Bearers of Culture

~ Clarissa

It takes at least 3 generations to create a thoroughly cultivated individual, says Renaud Camus. This was always widely known. Even in the USSR we’d say that a member of intelligentsia needs three university degrees – his own, his father’s, and his grandfather’s.

Today, however, it’s radically unfashionable and even dangerous to state this obvious truth.

“We prefer to sacrifice culture out of a horror of heredity,” says Camus. This form of hyperdemocracy destroys actual democracy because it creates de-cultured patchwork societies which are societies in name only. Those who are supposed to be the bearers and the conservationists of the shared culture are terrified even to think of themselves that way.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

16 thoughts on “Bearers of Culture”

  1. OT: https://notthebee.com/article/episcopal-church-announces-an-end-to-its-refugee-resettlement-partnership-with-the-government-now-that-the-trump-administration-is-bringing-in-whit-south-african-refugees

    TL:DR: Trump declared South African white people wanting to emigrate to the US (there are a whopping 49 of them in the pipeline) to be refugees eligible for US refugee status and programs. The Episcopal church shut down its entire refugee-aid program in response.

    Like

    Reply

    1. also here: https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/05/media-suddenly-skeptical-of-refugees-after-reports-of-impending-arrival-of-white-south-african-farmers/

      I’ve no opinion on whether or not it’s a good idea to import Afrikaaners. But if declaring small populations of possibly-culturally-compatible people (SAfricans, Ukrainians, Egyptian Copts, and Syrian Christians all come to mind) is all it takes to make NGOs on public funding call it quits… it seems a very worthwhile experiment. It’s all fine and good to cut said funding, but there’s always a fight over it, tons of pushback. If you can tweak the metrics and make them quit on their own… win/win.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “no opinion on whether or not it’s a good idea to import Afrikaaners.”

        I’ve known a couple and from what I remember (more or less confirmed by Black South Africans) is that the Afrikaaners had a bum rap they didn’t necessarily deserve. Despite whatever faults they did have they actually had much contact with and closer relationships with Black SAers and the English speakers were worse by almost every metric but they controlled the international narrative…. FYI only.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. It’s not a good idea to bring in 20 million of them. Is somebody trying to do that? No? Then let’s not waste our time on “jusslike” arguments of the intellectually non-sophisticated.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        3. The British also abolished slavery which is important in western SA and especially Cape Town where slavery was historically practiced, and there are more Afrikaans speakers with slave ancestry than white Afrikaners.

          Like

          Reply

  2. I don’t know anything about the (Ukrainians, Egyptian Copts, and Syrian Christians,) but I do know some history about the Afrikaners. Quite frankly I would love to bring their bloodlines into the country, especially if we could trade them for some of the locus who have come in since the 1960s.

    A bit of a history lesson about South Africa, feel free to skip if you aren’t interested. Also I’m doing this based off memory without any notes or reference material to refer to so they will likely be a few errors, especially with the names.

    The Afrikaners are made up of English/Dutch/German settlers. The original batch were the Dutch/Germans who landed in what is known as South Africa. Their original name was something like Vortreder, or something like that. They purchased what is known as South Africa today from the local African tribes. Said tribes were nomadic in nature and didn’t settle so while land was important to them, it wasn’t that important as they kept moving about.

    I do not remember what exactly caused the Boer Wars, but England wound up conquering the Dutch/German lands. (WWI maybe?) I believe that the Boer where what the English settlers were called, but it might have been the name for the three groups that were now merged. (The English won the war.)

    The new English governor was ambitious and wanted to colonize the lands along the eastern coast of Africa and build a railroad from South Africa up the Eastern coastline to Egypt (which was controlled at that point by the English.) He began a push this time through settled African lands. Some of the local kings accepted British rule. These were the weaker tribes. There was one big kingdom that kept raiding all of them and so they accepted the British because they expected the British to defeat said strong raiding kingdom.

    To get an idea of how lopsided this was. The British force was I believe about 1,500 men. The local African king/warlord had over 75,000 men. The British won, but they took enough casualties that it spelled the end of the expansion. (I believe there was also an attack on the colony as well.)

    Now something to understand. Africa despite the riches that are located in the continent, is cursed. Nearly everywhere else in the world, trade via river is used. Asia uses it, South America uses it, North America uses it, Europe uses it, the middle east uses it. Africa does not. They cannot. The rivers are broken up and jagged. There are waterfalls and rapids everywhere. What this means is trade by river is short range only, it also means anything that is produced inland has to go out via road, rail, or air. At this point in time there was no rail or air travel, and roads were almost non existent outside of areas that had been colonized on the coastlines.

    With the rivers blocking trade, the Boer had to build the roads, bridges, railroads, airfields, everything from ground up. Remember all of South Africa was wilderness, and Rhodesia was about the same.

    So take that thought, wilderness, blocked rivers, hostile landscape, and hostile tribes (Zulu), then consider the fact that the Settlers managed to by the 1960s turn the area into a 1st world country, that produced top of the line vehicles, was the breadbasket of Africa, at the same time continuing to maintain and expand the logistical networks in their territory, etc.

    So fast forward to the 1980s/90s. By this point there was a massive inverse in population. Originally the population was roughly even between whites and blacks. But with the expansion Northward by the English, the tribes that joined up quickly outnumber the whites, then as years progressed more from outside kept heading to Rhodesia and South Africa as it was a stable, wealthy country, were things tended to work, and life was relatively better.

    During the fighting between the soviets and the US over the last few decades of the Cold War, a lot of proxy wars were being fought. Rhodesia and South Africa were one of them. Except in this case both the US and the Soviets were on the same side. The soviets paid for Zulu forces to push down South to conquer in the name of freedom. The South Africans however were holding their ground despite the fact that the US, Britain, and NATO had turned on them. Now the US, Britain, and NATO didn’t exactly provide the Zulu weapons, but instead they turned the media against the Afrikaners, basically making it so no nation was willing to help as they would be obliterated by the Media and the NATO countries. (Economy wise that is, not militarily.)

    Eventually endless numbers, money, and weapons won and Rhodesia and South Africa fell. I would suggest you don’t go looking to find out how the local whites and their supporters were treated. It was not pleasant. Hotel Rwanda comes to mind.

    I should also mention that the forces that attacked were descended from the Zulu. They claimed South Africa and Rhodesia was historically their land. In reality their ancestors the Zulu had killed off the tribes who sold the land in the first place. They were not natives of the land.

    Fast forward to today. The 1st world country is gone. The breadbasket is gone. The logistical network is gone. The power-grid has basically failed. The White South Afrikaners are constantly under attack and the capital has been the rape capital of the world for decades.

    Despite all this, the White Afrikaners still manage to hold on despite everything. They are a sturdy people and quite frankly I would love to bring them into my country in exchange for the parasites who have flooded through the borders. Unfortunately, like most sturdy people they are also stubborn and mostly unwilling to abandon their homeland, despite it being ruled by foreigners.

    • – W

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    2. The term is voortrekkers and refers to pioneers who migrated out of British territory in the 19th century.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Trek

      The discovery of gold led to a gold rush in which the Boers were quickly outnumbered by Anglo settlers, which led to the war, although there’s a theory that it was the American attitude of the miners that was more of a threat to the British than the Boers.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witwatersrand_Gold_Rush

      Like

      Reply

  3. South Africa’s original inhabitants were the San or Bushmen. Land was purchased by The Dutch East India Company which established a settlement at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652 employing largely Dutch and Hurgenot, the latter Protestant refugees. The area changed hands several times until Britain took it in 1814.

    The Boer inhabitants then trekked north ane east, again purchasing land where possible, but fighting invading warlike nomadic herders where that proved impossible. They formed three independent republics and were left alone, until gold and diamonds were found, at which time Britain found reasons to invade.

    Britain was beaten in the First Boer War (1880-1881), losing their first attempt to annex Transvaal. But the Second Boer War (1899-1902) ended with victory for Britain and its colonial forces. Despite the anti-Boer propaganda, the truth got out that Lord Kitchener had not only deliberately destroyed Boer farms, but starved women and children in concentration camps.

    More to come, but I am expecting company ;-D

    Like

    Reply

  4. more history…

    After the Second Boer War, the republics became British colonies, then joining the Cape and Natal in 1910 to form the Union of South Africa. In 1934, South Africa became a sovereign country, and in 1948, the National Party enacted the racist policy of apartheid.

    -W’s history accurately describes what happened after that, the West foolishly reacted to the racism of anti-black apartheid by supporting a corrupt Communist regime’s racism against white South Africans, most particularly the white farmers. Many educated South Africans have since emmigrated, largely to Commonwealth countries. They include my family doctor and the two specialists that diagnosed the health problems of this old phart ;-D

    Like

    Reply

    1. South Africa is a failed state, basic services including police protection and electrical and water delivery systems are collapsing. Not surprisingly, not only white, but also Asian, and mixed race citizens face deliberate discrimination in both education and employment in South Africa today. The current government is now considering taking farm land from white farmers without compensation, while the leader of the third largest political party and their supporters openly dance and sing about killing the Boers:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-StdNFfixk&ab_channel=MzalendoMedia

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a reply to methylethyl Cancel reply