Why Logic and Why realism

To consider why a person would prefer logic and realistic thoughts over pretty idealistic and positive thoughts we have to look at our own personal experience on small scale as well as a holistic look at a nations inkling to thoughts of left and right.

Of course a person would be more inclined to harbour positive thoughts than negative thoughts and assumptions, because, as most of us have experienced, your happiness is linked with your thoughts. Thus the more positive your thoughts the more positive your life seems to be. So a person, if he can afford it, would rather see the better side of things instead of the bad negative things. I say ‘afford it’ because a person who hasn’t eaten for 4 days and does not seem to have any tangible evidence of getting food anytime soon cannot ‘afford’ to believe every little thing’s going be alright. He must grasp the reality of the situation for him to be able to know what needs to be done and do it. Whilst a well fed person with a pantry full of food is much more inclined to believe that every little thing’s going be alright.

Therefore even in this small example, a positive mind-set and positive opinion is directly linked to the prosperity and security of a person. It’s easy to tell the hungry person, every little thing’s going be alright if you are not the hungry person.  Therefore it is easy for a Frenchman living in a grand flat on the Riviera to only assume the very best of every black person in Africa and demand the white man in Africa treats every black man as his equal and as good. But if he were to move with his family on a farm bordering the township Mamelody he would be much more inclined to now harbour realistic thoughts, because now his life and the life of his family depends on it.

For example, he will quickly learn of the practical and efficient application of generalizing. Regardless of the occasional black person he might every now and then offend because he first assumed him dangerous before knowing him. He wouldn’t care, because as Benjamin Ntananyau once put it. “The security of my people is more important than my popularity.” But for the Frenchman in is flat on the Riviera, his popularity is much more important than the security of other people.

And so the public opinion in South Africa in the 1980’s and 1990’s was created by comfortable well-meaning foreigners. They were so far removed from the issue that they created their staunch support for the struggle in South Africa of the blacks believing all blacks were like Denzel Washington, Oprah and Nelson Mandela.

Then why did the majority of whites in South Africa agree to the abolishment of apartheid and gaining a typical African government? Regardless of having over 30 failed African states as evidence of the horrid outcome of democratically elected tyrants in all other African governments?

Because of the prosperity that apartheid had afforded the whites in South Africa. Because of how far removed they were of real Africa. They had full stomachs and full pantries so to speak. Then their positive mind-set was bombarded with idealistic visions of a pretty future with the same-as-me African. Hook, line, sinker.

Back to the point: What determines a person’s mind-set? Thus idealistic pretty thoughts are nurtured and created by prosperity and security. The best modern example of this being the newly elected far-right political party FN (Front National) party in France with Marine La Pen. As the immigration problem in France increased with more and more immigrants from Arabic and African countries the problem was becoming much closer to home. The Frenchman in his flat on the Riviera no longer needed to move to South Africa to develop a realistic and logic mind-set as his security, thus the security of his prosperity, is now clearly under threat, and he can no longer ‘afford’ to have a pretty idealistic mind-set. So he resorts to the FN. But alas, for them it is also too late. There will be no turning back the tide now. But if they have listened to the unpopular few who so accurately described the consequences of slack immigration policies, they would not have had the problem.

And so the West is doomed to realize the truth only when it is too late. Because they ignore a tumour too long, and now, the treatment required to cure it would likely kill the host. War.

Let’s Generalize.

Anyone who aims to change anything more than their living room curtains have to generalize. There are more than 7 billion people on the planet. To form an educated opinion and not remain impartial we have to generalize. I've been told countless times not to generalise.  I believe the good intentioned reason for it, is because it discriminates against those who do not fit the profile. Very well, if I had to say Indians like cricket. I would in that case clearly be wrong. Because there are certainly some Indians who do not enjoy cricket. Therefore my above statement is incorrect and if I would host a cricket match in an Indian neighbourhood I would be discriminating against those that do not enjoy cricket and it would therefore be unwise to do so. Thus, I should host a rugby match in an Indian neighbourhood to accommodate those who do not enjoy cricket. (To a white liberal, I am being satirical.) Even after twisting the concept like that, it still reads as if it could work. But your ticket sales will reflect the truth. And you will clearly be disappointed in the turnout. So, when I say Indians like cricket, must I always add, "most Indians like cricket while some Indian people like football others like golf others like rugby etc. etc." Or will I add a * after each generalization and at the end of each article where I list the names and surnames of all the Indians that does not like cricket, like so "Indians like cricket*"

For every new Indian I meet I will assume he likes cricket, a little knowledge of his culture will improve our relations. It would be stupid of him to be offended by my assumption if it does not apply to him because he knows most other Indians enjoy cricket. (This was not satire, liberal, because I know you struggle to distinguish real from fake.)

I use the 'Indians like cricket' as a more neutral example of a concept. When I meet an African (Liberal and African, before you pop a vain and run around your living room yelling "Racist bastard! Doesn't he know all black people are made of rainbows and lavender!" finish reading the paragraph, then you can go leave a YouTube video response reminding us of slavery.) I assume he has the intention of deceiving and/or robbing me ("Not all black people yaddah yaddah!!!"). It comes from experience. The opinion was developed through 3 near death experiences from trusting them off hand and saved my life two times after adopting the attitude of generalization and helped me avoid countless more sticky situations. There were a few times where my caution was unnecessary and a black and liberal would expect me to focus on these exceptions, and again, make them the rule. My attitude saved my life twice, and has kept me out of trouble and criminals on their toes. A black or liberal can argue as they please, they can say what they will, they can give me books that will "shake my foundations". But my survival depends on my attitude and my attitude is shaped by experience.

All actions require preparation. Success in life depends to a very large extent on how well you prepare for the things in your life. Even unexpected adaptation becomes easier with preparation. Preparation is not damaging if not used. Only a fool sees preparation as a waste if not used. How do we prepare? We predict. How do we predict? Like Chess. We generalize. How do we generalize? By using experience and knowledge.

Germans are well organized. Indians like cricket. Chinese people speak Cantonese. These are generalizations. Why are these generalizations? Because they apply. They fit. They are generally found to be true. But not 100% of the times.

Banjos sound like drums. Fire is cold. Japanese dislike Anime. Koreans are good at drawing tables. These are not generalizations. Because they do not apply. They do not fit. They are not generally found to be true. But not a 100% of the times.

Thus, when playing the banjos we do not prepare for drum sounds. When jumping into fire we do not wear our swimming trunks. When speaking with Koreans you don’t first mention furniture. When choosing a sport to play with Indians, it’s wise to pick cricket. So, by generalizing we are prepared to take on these situations through experience and knowledge. If, it turns out, we spoke with an Indian who does not like cricket; it is his problem if he is offended.

Therefore, when walking in Mamalody at night, you don’t wear flashy jewellery and don’t carry a lot of cash. Why? You are not allowed to answer, because you are not allowed to generalize. If you need assistance in a state department like home affairs and you can choose to be helped by either a white person or an African. Which would you choose? You are not allowed to answer because you are not allowed to generalize. If you hear of a family being murdered by intruders, what do you assume the race of the perpetrators to be? Again, can’t answer, out of fear of being scolded for generalizing and being racist.

So, from these examples, we can now assume, that when the liberal world instructs us to not generalize, they mean not to generalize negatively about a certain race, particularly Africans. Would you then agree, That. Is. Bullshit? So the argument that generalizations are bad is false. It is simply a way of saying generalizing negatively, even if it is true and relevant, about  a race, particularly Africans, but not Whites is wrong.

Therefore, I generalize. 

The Chronicle

The reason for this chronicle is that I've seen a general lack of real time info from any reliable source on how our past conversion from civilisation to savagery (apartheid to multi-party democracy) occurred in real time. Now all the info we have is scraped together, moderated and presented to us by the victor (the savage).

It won't be all factual, and very often a prediction of the future. But most important, it will be an indication and inspection on the hearts and minds and role players of the time. Because, things that are unpopular today, like calling apartheid civilisation, might not be unpopular after a big strong revolution.

But to try and understand why there were so many who so strongly believed South Africa's Rainbow nation couldn't possibly fail. They so strongly believed it that they were willing to outcast and excommunicate those who knew it would fail, as if those non-believers believed that the world was round when it was very clearly flat. And now that it failed many liberals blame the fact that it failed on the belief that it would. Like the earth now being round because they believed it to be.

And why, those who very clearly knew that it would fail were so few, and how they knew it for so long. They didn't exactly know when, but had a pretty good idea, plus minus 20 years. But the thing is I don't have clear reference on who said what when yet.

But in our quest to uncover how they knew this and what evidence they used, we will scour the internet and find the sources of their scientific predictions.

The idea is not so we can pat these people on the back, the idea is so we can recognise these people before it’s too late. Before calamity. So we can assess the characteristics and the traits they possess. To know how to scientifically recognise this minority of people who are able to an extent, correctly predict the future. To be able to, with proof, tell our future generations who they should be listening to and that they should probably not be listening to the majority. But to those we identify through historical reference to be competent to decide on things concerning our future. Through science.  Models designed by scientists using data, not a popularity scale, but historical data. Not to prove that these people were right, because it is clear they were, but to find out how they knew and how they knew so long before.

Because if only we have listened to these few before, we could have avoided this calamity (if you read the news you'll know) we face today. Because the majority can clearly see we've made a mistake today, but today is too late.