A brief yet informative look at race and IQ in the sub-continent, and the lessons the West should learn accordingly, at Defend Europa:
Uruguay, for example, is 88% ethnic European (white) according to the latest data available. It will come as no surprise to those who have read up on the correlations between IQ and race that Uruguay also has the highest average IQ score of all South American nations (96). In contrast, a country like EL Salvador, in which only 12% of its people “identify as white (European origin)”, the average IQ is a mere 80, whilst average earnings are amongst some of the lowest of the continent ($3,960 per year).
Venezuela is another good example to look at. The homicide rate of Venezuela is a massive 53.7 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, whilst average income is a minuscule $804 per year. This is again unsurprising when we look at the demographics of the country; white Europeans are a minority in Venezuela, with just 43.6% of the people there “identifying as white”, whilst the average IQ is 84, a whole 12 points lower than majority-white Uruguay.
Argentinians enjoy some of the highest wages in South America, with the average annual income per capita currently standing at $13,000 – low by European standards perhaps, but still significantly higher than many other South American nations. Again, we find that this correlates directly with IQ and demographics. Argentina is 86% ethnic European, with an average IQ of 93.
It is vital that as many people as possible are aware of the dangers of the erosion of our European racial groups, along with the decline in the standards of all that Europeans are renowned for across the world; science, philosophy, architecture – all of our achievements in these fields are down to the intelligent innovations of native European men and women.
Of course, preservation of the white race and Western culture is an end in itself, justified by something of infinitely higher value than its fine achievements in all those fields of human endeavor: the very sense of meaning and purpose that makes life worth living.
Which makes the Latin American experience an even more urgent and relevant lesson for the West to learn from.
Vox Day suggests last night’s fire in London is a sign of third-worldization:
It is reported to have been an accident, not arson or a terror attack, but I can’t help but think that this is the sort of thing one usually expects to read about from the 19th century or see in undeveloped countries.
‘A number of fatalities’ confirmed as huge blaze ‘sparked by faulty FRIDGE’ engulfs 27-storey London tower block: Trapped residents build ropes from sheets and hurl themselves from windows. Several people are confirmed dead after a huge inferno broke out at a residential tower block in West London. Many residents believed to still be trapped inside the 27-storey building as it teeters on the brink of collapse. More than 600 residents desperately tried to escape the flames as the fire broke out in the middle of the night.
Jon Hall, former chief fire officer for the Midlands, who advised David Cameron’s government said today: ‘This is a Third-World type accident that represents a failure of every component of fire safety & building management.
Then again, it reminds me of the twin towers in Minneapolis that have long been known as “the ghettos in the sky”.
It certainly reminds me of at least one recent event in my native Venezuela:
The chaos turned deadly when looters entered a bakery protected by an electric fence and tried to remove a refrigerator. The accounts varied, but one opposition leader said 13 people were hit with an electrical current after tossing containers filled with water and making contact with the refrigerator’s power cord.
And about “ghettos in the sky,” let me give you a glimpse of how worse things can get if the US doesn’t stop the massive influx of third worlders, pronto:
[I submitted English subtitles to their YouTube channel. However, as their review will probably take a couple days before publishing them, I am leaving the caption file below.]
Drawing on the work of historian Pablo Victoria (no relation to Pol Victoria), Victoria walks viewers through a series of troubling facts that are utterly at odds with the perennial legend of Bolívar as El Libertador [The Liberator] of peoples oppressed by an evil Spanish empire.
Rather, Bolívar’s so-called “war of independence” could better be described as a civil war between two factions of Spanish creoles: those who favored Spanish rule (the Realists), and those who, under Bolívar’s leadership, opposed it.
Bolivar was, of course, inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment as much as any member of the Jacobin Club during the French revolution. And the fanatic zeal with which he pursued those ideals was also on a par with those who implemented them in France:
In what today is Venezuela, Bolívar declared war to the death against the Realsits, and he carried it out with full force.
After the battle of El Tinaquillo, in August, 1813, he razed a series of towns, and kills all the “Europeans and Canarians,” as he called the Realists.
In September that same year he implemented forcible conscription, and shot those who refused to take arms.
Immediately after that, he shot 69 Spanyards without trial.
In December, 1813, he defeats the weakened Realist army at Acarigua, and orders the execution of 600 prisoners.
On February 8, 1814, he goes after Spanish prisoners held at Caracas, Valencia and La Guaira. They were approximately 1,200 civilians, most of them retail traders, and immediately orders the shooting of all Spanyards among the prisoners as well as those in the hospital, without exceptions. Because gunpowder was scarce, they were executed with swords and pikes, and to finish them off, they crushed their skulls using large rocks.
The elderly and disabled were taken to the gallows tied up to their chairs.
Despite the supplications of Caracas’ archbishop, Bolivar carried out the killings.
The last report of the butchering shows that the sick in the hospitals were also executed.
There was also the killing of the shipwrecks of a Spanish boat at Margarita island, the criminal looting of Santa Fe, and the killing of prisoners after the Boyacá battle.
When Bolivar comes back to Caracas after his victory, the first ones to rebel against him were the slaves in his own haciendas. They thought they were much better off living under Spanish rule than under cruel, blood-thirsty, fanatical zealot.
Understanding Bolívar’s true character and motivations is also crucial for understanding the utter failure of Latin America as the prototypical multicultural project. For only a Utopian fanatic like Bolívar would dare carrying it out.
As much as Bolívar was very much aware of the impossibility of unbridled democracy to function in the simmering cauldron of races that were the territories he liberated, he thought all he needed to do to make his revolutionary dream come true was a little institutional fine-tuning here and there.
But his attempt to implement liberal ideals in a top-down fashion through a centralist state, through what has been described as a model of “enlightened absolutism,” finally blew up in his face.
By 1830, reality finally dawned on him, and on his way to exile, he gravely declared:
‘I have ruled for 20 years and from these I have gained only a few certainties:
America is ungovernable, for us;
Those who serve a revolution plough the sea;
The only thing one can do in America is emigrate;
This country will fall inevitably into the hands of the unbridled masses and then pass almost imperceptibly into the hands of petty tyrants, of all colours and races;
Once we have been devoured by every crime and extinguished by utter ferocity, the Europeans will not even regard us as worth conquering;
If it were possible for any part of the world to revert to primitive chaos, it would be America in its final hour.’
Needless to say, Bolívar’s true legacy is, more than ever, of great interest for understanding today’s tumultuous political situation in the West.
The utter failure of Latin America as a multicultural project is the direct consequence of his political legacy, and is a dire warning to those still under the globalist spell who harbor any hope that diversity can, somehow, be a strength.