So I copied this essay from a dying thread in hopes to keep the topic of the essay above alive. Is white flight an evolutionary trait? In the harsh northern climates it would be more practical to avoid conflict so that your sources of warmth aren't destroyed in a war, so is it possible that the white flight concept isn't a new thing?
Same goes to the Black population. In an environment where you don't need much planning to survive, would it be more practical to be confrontational? And is it possible that all of this is evolutionary rather than a modern invention?
And if these things are in fact true, is it possible that the liberal media intentionally exploited these traits to get the mess we have today?
Please note that when I say evolutionary I mean micro evolution and Darwin's original theory, which was adapting to a specific environment.
So please post your thoughts but please no name calling. If you have a disagreement please find evidence and present your cases in a civilized manner.
To return briefly to this point:
-People become more confrontational when resources are limited, not less, as they compete over limited resources. A cold climate would therefore be more likely to produce violent cultures.
-The European racial type did not even develop in a harsh climate. European winters are relatively mild.
-Many peoples who evolved in far colder climates than Europeans - the Algonquin Indians for example - are known for their warlike cultures.
-One could easily use this type of thinking to rationalise the reverse position. One could argue that, in warm equatorial climates, the abundance of food supplies makes confrontational behaviour unnecessary because it is less important to preserve sources of sustenance owing to their abundance, while in northern climates it is vital to be willing to vigorously and violently protect and acquire the more limited sources of sustenance in order to survive. This theory is actually more credible.
-Europeans are the most naturally confrontational people by nature, and I believe that history bears this fact out. Ideological conflict is and was nowhere so pronounced as it in Europe. What were the martyrs but confrontational? The Saints? The Crusaders? The Popes who battled kings? The men who discovered the new world? Even the Protestant revolutionaries and the French revolutionaries. The Communists and the fascists. European history is characterised by conflict and confrontation more than the history of any other region.
-Tropical peoples are known more for their docility, not for their confrontational natures. African-Americans were known historically for their mildness and meekness, not for violence and aggression. See the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville, for example.
-For better or for worse, European civilization subdued the entire world, and Europeans colonized half of the planet. Before "white flight" there was white colonization.
-Liberalism itself is an aggressive ideology. It is aggressively anti-Christian. Liberalism is in fact the precise opposite of being un-confrontational... it is extremely confrontational. It confronts the entirety of human history, culture, and accepted morality. It confronts God himself and proclaims his death. It confronts reality. It would be foolish to see liberalism and it's effects as being the result of cowardice and weakness alone... Our societies accept the destruction brought by Islam not out of cowardice but out of nihilism. We have lost our values and our sense of purpose precisely because liberalism, in it's mad zeal, fought so viciously to tear those things down.
These bizarre theories of what amounts to white inferiority are clearly a product of white guilt and biological determinism blended together in some sick amalgamation. Both white guilt and biological determinism are utterly un-Catholic.