.. If they had to fight it out with the common folk, they would lose, probably would be washing dishes.

    • Jason Y

      Savage heart still live inside us and it just look poetically beautiful, not so…

      What’s so noble about killing the handicapped? That’s like saying it’s really tough and manly to shoot a dog. LOL

      Yeah, I know what your getting at. Your talking about stuff like “Spartacus” etc.. Iv’e seen that show.

  17. Jason Y

    if morality no have universal parameter for you, why you ”think” that white nationalism morality is wrong and your morality is good**

    That’s a good question. I really don’t know. I guess it just boils down to a gut childish or teenage feeling that it sucks. LOL

    • Jason Y

      Note also that any far right wing person, in the event of catastrophe, has to manly accept the philosophy he preached. He can’t make exceptions for himself due to gut “childish” feelings.

    • Santoculto

      Fundamental argument for white nationalism is demographic survive of white race. You do you like that blacks and native Americans survive in this century??? If the answer is yes, so why not whites??

      European invasion and colonization of the “Americas”. Native Americans was invaded, dominated and many of these tribes weren’t eliminate.

      Remember dear jay,

      Past mistakes don’t legitimates ‘new” mistakes of same nature, is not?? 😇

      Non white peoples, generically speaking, against whites??? Universal Ubuntu for all peoples and against the most disgraceful and wrong of isms, elite-ism.

      Most of white nationalists are very unintellectual, not so different than certain pseudos. But they are essentially right with or without genocide risk, and genocide risk is very high.

      • Santoculto


        “Was eliminated”


      • Jason Y

        Whites could easily solve their problem without killing non-whites or white people in wheelchairs, by simply having more children. However, due to “the modern way” that is fashionable, nobody wants to have more than 2 kids.

        That’s just fashion. Nobody, not even the Jews, imposed that on anyone.

        • Jason Y

          Yes, blacks and native Americans are increasing their population (Ironically native Americans were massively losing at the start) That’s just natural and not a crime. It is whites who CHOOSE out of a freewill to avoid having kids, and you can’t use the economy as an excuse.

        • EPGAH

          It’s not fashion, more children are an expense. Someone else wrote people of India have a quantity vs. quality thing and choose to have a few GOOD kids fully educated, fully equipped, rather than popping out a litter and seeing if they make their way in the world like the savages do.

          I had asked you to read that and scratch out “Indian” and put in “American”. I take it you didn’t do that?

          The other cost you forgot is that OUR TAXES pay for the excess broodlings of nonwhites!
          We have as many kids as we can afford.
          THEY have as many kids as WE can afford!
          And the more kids THEY have, the fewer WE can afford!

          Plus the Earth itself can’t take that many people. Syria, for instance, some idiots are blaming terrorism on Global Warming. Which do you think affects food shortages more? Temperatures up 1/10 of a degree this year? OR A TRIPLING IN POPULATION?
          California is having water shortages. Texas is on rationing, the step just prior to an actual shortage.

          Given that water is limited, how can we be sure OUR children will be the one to drink and the invaders the ones who thirst to death?

          So no, having more children is a bad idea, ESPECIALLY because we’re not as violent as the Syrians. We would not kill invaders to make sure our own have enough.
          Even though we could use the “Better Life” excuse that seems to work for the savages?

          However, given that same ultimate limit of natural resources, how can you claim it is NOT a crime for savages to breed more, especially at their betters’ expense, both short-term and long-term?

        • Santoculto

          It’s a crime human “kind” continue infesting the earth surface.

    • Santoculto

      I don’t want to be rude with you again but you don’t perceive their own contradictions??

      The first component to be really mature is accept, follow and/ or learn how to capture the facts and not factoids, expecting for honesty and precision of scientific/academic institutions ( don’t expect much more ) or/and specially looking for rational (make sense and have potential to harmonize ), what is coherent.

      A very elucidative example

      “Race and gender are social constructions, fundamentally”


      Partially, yes, also is.

      But penis and vagina are not social constructions.

      Physiological phenotypes are not social constructions. Shape and expression. Part to great part of expressed behavior or just expression are biologically constructed.

      It’s logical, semantically correct, ultimate causation, when we dress the reality with metrically perfect clothes.

      There are tons of sexual types, I believe in the Kinsey studies about sexuality, but this relative fluidity is not a prove that sexuality is fundamentally a social construction, the order of factors modify the product. First, always biology OR life, second, social or cultural, life-style or bio-style, direct products of the first component.

      Wars and poverty MAY can altered greatly the collective shape of certain group but the reaction of people always start by themselves, what usually happen is that as a ideal, wisdom in their complete functioning is extremely rare. Basically, the excuse for total influence of environmental factors and equality of conditions, start by the universal capacity of human beings to learn about wisdom and use it in their lifes. But even the majority of smarter ones can’t to do it, why think that everyone or almost can??

      Yes we can??

      Words must need to be used in all their vigorous precision.

      “childish”, quintessentially is have a party, compete and nothing take any credit for “enemies”. Dogmatic is to be dualistic, nature is dual, we are pushed to act like this way and people with higher self awareness can start to avoid this dirty game gently offered by our “mother nature”.

      To be a prey is not to be different than a predator, exactly what many lefties to do.

      Use emotions in the right place and time. To know how use their mind.

      We have “Jews” in our mind saying for us to start wars, our “Iran’s”.

      You’re the Uass off America invading countries to create “peace” .. For.. certain parasitic ‘wasps”. Your Iran is the white self preservationist movement.

      You’re seeing ( or not ) the injustice happening and don’t want stop the continuous fight among chickens (peoples).

      If government is so evil why you believe in it and official narrative/propaganda?? 🙎

      • Jason Y

        I don’t get what santo-culto is saying here. Obviously he’s attacking ep-gah. Perhaps he’s saying ep-gah is too pro-American.

  18. Jason Y

    Ep-gah made some reasonable comments about war. Yes, war is hell. Civilization has to unleash savage behavior, but it’s always for a good final result, most of the time. However, some primitive tribes and also so called civilized groups “The Romans”, “Spartans” etc.. practiced some savagery for no good reason, killing the handicapped, raping and killing children etc..

  19. Jason Y

    As Robert Lindsay pointed out, the backward non-socialist governments of the third world cause population increase. Once the government tries to help the people population declines.

    quotes by ep-gah

    The other cost you forgot is that OUR TAXES pay for the excess broodlings of nonwhites!

    Not always, it’s a generalization. However, we might pay with lost jobs to Mexicans etc..

    We have as many kids as we can afford.

    Whites can easily have 5 to 9 kids if they wanted. They might have to sacrifice some luxury, but if they feel “survival of the white race” is a problem, they would do something.

    • Jason Y

      quote by ep-gah

      However, given that same ultimate limit of natural resources, how can you claim it is NOT a crime for savages to breed more, especially at their betters’ expense, both short-term and long-term?

      Breeding more is only natural, especially in backward non-socialist nations. Of course, we cannot deny them advances in food and medical technology, that would be cruel.

      Ultimately, as Robert Lindsay pointed out, the medicine and technology isn’t the problem, but rather shitty governments who take no interest in the people, keeping them in an “agrarian peasant state” where having more kids is an advantage, at least to them.

      Again, Jews don’t factor into this equation. Often the right wing governments causing the population problem are anti-semitic. No, they ALWAYS are. lol

      • Jason Y

        One counter argument might be that black ghetto women are purposely having kids because of welfare. Well, that can be easily explained, even though it seems to debunk Robert Lindsay’s “Socialist governments reduce the population.” theory.

        Perhaps the answer lies in the fact our welfare system needs to be reformed, not abolished, but massively reformed. What are Robert Lindsay’s thoughts on this?

  20. Jason Y

    Ultimately it could be the west is just FUCKED. It’s been pushing anti-socialism on the third world, but that stuff only leads to over-population and ultimately comes back home to destroy the west, whose pro-socialist welfare sates have been “decreasing” the white population.

    • Jason Y

      For how many years has the west been pushing neo-liberal capitalism on the third world?

    • Jason Y

      Yeah Iv’e always noted the cruel irony of how, “cushy prissy welfare states” catering to everyone’s need, is huge in the first world, but non-existant in the third world. Is that fair?

      • Jason Y

        Not saying welfare states are bad, only dark sarcasm and humor. I’m only saying there should be welfare states all over the world, of course, paid for by the taxes of the people of the nation. But that would be Communism, right ??

    • Jason Y

      The whole situation reminds me of pest control 😆

      Some lazy people lay food around and get roaches. Later, to fix the problem they bomb thier home with cancer causing chemicals to get rid of them. However, was that fair to the roaches? Why didn’t these dumbasses keep the food in the pantry? No, as a payback from the roaches, the people get cancer and die. HA HA …

  21. Jason Y

    See how santo-culto is being a snob, as usual, and ignoring what I wrote. But it’s not even my idea, but Robert Lindsay’s. The whole idea that neo-liberal governments promote a peasant society, and a peasant society breeds like rabbits.

    You can’t say I’m being a retard when I’m only monkey-ing Robert Lindsay.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s