Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Cultural Imperialism: The Path To Extinction

Cultural Imperialism: The Path To Extinction

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

My guess is that every time there has been a major world power, they think of themselves as the epitome of what humans can strive to be. From the times of the Pharaohs through the Hellenistic era on up past the Romans and the Ottoman empires, the Austro-Hungarian, the British, and now finally the American empire, they have all shared the same chauvinistic belief that they are the definition of civilization.

For an empire to be effective in the past, they would have to had physically expanded, seizing territory from other nations to give them the benefits of their superior ways. Unsurprisingly, the original inhabitants of the country would take umbrage and tend to discover that the way of living they had practised for generations prior to the newcomers showing up was pretty good.

Although there were many mitigating factors that affected the result, there were usually only two ways this type of conflict of interest could be resolved. Either the newcomers would be forced to give up their role as rulers of the land or they would completely overwhelm the original inhabitants and reduce them to a shell of their former selves. While continental Asia and Europe fell into the former category, most of North, Central, and South America are the latter.

As the world has changed and technological advances closed the distances between countries until they have become virtually non-existent, it is seldom necessary for a country to actually use physical force to impose itself on another. Armies only come into play when physical assets like natural resources are part of the motivation to dominate.

While all civilizations have had the tendency to try and increase their power bases locally, the rationale for a great many expansions has been based on a need for survival. They have better hunting territory, which we need access to for feeding our people or their land is better for growing crops. These were the types of reasons that would see Native tribes in North America attempt to appropriate another’s land.

Conquest for the sake of conquest in order to impose your worldview on other people seems to be reserved for those cultures whose focus has gone beyond basic survival. The need for expansion is therefore one based in pride and chauvinism. It seems impossible for them to understand that anybody could be happy living in a manner they consider primitive or that the other culture could have anything of value to offer.

When a culture no longer has, as its only focus survival, the belief systems that sustained them through that period, they will become out of synch with the needs of those who no longer depend on a direct relationship with the planet. A new type of system is needed that replicates the new social order of those with more power than others.

Monotheistic religions, with their systems of punishments and rewards for good and bad behaviour and codes of conduct to control people, are ideally suited to a society where a small number of people control most of the wealth and must ensure the obedience of countless others. Whether this is how the big three of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came about, or that they simply flourished because of that fact, is now irrelevant

Especially in the case of the latter two, they have been the focal point and motivation for much of the empire building from around 900AD until today. From the Ottoman empire to the Crusades of antiquity, they have each tried to dictate how others live or find new countries where they can establish themselves as the predominate belief system.

In North America we have had about four hundred years of this type of rule, more than long enough to develop the chauvinism required to believe that our way of life is not only the best, but to even consider another way preferable means you are potentially an enemy. That type of cultural paranoia is not limited to the West. When you isolate any species from the rest of the world or outside influences for too long, they tend to become insular and fearful of change.

They cling to their outmoded ways of thinking and attempt to force the world to accede to their wishes even if that threatens the well being of others. One need only look at the linkage between foreign aid and anti-family planning that the current administration in the Untied States has implemented. Or check out the Iranian government’s attitude towards the same issues and you’ll see the same thing, if not worse.

In fact, the United States and Iran have a great deal in common with each other when it comes to foreign and domestic policy. Both governments are very afraid of anything they don’t understand, insist upon turning back the clock to a time when women had less control over their bodies, have blurred the line separating church and state, and have elements who believe that they should be imposing their way of life upon the rest of the world.

Each country either fosters or has fostered insurrections in other parts of the world in order to counter countries they consider too different from what they think of as the right way of being. Neither thinks anything of proceeding unilaterally on issues of international consequence even when a large proportion of the world is lined up against them. They both believe they have been chosen to do God’s work on this planet.

Aside from the obvious worry about what seems like an inevitable clash between these two polar opposites, there are other things to regret about living in a world where societies are still dominated by cultural prejudices. There are of course those who suffer from the fall out of either country’s influence when it comes to foreign aid.

In Africa, where AIDS steals so many lives, health care services and preventative measures are hindered by both nations’ refusal to accept that people are going to be sexually active and that steps are needed to ensure their safety. With aid money from America restricted to agencies that will only preach abstinence and fundamentalist Muslims preaching that women have no rights and sex is not something to be talked about, a difficult task becomes next to impossible.

Then there are the battlefields around the globe where they both have interests in the outcomes. Somalia, where a Muslim militia is trying to overthrow some sort of secular government; The Sudan, where similar circumstances are underway and immense oil reserves are also at state; and of course, the Middle East.

If the United States is funneling money into Israel, somebody has to be providing Hezbolah with the wherewithal to be unleashing the firepower it has at its disposal. Caught in between, in all three parts of the world, are thousands upon thousands of innocents who just want to have lives like the rest of us, to believe what we want and live out our days in peace.

Aside from the obvious results of single-minded culture at work, there are other, less fatal, but equally regretful consequences. I can’t speak for life under Muslim rule, but I can speak from my own experiences. I look around and see what people are missing by believing they are the centre of the universe.

Can they appreciate the subtlety of design in the Moorish architecture in Spain, the beauty in the drape of a Sari, or the simple awe that’s inspired by a Shinto temple? Or does all that matter to them is what’s on television? Our empire building has not created a cultural imperialism that destroys other people’s modes of expression, it simply doesn’t recognise its existence or cede it enough importance to make it worth bothering with.

I live across the street from a family that has rented out four apartments together in an apartment building. Almost everyday they sit out on the fire escape, drink beer, and yell at each other starting at around four in the afternoon and sometimes going as late as after midnight. On occasion they’ve ended up having fights on their front lawn or screaming abuse at each other at the top of their lungs.

Our society has created the circumstances where these people think they are better than someone who lives in Pakistan because of the colour of their skin and because they aren’t one of us. I’m sure they are not exceptional and there are millions of people the world over who think like that, no matter where they live or what they believe in.

Until we can shake off the chains of cultural imperialism we have tied our self up in, we will not evolve. The species that doesn’t evolve risks extinction.

Powered by

About Richard Marcus

Richard Marcus is the author of two books commissioned by Ulysses Press, "What Will Happen In Eragon IV?" (2009) and "The Unofficial Heroes Of Olympus Companion". Aside from Blogcritics his work has appeared around the world in publications like the German edition of Rolling Stone Magazine and the multilingual web site Qantara.de. He has been writing for Blogcritics.org since 2005 and has published around 1900 articles at the site.
  • http://www.xanga.com/rohanv Rohan Venkat

    The species that doesn’t evolve risks extinction.
    And rightly so!

    The way you began had me thinking about what Daniel Quinn reminds us in Ishmael and the rest of his books in that line, which I’d recommend to you.

    You say, every time there has been a major world power, they think of themselves as the epitome of what humans can strive to be. It just reminded me, that possibly every time a species becomes dominant, it thinks of itself as the epitome of what nature strives to reach.

    Just a thought.

  • RedTard

    Feeling guilty for the color of your skin again?

    Western civilization might not be any ‘better’ than most other cultures but for the vast majority we have ended hunger, many diseases, extended life, have running water, sewer, and electrical services, provided universal human rights to our citizens and implemented democracies where every person has a say in government.

    Now as you have pointed out there’s no objective way to define one culture as ‘better’, but most humans want to be comfortable. Our system provides for that and if that inspires cutural change or even extinction of other systems I’m not about to sit around and cry about it.

  • http://bryanmckay.com/blog Bryan

    This was an interesting article, Richard, although I wish you had taken your evolution/extinction analogy to the logical conclusion. Genetic diversity is essential to evolution, and cultural imperialism, if it extinguishes human diversity, will restrict cultural evolution (although we can’t make an exact one-to-one comparison between cultural/mimetic evolution and biological evolution).

    Except we also should bear in mind that evolution and natural selection operates on the level of the individual, and individual freedoms and variations within a “unified” culture are actually more important than cross-cultural variations. There is more genetic variation within the population of Africa, for instance, than there is between Africans and the rest of the world.

    And one minor caveat: evolution does not always equate with “progress.” Species that end up extinct are the results of evolution too. Not everything that evolves is necessarily helpful.

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.com/ Richard Brodie

    I would translate the title of this article into the opposite of a common American bromide, and say “United We Fall. Divided We Stand”

    “Balkanism” is not a bad word. What authority says that having nations smaller than a certain size is bad? The only nations capable of imperialism on a global scale are obscenely large superpowers.

    The more that nations could be divided up along natural ethnic and racial boundaries, the more coehesive and peaceful they would be, the safer their inhabitants would be against inwardly directed predations emanating from a powerful central government, and the more stable and safer from global corporate-inspired imperialism the world would be.

    The planet is a lot better off with the Soviet Union broken up, and so it would be with America broken up into an Hispanic Southwest, a Black Southeast, and a White North.

    The comming inevitable national economic collapse, brought on by unlimited Third World immigration, insourcing of cheap labor and outsourcing of skilled labor, and runaway deficit spending, will provide the ideal occasion for such a restructuring.

  • http://bryanmckay.com/blog Bryan

    The more that nations could be divided up along natural ethnic and racial boundaries, the more coehesive and peaceful they would be […].

    This is a popular assumption, Richard, one that seems reasonable, but a study cited in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine (how timely!) suggests otherwise:

    In a sweeping 2003 study, the Stanford civil war experts James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin came to a startling finding: “it appears not to be true that a greater degree of ethnic or religious diversity — or indeed any particular cultural demography — by itself makes a country more prone to civil war.”

    Fearon and Laitin looked at 127 civil wars from 1945 to 1999, most ofen in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. They found that regardless of how ethnically mixed a country is, the likelihood of a civil war decreases as countries get richer.

    So the “inevitable national economic collapse” would probably lead to more civil war and strife and not a benefical “restructuring.” While it may seem that the current ethnic conflicts in the Middle East and Africa would be solved by dividing nations along ethnic lines, they would be better served by economic restructuring (and not the type offered by the World Bank and IMF).

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Ethnicity does not cause civil wars. It is an excuse the power-hungry use to destabilize societies and create situations where ruthless sociopaths can more easily rise to power.

  • Baronius

    There is probably no better example of cultural imperialism than family planning policy. Richard is exactly wrong on this point.

    The western powers fund multinational organizations which pour contraceptives into developing countries. We send experts into tribes, and tell them that they shouldn’t have so many children. Europe is in economic decline, and India is in a boom, but we tell the world that population growth is harmful. This is a great example of the West forcing its culture on other countries.

    Marcus sees the opposite. He thinks that the moment we *stop* changing cultures to fit our western lifestyle, we’re meddling.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=diana+hartman diana hartman

    I am pleased to tell you this article is being featured in the Culture Focus today, August 15.

    Diana Hartman
    Culture Editor

  • RedTard

    “The western powers fund multinational organizations which pour contraceptives into developing countries. We send experts into tribes, and tell them that they shouldn’t have so many children.”

    That’s because we end up having to pay for those children with food aid. I think we should stop meddling and stop supporting African governments. Let them find a sustainable balance on their own without outside interference. Only then will they be self sufficient.

    on a side note, it’s also much easier to hand out condoms than to let children starve to death in order demonstrate a point.

  • http://bryanmckay.com/blog Bryan

    I think we should stop meddling and stop supporting African governments. Let them find a sustainable balance on their own without outside interference. Only then will they be self sufficient.

    This would have been a great solution twenty years ago. We’ve already meddled to the point of creating economic collapse in many of these countries. It’s too long a process to detail in a comments thread, but the World Bank and IMF (which are largely controlled by the United States and former European colonial powers) have installed structural adjustment policies in African nations that have crippled their ability to be self sufficient. By opening these countries to world markets, they haven’t been able to find their own niche or learn to stand on their own two feet. There’s nothing inherently wrong with global capitalism and international fair trade, but it needs to come after a country has a stable and structured government and economy. Most of these nations have never recovered from colonization and decolonization.

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.com/ Richard Brodie

    Does South Africa now have a “stable and sructured government”? Right now there is a genocide going on there against Whites.

    Before taking power in 1994, the communist ANC promised to turn over 30 per cent of White-owned farms to Blacks when it came to power – an arbitrary policy of stealing land owned by Whites who have farmed it for generations.

    The Black agriculture and land affairs minister, Lulu Xingwana has said “We will no longer waste time negotiating with people who refuse to see the transformation of our country, from now on we will only negotiate for six months and if all fails, expropriation would take place.”

    Taking away people’s livelihoods is taking away their lives. It seems that when a genocide is perpetrated by criminals and the police, no one sees it as a “humanitarian crisis” – only when it is perpetrated by the military, as with Milosevic. And in the case of South Africa, there is also the attitude that the Whites there are only getting what they “deserve”.

    It is instructive to contrast the relative benevolent version of “apartheid” practiced when the Whites were in power in that country, with today’s savage and brutal Black version. If instead of killing them, Milosevic had only expropriated the property of all non-Serbs he would still have been hauled into an International Tribunal. But Xingwana and other the Black leaders in South Africa will go completely without so much as condemnation, let alone punishment, for their ethnic cleansing against Whites.

  • http://bryanmckay.com/blog Bryan

    You actually know nothing about the current state of affairs in South Africa, do you, Richard? Your knowledge of the matter seems to be filtered through your bizarre racist view of the world.

    See, I didn’t want to have to call you a racist, because I thought I could approach you with reason and empirical data, but apparently you’re immune to such things.

    The majority of black South Africans live in absolute poverty. The white South Africans, on the other hand, typically live in the cities, often in gated communities. Many black South Africans currently live in makeshift shacks outside of the cities – you know, things constructed out of cardboard and scraps of wood and tin. The government has tried to provide housing for poor blacks, but the houses they’ve provided are smaller and less-equipped than the shacks they’re currently living in.

    The current state of the ANC and the South African government is in shambles. Even Nelson Mandela, the former hero of South Africa, has turned his back on his people since his release from prison.

    It’s been said that in postcolonial nations, there needs to be a second revolution following the first to remove the leaders who have taken power after the decolonization period. I believe in this principle in many cases, and I certainly won’t deny that the ANC has it’s problems.

    Ethnic cleansing of whites isn’t one of them though. Don’t be an idiot. Read a book and stop talking about things you have no hope of understanding. Better yet, why don’t you try talking to a black person! You might learn something!

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.com/ Richard Brodie

    I didn’t want to have to call you a racist

    I take no offense. As far as I am concerned “racist” is not a bad word. “Racist” is no less morally neutral than “culturalist”. Being racist simply means that I am aware of racial differences; I am open to the reality that each race has its own inferior points and its own superior points; I do not believe that any race should be politically supreme; and I would prefer to see different races geographically separated.

    I’m content to let history judge between my own common sense, and your selective “study” quotations and other regurgatative PC sophistry (“reason”).

  • http://bryanmckay.com/blog Bryan

    Well, Richard, you’re wrong about a lot of things. Where should I start? First you say that “racist” isn’t a bad word and you don’t believe in a superior race. Except a racist is specifically defined as “the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” I have to say, I’ve never seen anyone own the word racist quite like you do.

    Second, your belief that the races should be “geographically separated” is bullshit. Perserving the integrity of your “race” does absolutely nothing for genetics. Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with purebred dogs? They’re more susceptible to genetic mutations because of all the inbreeding. Genetic diversity benefits all of humanity. And the “reality” that there are inferior and superior points to race? How about the “reality” that genetics don’t indicate any of these differences?

    By the way, “history” can’t act as a judge, because “history” isn’t capable of passing judgment, being an idea and all, and not an active arbitrator. But let’s not be silly about semantics, because I’m sure you know what you meant!

    And the “study” I quoted is an actual study. No need for the scare quotes, pal. People actually did study things. Not “study,” but study, you know, in the active verb sense.

    For someone who wants to defer to history, you seem to pointedly ignore the “historical” “findings” of said “study” and my “analysis” of the “current” political “climate” in “South” “Africa.” I’m not sure what’s “regurgatative” about “facts” that I’ve “learned,” when you’re the one who is “regurgating” the “National Vangard” “party line.”

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.com/ Richard Brodie

    Perserving the integrity of your “race” does absolutely nothing for genetics. Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with purebred dogs? They’re more susceptible to genetic mutations because of all the inbreeding. Genetic diversity benefits all of humanity.

    Now THAT’S bullshit. The different human races have been developing in isolation for hundreds of thousands of years, and there is no evidence that they have continually been getting worse because of “inbreeding”. The only inbreeding that is potentially bad is with very close relatives. As long as the population is large enough so that the vast majority of mating is between very distantly related individuals, there’s not going to be any general degradation. Mozart, Michaelangelo, and Newton are not the product of a race debilitated to decrepitude through inbreeding.

    Furthermore genetic mutation, which will occur with or without “inbreeding”, is not a bad thing. In fact it is necessary fo evolution to progress. Beneficial mutations are selected, and non-beneficial ones are rejected, leading to racial improvement over time.

    And if genetic diversity were, as you claim, necessary to maintain the quality of “humanity”, then what happens after your multiculturalist ideal of universal micegenation finally homogenizes all diversity into non-existence? The human race would then enter into a period of unstoppable genetic decline!

    You need to wake up and realize just how brainwashed you’ve been.

  • http://bryanmckay.com/blog Bryan

    The different human races have been developing in isolation for hundreds of thousands of years, and there is no evidence that they have continually been getting worse because of “inbreeding”.

    You can look at high occurences of diseases like TSD in Ashkenazi Jews and sickle-cell anemia in African Americans as evidence against your argument.

    Either way, you’re taking my argument entirely out of context. The point was that breeding within small populations enhances harmful genetic mutations. It’s called genetic drift, which is an undeniable biological fact, my friend. (Oh, and I emphasized the “harmful” in the previous sentence to bring attention to my missing word that you apparently decided to harp on for an entire paragraph. Surely you didn’t really assume that I thought all genetic mutations were harmful! I think I’ve demonstrated a bit more scientific aptitude to dissuade you from that opinion, but you’re entitled to pick at semantics if it makes you feel better about your feeble argument!)

    And if genetic diversity were, as you claim, necessary to maintain the quality of “humanity”, then what happens after your multiculturalist ideal of universal micegenation finally homogenizes all diversity into non-existence?

    You, sir, are a fool. Genetic diversity does no good if the diversity is not shared. You might think that it would have a homogenizing effect, but actually the larger the population size, the more shared mutations there will be, and the more genetic material there is to go around! It’s called gene flow and it’s actually pretty neat! Look it up!

    The more you know ;)

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.com/ Richard Brodie

    Genetic diversity does no good if the diversity is not shared.

    The individual races each consisted originally of around one-third of the total world population. They in turn were composed of a diversity of subraces (and still are). And so they would “share” your genetic diversity on a scale not significantly smaller than the human race as a whole – especially if you’re into the current PC party line of race diversity denial, which totally negates everything you’ve been saying!

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Yet another Brodie threadjacking in progress, I see.

  • http://bryanmckay.com/blog Bryan

    Are we going to play the game where we pick a single sentence out of a post and try and play silly junk science games with it until we run out of breath?

    Let’s try some real science, Dick! (Can I call you Dick?)

    The individual races each consisted originally of around one-third of the total world population.

    Actually, the total world population originated from one tribe around north/central Africa which spread throughout the world, depositing groups all over, which eventually formed the various ethnic groups you see today.

    They in turn were composed of a diversity of subraces (and still are).

    Which all came from one founder population. Which makes you something like my thirty-first billionth cousin or something, maybe. Same with some guy in Africa or the Middle East or South America.

    And so they would “share” your genetic diversity on a scale not significantly smaller than the human race as a whole

    Does this even make sense? Is something missing this sentence? I mean, other than logic and reason and science and anything resembling a cogent thought process.

    especially if you’re into the current PC party line of race diversity denial, which totally negates everything you’ve been saying!

    Is “race diversity denial” the same thing as color-blindness, because I’m pretty sure that’s a conservative response to political correctness, not political correctness in itself. Of course there is genetic diversity between the races, silly! But not very much! The point is that a larger population size is good! The more genetic diversity, the better! And the more people breeding equals more genetic diversity through that nice thing called gene flow I mentioned before. Big = good. Small = bad. Got it, Dick?

    And let’s suppose JUST FOR A MOMENT (because I don’t want to harp on this bit too long!) that there are “superior” qualities to individual races. If that’s true, then those superior qualities would win out in a battle of natural selection, and thus it would be in our best interest to “interbreed” as much as possible in order to maximize the superior qualities into some big super hybrid human! Yeah!

    Unless you don’t want the “superior” qualities you say that the other races possess. Which means, as a “white activist,” you don’t actually want what’s for the good of your race, right? That certainly doesn’t bode well for your pals in the Natty V! Either you want the white race to suffer, or you actually think the other races are all inferior. If the former is true, your argument is weak and you’re doing a disservice to your “white nation,” and if the latter is true you’re a bigot! Take your pick, Dickie!

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.com/ Richard Brodie

    Victor accuses: Yet another Brodie threadjacking in progress

    I express my viewpoint on the subject of this thread, and Bryan expresses his. Pray, by what principle of discrimination do you choose to characterize my contributions as a “hijacking”, but not his?

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.com/ Richard Brodie

    Bryan suggests: Unless you don’t want the “superior” qualities you say that the other races possess. Which means, as a “white activist,” you don’t actually want what’s for the good of your race, right?

    We have vastly different values. What’s important to you is to engineer the human race on a path toward the elimination of racial diversity, because you believe that this will result in a gene circulation that will lead to some kind of an improved specimen. I, on the other hand, am perfectly happy with the human race as it is, and want it to stay that way with all of its wonderful existing racial diversity.

    I actually DON’T want ANY qualities, superior or otherwise, that other races possess. Rather than chasing YOUR ideal of a race of “super hybrid humans” homogenized into a uniform robotic genetic endowment, I choose to be content with my own personal endowments and those of the White race to which I belong. If someone else is superior to me in some respect, I don’t wallow in envy of that person. Instead I admire them.

    I feel at home among people of my own kind, and if you want to call that “bigotry”, I don’t really care. Just note that *I* don’t try to make up pejorative terms to smear you with, just because you may be differently disposed – nor do I engage in the puerility of addressing you with some kind of a diminuitive variant of your name.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Richard, this white race you speak of is illusory. “Everybody” knows that real white people have thick dark hair like me and that all you blond/ginger people are nothing but sick deviants that ought to be exterminated for the good of racial purity!

  • http://bryanmckay.com/blog Bryan

    Dammit, this is the third time I’ve tried to compose this comment and accidentally fucked it up in some way, so please forgive if my witty repartee is lacking.

    What’s important to you is to engineer the human race on a path toward the elimination of racial diversity, because you believe that this will result in a gene circulation that will lead to some kind of an improved specimen.

    I’m not interesting in engineering anything. I do believe that a big gene pool benefits everybody, but I’m all for choice! If you don’t want to have children with someone because of the color of their skin, that’s fine, but you needn’t enforce those values on anyone else!

    I, on the other hand, am perfectly happy with the human race as it is, and want it to stay that way with all of its wonderful existing racial diversity.

    If the diversity is so “wonderful,” what’s this obsession with shipping everybody off to other parts of the country and world to get them out of your pretty blonde hair?

    Rather than chasing YOUR ideal of a race of “super hybrid humans” homogenized into a uniform robotic genetic endowment […]

    Your sense of humor (or lack thereof) is astonishing. I was being facetious.

    I feel at home among people of my own kind, and if you want to call that “bigotry”, I don’t really care.

    In that case, you are a bigot. Thanks, it felt good to get that off my chest. I’m glad you don’t mind!

    Just note that *I* don’t try to make up pejorative terms to smear you with […]

    Believe it or not, “bigot” isn’t a made-up word! And, hey, I’m just calling a spade a spade. You’re the one that seems to have no problem with being called a racist or a bigot, so I’m not sure how exactly I’m “smearing” you. You own the terms, big guy, I’m not gonna try and take them away from you!

    Just as a fun game, why don’t you try listing some of the superior qualities of the white race for us? Let’s not start talking about the negative qualities of anybody else, lest we start getting nasty, just think positive! Ready? Go!

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.com/ Richard Brodie

    Yeah, Chris. It’s a mystery to me how the world’s black-haired and black-skinned males could be so desirous of polluting their obviously superior, melanin-rich gene pools with the likes of these:

    anaemic sick deviants

  • http://bryanmckay.com/blog Bryan

    Mmmm, nordic beauties. A healthy dose of bigotry with a little bit of pedophilia thrown in too!

    Paedomorphic traits are those which are characteristic of infants and children. Paedomorphism is the evolutionary tendency – found in many species, including several hominid races (among them Northernkind) – for infantile or youthful traits to be retained into adulthood.

  • Martin Lav

    Leave it to Bogie to take extremely hot looking women from “whereever” and make them unattractive by talking about their skull sizes and the “tribes” they come from in the middle ages. I mean if you take this shit so seriously Broodie you miss the forest through the trees and not one of those women of “nordic” features would be caught dead with you. I’ve seen the kind you attract on your website…..I mean they could really stand to have some gene diversity!

  • nugget

    ” Almost everyday they sit out on the fire escape, drink beer, and yell at each other starting at around four in the afternoon and sometimes going as late as after midnight. ”

    There are rednecks in Canada?? j/kkkzzzz.

  • zingzing

    just ignore richard… he’s gone off the deep end again. hey, if beautiful white women want to get with black men (and trust me, a beautiful woman is more powerful than any man, black or white, rich or poor, strong or weak, dispropotionately-sized member or winky-dink…) then i say, “white man’s loss.” that’s why white men go after asian females. sex-food chain, you see. man, that was horrible. i’m sorry. i didn’t have to go there.

    (momentary pause for self-reflection and evaluation.)

    richard is a conundrum. a racist who claims his racism is not racism, but is, in fact, multi-culturalism. a man who claims to prize diversity, even though he wants nothing to do with it. in one instant he will say that he doesn’t want other races polluting his race, and yet claims that other races possess traits which are better than his own (a personal statement of his, i assume).

    he is a mess of contradictions, and thoroughly confused. at least he is trying (valiently, stupidly,) to keep his confusion at a minimum by limiting his contact with other races. i would think both would be happy with that. i wouldn’t mind it if all the white power/separatists/etc/whateva would kindly not associate with any of us in a personal way (like, in public,) and i thank richard for fucking off to his little white kingdom and leaving the rest of us alone.

  • anon

    If there is honestly a belief that the white race as it is would be made extinct by multi-culturalism, then I would advise anyone who would try to pack a lunch. The governments in the UK and the US aren’t stupid. There is no possible way they will allow their countries to fall into a middle ground and displace the historical populations to the point of being made a minority. Its not going to happen, not in the forseeable future.

    As for the white women chasing black men comment because I just KNEW that would pop up. Pack a lunch black men who want them. Same race couples outnumber their IR counterparts by a massive 16:1 ratio. People are happy with the way things are and there is not going to be a surge of interracial dating/marriage/childbirth. If you want evidence look at Brazil. They have held a white majority for decades and don’t have the stupid hangups the US does. Races are going nowhere, enjoy our differences its what makes us great.

%d bloggers like this: