Its just that the world isn’t black and white, the first time is white history Euros started to exploit other peoples like Indians and Congolese in a way that was unthinkable to the ancients was the first time white – and Jewish – elites stuck white Cockney children down chimneys, evicted Highland crofters and let Irish people starve whilst confiscating the potatoes.

The nuge speaks his mind and he rocks. That much I like.
Here’s an example that I just found….

Ted Nugent on minorities and non-Americans

He still has a rabid following around the world, whether he likes it or not. Apparently, he doesn’t share the love.

“…Yeah they love me (in Japan) — they’re still assholes. These people they don’t know what life is. I don’t have a following, they need me; they don’t like me they need me… Foreigners are a******s; foreigners are scum; I don’t like ‘em; I don’t want ‘em in this country; I don’t want ‘em selling me doughnuts; I don’t want ‘em pumping my gas; I don’t want ‘em downwind of my life-OK? So anyhow, and I’m dead serious…”

The nuge is outspoken.

I knew I could count on a Nuge fan to come through.

I agree.
Even now there are leftists who go on about corporations going into poor third world countries and “exploiting” the poor brown people.
Meanwhile, the poor brown people are half killing each other for a chance to make a decent wage for once in their bug bitten lives.
I was reading that a major pop company went in to a hell hole country and created a modern fresh water facility for the area ,of course it needed workers so the corp employed brown people for ten times the average wage of that region. Ten times what they may make for catching lizards or grubs or whatever they were doing for a living at the time.
The same goes for so many “exploitation” . It is called development and it is called creating a modern productive economy.
There are many poor white people regions that would love to be exploited so badly!

And can someone explain to me how Counter-Currents can praise Hitler almost constantly, and make excuses for that, yet run pieces that denounce our White ancestors as rapacious subjugators of Third World people?

It justified our kinsmen’s rapacious spree of conquering and subjugating populations around the world to profit from their labor and strip them of their resources.

I think this is just incorrect history and the wrong way to be pro-White. It basically legitimizes the Anti-White Narrative. The “resources” of other lands didn’t have any value until Whites figured out a way to make use of them. We pay trillions of dollars for those resources. Like with oil, we discovered a use for it (it used to be a nuisance), we found where it was located, we figured out how to extract, we transport it and refine it … yet we PAY THEM a fortune. I wish I could be exploited like that.

The line also implies that we brought subjugation to brown people. We did not. Without exception, they had never known any freedom in their history. They lived better under White rule. If it weren’t for White “exploitation”, the non-White countries would be in deeper poverty and experiencing more suffering. The saddest brown countries are those that were never “subjugated” by us.

By the way, no one is more rapacious than a hunter-gatherer tribe. Non-White primitives are implicated in the destruction of entire forests, probably wiping out a continent full of trees in Australia as well as most of the big animals of North America. So, let’s drop the Anti-White Narrative. I obviously don’t think the author meant to promote an Anti-White idea, rather I think this stuff is so in the water, that almost everyone is polluted by it. I think it is important for all of us to question these reflexively Anti-White concepts we’ve absorbed without even realizing it.

It’s ahistorical and it is Anti-White.

I don’t disagree with the tone of this article about race being brushed out of academic explanations, and Keith Windschuttle has wrote on the alleged Barrinean Negritos, but you can’t go 100% the other way either.

What Lynn doesn’t mention is that the climate of Australia is *weird* and unpredictable, something which is reflected in the biota – lots of ectotherms even into large size ranges (first Mekosuchians and then Varanids), low metabolism endotherms (the Marsupials – notice they’re all sluggish, and even kangaroos for all their speed manage it by their extremely energy efficient hopping locomotion), and low biodiversity of large bodied endothermic predators, even low metabolism ones (one species of Thylacinus and one of Thylacoleo at the time of Middle Palaeolithic settlement). The physical anthropology of Australids themselves is also held to represent adaptation to the hostile environment of Australia and yet the environment of Australia doesn’t explain the lack of food production on that continent?

So no, I don’t think low indigenous IQ explains the lack of agriculture, urbanisation or cultural diversity in Australia, its rather the other way round.

And IQ hereditary but you people place way too much emphasis upon fluid G alone as causation lol. Take the following example.

“Lynn notes that the transition to agricultural societies was not possible until people evolved sufficient intelligence to take advantage of wild grasses, and that it was only after the last glaciation that they were cognitively fit to do this. Evolutionary psychologist J. Philippe Rushton points out that: “Lynn’s view provides an explanation for why these advances were never made by Negroids or those southeast Asian populations who escaped the rigors of the last glaciation.”

Besides the fact that Lynn’s claim is untestable, if Rushton isn’t being misquoted here, he needs to read some archaeobotany. Admittedly domestication came later in SSA and SEA but it still happened indigenously.

Some people are becoming a mirror image of heredity deniers IMO…