John Wayne's incredibly based interview with Playboy from 1971. "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people."

submitted by Bonn1770Republican Party from (ia800905.us.archive.org)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

It would have been more based if we had insisted on having white people educated to the point of responsibility first.

[–]Bonn1770Republican Party[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

We used to, I'm old enough to remember when. Standards were lowered again and again (Wayne calls this out) in education so blacks were not constantly failing that white kids now can't get educated. Schools used to test for mental retardation in kids with under 80 IQs and put them in special needs classes. Black kids were almost all being put in the retarded classes, so bleeding heart whites lowered the standard for all kids so now even the retards in in the regular classes. And it has been an unmitigated disaster for children's education in the US. But Jews and white progressives can't accept the fact that blacks have an IQ of around 80, so we all have to dumb down everything. "Educators" are calling for removing math and science education because blacks fail these classes. We are within a few years of nobody in the west being able to operate and maintain complex machinery. The recent train derailments is the first symptom. Look what happened to the train system in South Africa after they drove out the whites. China went in there to use the rail mining system and found the blacks had completely failed to maintain it after the whites left. It's happening in the US now.

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

We used to, I'm old enough to remember when.

You mean senile enough to imagine shit that never happened. We've always been ruled by greedy, selfish, ignorant shitheads.

The recent train derailments is the first symptom.

Jeez, the rot started in America long before the "recent" train derailments. The US has always underfunded maintenance in poor areas, doubly so if they are poor and majority black, but they've started doing the same for critical infrastructure across the country for at least fifty years. And you've only just discovered this now??? Fuck me.

Remember Flint? Remember the white dude in the Oval Office who completely fucked up the Hurricane Katrina response, and his white good buddy at FEMA and the "hecka of a job" he did? Remember the white dudes in the White House who gave Halliburton (a company run by white dudes) a "no bid" contract to supply food for the troops in Iraq, and they supplied literally rotten and rancid tinned meat?

No of course you don't.

after they drove out the whites.

South Africa has not driven out the whites.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Uneducated white people are not forced into positions of authority over more competent peers.

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

Uneducated white people are not forced into positions of authority over more competent peers.

The history of Europe and America is hundreds of years of ignorant white people getting put into positions of authority over more competent people due to their privilege as an aristocrat, royal, having the right connections thanks to Daddy or Uncles, membership in the right club, etc.

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So how did all these corrupt nations become the most advanced, wealthy and succesful in the world?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Intentional /s/Race_DivisionByElites, manipulation, propaganda, exploitation, mass murder, perpetual war, subterfuge, as well as secret agencies, institutions, and cabals.

"All these nations" aren't so advanced that they can't be free of corruption and propaganda.
Hell, even you've fallen for the bullshit.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fallen for what bullshit?

By every rational, testable, provable metric everything I said is true and has been true for the last 2 thousand years.

Sounds like you have fallen for bullshit and don't believe reality is true.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

So how did all these corrupt nations become the most advanced, wealthy and succesful in the world?

  1. Geographical advantages, which lead to Europe having the advantage in Guns, Germs and Steel.
  2. Which allowed them to loot the rest of the world.

To give just one example out of many, before the British East India Company was given exclusive rights to manage India as their own private fiefdom, the average Indian labourer earned 25 times as much as the average British labourer, and India was one of the richest areas on earth. But not politically unified: the East India Company could leverage their advantage to divide and conquer. By the time India gained their independence, it was one of the poorest countries on earth.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Geographical advantages, which lead to Europe having the advantage in Guns, Germs and Steel.

What geographical advantages lead to that?

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Read "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jarred Diamond for a long and detailed explanation, but among others:

  • Eurasia is oriented east-west, while the Americans and Africa are oriented north-south.
  • That makes migration easier, as peoples can spread out a long way and keep the same latitude, which means the same growing conditions for crops.
  • Africa straddles the equator, which makes for almost impassable jungles, followed by the Sahara, which is millions of square miles of wasteland. Europe has nothing like that, and Asia's wide open steppes are far more hospitable than the Sahara.
  • Compared to Africa, Europe has almost the optimum climate for agriculture. Africa tends to have many more, and longer, droughts, Europe has relatively stable climate.
  • Due to its geography, Africa was subject to lethal endemic diseases which slow the population growth compared to Asia and Europe, which instead had pandemic diseases which perversely encourage economic growth:
    • aristocratic elites and population growth suppress wages and restrict democratic freedoms, which leads to economic stagnation;
    • but then a pandemic wipes out masses of people, leading to a shortage of labour;
    • the survivors can then demand more power and higher wages;
    • which leads to more democratic governments which in turn leads to better economic growth.
  • Whether by chance or geography, Eurasia had many easily domesticated large animal species (cows, Asian buffalo, goats, sheep, horses, donkeys, camels, reindeer) while the Americas and Africa had only one each (llamas, way down in South America, and native cows in east Africa). Even with modern technology and knowledge, most large species are impossible to domesticate.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Eurasia is oriented east-west, while the Americans and Africa are oriented north-south.

Africa is wider than europe. Neither is "oriented" in any direction.

That makes migration easier, as peoples can spread out a long way and keep the same latitude, which means the same growing conditions for crops.

The growing conditions vary greatly accross europe. Farmers don't migrate. Migrants are hunter gatherers. Migrants that settle down develop farming that uses whatever conditions are there.

Africa straddles the equator, which makes for almost impassable jungles, followed by the Sahara, which is millions of square miles of wasteland. Europe has nothing like that, and Asia's wide open steppes are far more hospitable than the Sahara.

Africa does not have impassable forests. Africa has savanhas.

Being in the equator is a huge benefit to farming.

The most advanced civilizations in africa existed in the sahara, namely the egyptian. Evidence shows that the rulers of egypt at the time were white.

Compared to Africa, Europe has almost the optimum climate for agriculture. Africa tends to have many more, and longer, droughts, Europe has relatively stable climate.

Absolutely absurd claim. Irrigation exists. White farmers in africa have no problem farming until the black governments take the farms away because it makes those farmers too wealthy.

Due to its geography, Africa was subject to lethal endemic diseases which slow the population growth compared to Asia and Europe, which instead had pandemic diseases which perversely encourage economic growth:

This is a self contradictory claim. Is disease good or bad?

You are clearly talking straight out of your ass. Making asolutely idiotic claims. I bet you think you could sell ice to eskimos with your, what I assume your arrogant ass thinks is cleaver, bullshit.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Me: "Eurasia is oriented east-west".

You:

Africa is wider than europe.

That's nice dear. What does that have to do with anything I said?

Africa is about 7400 km (4600 miles) from east to west, Eurasia is nearly twice as wide at 14500 km (9000 miles).

At its widest, most of Africa is inhospitable desert (the Sahara), so not very useful for agriculture.

Neither is "oriented" in any direction.

They aren't circles. Both have a long dimension and a short dimension. Africa's long dimension is north-south, Eurasia is east-west. Hence, Africa is oriented north-south and Eurasia east-west. Which I am sure you already knew.

Farmers don't migrate.

"And that is why all farming is still based around the Fertile Crescent, where it started tens of thousands of years ago." 🙄

Farmers have been migrating for thousands of years.

Populations spread out and move. People migrate, including farmers, especially before the invention of the modern nation state and border controls. When they migrate, they take their techniques and seeds with them, and farm again. If they migrate in an east-west direction they will experience the same number of daylight hours, and more likely to have similar growing conditions. If they migrate in a north-south direction, they will experience changes in daylight hours, changes in the lengths of the seasons, and much different growing conditions.

Africa does not have impassable forests. Africa has savanhas.

You're kidding, right? Playing a joke? Central Africa is famous for its jungles. Even today, with deforestation having shrunk them significantly, almost 2 million square kilometres of Africa is rainforest.

Being in the equator is a huge benefit to farming.

"And this is why the most productive farmland in the world, like California, Europe, Brazil, Ukraine, etc are all on the equator!" 🙄

The equatorial climate zone is generally too hot and too wet for most farming. Of course you can grow some foods, but if you want the sort of intensive farming needed to feed eight billion people, you need more temperate or Mediterranean climates. And good soil.

Evidence shows that the rulers of egypt at the time were white.

The most advanced civilisation in African you have heard of is Egypt, but that's not saying much. If it wasn't for the folk tales of Moses and the imaginary Hebrew slavery in Egypt, hardly anyone in the west would know or care about Egypt. Fun fact for you: there are about twice as many pyramids in the former Kushite Kingdom (modern day Sudan) as in Egypt. The black Nubians of Kush even conquered Egypt and ruled it for a couple of centuries.

Egyptians are neither "white" (Caucasian) nor "black" (sub-Saharan African). Despite being conquered many times, there have been no mass migrations into Egypt that has drastically changed their racial demographics. Ancient Egyptians, like modern Egyptians, are their own people, most closely related to other north Africans (the Berbers) with a significant genetic connection to the black Nubians of Sudan.

Irrigation exists.

Yes, it exists, and if you happen to be close to large rivers then maybe you can use it. Irrigation requires big, complex societies with a surplus of labour. Not something that early farmers could do, and even today, most farms around the world are not irrigated, but rely on rainfall.

Is disease good or bad?

Well obviously disease is bad for the individuals who get sick and die.

But for societies, constant endemic disease that weakens everyone is bad because it acts to slow down the rate of advancement. So that's bad too.

But occasional, rare pandemics that hit suddenly and then disappear can, in the long run, cause civilisations to advance. For instance, Medieval European society was stagnant, wages were low, the aristocrats controlled the peasants (serfs) and there was very little merchant class. And then the Black Death struck, and killed many millions of people. Obviously bad for those who died. But it killed off many of the parasitical aristocrat and priest class, and so many of the working class that the survivors could demand more pay and more freedoms.

Modern Europe probably owes at least part of its economic and democratic freedoms to the disruption caused by the medieval Black Death.

[–]JewsAreOfColor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your admission that Egyptians are white is an admission that they owe Jews reparations for enslaving us.

[–]JewsAreOfColor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

By respecting the rights of homosexuals. Whichever race treats Gay people the best is the master race because it is the kindest and most compassionate race.

Without homosexuals and Jews, Western civilization would be an oxymoron. Emphasis on “moron.“

[–]1Icemonkey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Who’s fucking side are you on anyway?

[–]weavilsatemyface 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Not the side of ignorant racists, that's for sure. No matter what colour their skin is.

Especially not old hams like Marion Morrison, who was a B-grade actor at his best.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

^

[–]hfxB0oyAPirate Party 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

👍

[–]1Icemonkey 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You’re a fool.

[–]JewsAreOfColor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

“No matter what color their skin is“ is a racist statement because it assumes people of color are capable of perpetuating networks of systemic oppression based on skin color.

[–]JewsAreOfColor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am on the side of God, the Jewish God, the real God.

[–]1Icemonkey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The only reason I don’t block you is I still get a chuckle now and then.⚡️⚡️