Renegade Third Worlder

Dissuading the West from joining our lowly club of nations

Category: Latin America

The elephant in the Latin American room

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.

The truth about Simón Bolívar

Pol Victoria was recently interviewed by Intereconomía about that not-so-well-known side of the history of Simón Bolívar.

[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.]

Caption file:

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.

Liberal confusion, populism edition

Over at Amerika, Brett Stevens, commenting on an article on populism in Foreign Affairs, articulates a neat, crystal clear definition of the term:

…populism recognizes the nature of power, which is to use institutions to limit the organic nation and parasitize it for the benefit of international elites and home-grown toadies.

It is “populist” only in that it is meta-democracy, or a popular sentiment created outside the controlled confines of courts, voting and public discourse. It is a cultural wave pushing back against how politics frames the narrative and artificially limits choices based on the pretense of people in groups.

Where conservatives think we can import people from the third world, “educate” them in our ways and have them live among us, the Alt Right realizes that diversity as a whole fails. Where Nazis single out African-Americans and Jews, the Alt Right points out that every group acts in its own self-interest alone, and in the Machiavellian realpolitik and so ideas like “we are all one” and diversity can never work no matter what groups are involved.

Populists also recognize the nation as an organic entity, or a people. This means that it only lasts so long as its founding group remains unmixed and with its traditions intact. To a populist, social standards must be enforced by culture, and having government step in the way makes government into a parasitic and corrupting force.

Since the adoption of liberalism in the West, a process that took over a thousand years, we have become materialistic or focused on material goals instead of doing what is right. That includes deference to institutions like law and politics, a facilitative society that aims at empowering individual choice over commonality of purpose, and the mentality that whatever is profitable, popular or socially trending is more important that doing what is good, beautiful and true according to the order of nature.

The pushback began once it became clear that Leftists had buried our society in so many rules and precedents that any action except moar Leftism was demonized, ostracized and made politically incorrect…

It is important to define the term as precisely as possible, because its use and abuse is one of the liberal elite’s favorite rhetorical weapons in the culture wars.

The most Orwellian version of this exercise claims that populism necessarily leads to Latin-American-style authoritarianism.

A few recent examples:

How to be a poulist,” by Moises Naim for The Atlantic

Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America’s Hugo Chávez,” by Rory Carroll for The Guardian.

Populism: The new enemy of democracy,” by Nobel Laureate Mario Vargas Llosa for El Pais.

What Trump has in common with Hugo Chavez,” by Andres Oppenheimer for The Miami Herald.

Donald Trump is no Hugo Chavez. He is more like Nicolas Maduro,” by Francisco Toro for The Washington Post.

Don’t cry for me, America: Forget the wall. Donald Trump’s appeal is textbook Latin American populism,” by Enrique Krauze for Slate.

Beware, liberal bien-pensants say, of leaders who appeal to the deepest, gut-level political instincts of the common folk, pitting them against an oppressive, corrupt, establishment-entrenched elite: that’s exactly what the likes of Hugo Chávez did in Venezuela… and look how their common folk ended up!

The outrageous fallacy, of course, resides in the fact that the deepest, gut-level political instincts of a people are as good as a people’s culture. Which in turn is an emergent, path-dependent property of those people’s idiosyncratic matrix of predispositions, beliefs, behaviors, temperaments and aptitudes with which they are endowed by their genes.

As much as Marxist class-warfare demagoguery as championed by the likes of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez use populist discourse to pit the common guy against the establishment, its inherent leftism can only resonate in the hearts and minds of mestizos that not only never really assimilated into Western culture in any significant sense, but also lost touch with their ancestral, native American heritage.

Mestizo culture, if it can be called that, is an incoherent melange. A confusing patchwork born of the delusional attempt to embrace “diversity as strength” at the core of Latin American national projects. Most of them, to add insult to injury, suffused with the feverish dream of a supranational Patria Grande.

This essential lack of cultural substance of the Latin American mestizo is, of course, the main reason why most of them, even in 21st-century Latin America, live in a state that cannot be characterized as anything but plain savagery.

Actually, perhaps it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that in some respects, life in the barrios and favelas of Latin American megalopolises is today more savage than it was for their jungle-dwelling ancestors.

Can anyone in their right minds expect anything else than leftism, the anti-civilizational ideology par-excellence, to become hegemonic among a fundamentally savage people?

Can anyone in their right minds even insinuate that the deepest, gut-level political instincts of working class Americans and Europeans are in any way as susceptible to leftism as the mostly mestizo common folk in Latin America are?

Also, as Stevens points out elsewhere:

[Rightist] societies are neither individualist nor collectivist, but organic. They are people cooperating at a level of such maturity that each person finds a role they can serve and stays there. If that’s king, great; if it’s peasant, ditto.

Crass attempts to impose the notion of individual autonomy at the core of classical liberalism on uncultured peoples like those of Latin America, inevitably result in full-blown collectivist regimes that appeal to the savage impulses of the mestizo.

Given the actual state of affairs in the first world, the liberal notion of individual autonomy has seemingly proven to also exert a corroding influence on the spiritual values of Western culture that gave birth to it in the first place.

This led to the exacerbated, atomized, materialist individualism that Stevens describes. And ultimately, this seems to also be devolving into full-blown collectivism, albeit in form more akin to A Brave New World than 1984.

But if first-world liberals have their way and their open-border policies prevail, they will ultimately face a rude awakening.

When pervasive price controls and rampant nationalization of industry become the norm, the soma will run out, just like Venezuelans ran out of toilet paper, and they will realize they are living under the more 1984-ish version of collectivism that prevails in Latin America.

And it will be too late to do anything about it.