1 month ago8 points(+0/-0/+8Score on mirror)3 children
Africa intriguingly has a 'split personality' in the sociological sense of the term (a concept that implicitly appears in the work of the German sociologist Tonnies, which later influences the American sociologist Robert McIver, which later influences the Iraqi 'father of sociology', Ali al-Wardi) regarding these issues.
What these three sociologists were essentially getting at was that being modern, being affected by modernity was like being bestowed a whole new personality. Pre-Enlightenment and pre-European colonial peoples tended to live a comparatively more non-technologized, non-urbanized, tribal, collectivist existence. The Enlightened, colonial, and post-colonial period is marked by the negation of these things.
Tonnies observed this in Germany. McIver applied this concept to America. Al-Wardi took this from his understanding of American sociology during his time in the University of Texas and applied it to Iraq. He observed the personality that was Bedouin, nomadic, and tribal and its conflict with the alternate personality that was Westernized, urbanized, and detribalized replacing it. He observed that this 'split personality' created a conflict in many Iraqis.
For instance, the former personality has no problem with honour killings. There is nothing wrong with you killing a man who raped your mother, sister, or daughter. It seems justifiable in the eyes of many people, including yours truly. Yet the latter personality, in stark contrast, has a deep problem with it: everything must be by the rule of law, men can't take the law into their own hands, and the like. Thus an Iraqi man caught in such a predicament does not even know what to do, because his more authentic personality leads him in one direction and the personality implanted in him by European foreigners leads him in the other. What then does he do? He could kill the rapist. But he would risk coming into conflict with people dominated by the latter personality, such as the government, who do not believe in such things as *lex talionis* because of their Westernized, urbanite personality. Or he could go to said government, but risk coming into conflict with people dominated by the former personality, such as those in his family or tribe who might see him as a coward and the like.
Al-Wardi was also influenced in these views by the Tunisian protosociologist Ibn Khaldun, who observed much earlier than Tonnies that there was a clear divide between two types of groups. Successful groups eventually became urbanized, detribalized, degenerate, and weak. This led less successful groups to eventually overthrow them and become the new most successful group, only for the cycle to repeat itself. Thus four men of quite different backgrounds - Khaldun, Tonnies, MacIver, and al-Wardi - observed parts of this wider phenomenon both in Western and Islamic societies.
Let's apply this now to Africa. We don't need to worry about regional differences: one has to pass through seven or so countries to get from Liberia to Zambia, two of the pictured countries, demonstrating no real difference on this issue between western and southern Africa. On the one hand, you have what appears to be the more authentically African personality. This personality is more impulsive and instinctual. This personality is that of rebel interviewees who candidly admit on camera that they have raped many women. It's just what we all do, we can't help ourselves but to rape, and we shouldn't even try. It proves that we're real men and, well, why would you care about it, anyway? From this personality also comes other eccentricities, such as the notion in many African countries, especially southern African countries, that rape of a virgin girl can cure HIV/AIDS. (Other bizarre 'cures' for HIV/AIDS include toothpaste [according to Gambia's Yahya Jammeh] and having showers [according to South Africa's Jacob Zuma].)
You then have the personality that is Western in origin. Whether it comes from Christian African churches or obese feminists waffling about 'violence against women' on Zimbabwean television, all of these foreign sources - Christian, Leftist, liberal, whatever - converge on the polar opposite point of view. This personality tries to use ideology to repress African impulse and instinct. We don't have to rape, we can do better, we have to try to do better, and, besides, your reasoning about rape curing HIV/AIDS is based on false premises. 'Real men don't rape', says the sign, contrary to the understanding of these rebel types.
That's where these signs come into the equation. They represent the latter, more ideologized personality in mortal combat with the former, more impulsive and instinctual personality. At the moment, it seems like the latter is winning: birth rates are slowly but surely declining, feminist policies such as Namibia's Zebra policy are increasing in number, women's power is increasing, tribal identities are waning, and the foreign religions of Christianity and Islam continue to play a large role in life.
But the battle to solve this identity crisis, this conflict between dual personalities, still hasn't been conclusively won. These foreign, imported ideas that are becoming exceedingly strange, such as the rule of law, rehabilitative justice, and restorative justice, are still being challenged. 'Jungle justice', or 'street justice', still occurs. A suspected murderer, rapist, or thief can still find himself 'necklaced' or stoned to death by those crowds composed of those who engage in the 'mob violence' and who do not 'respect [the] rule of law' of the bottom-middle sign, who angrily decide to be their judge, jury, and executioner. And in certain ways, such punitive and retributive ways, which were once also the ways of the foreigner, have all-too-obvious appeal. The foreigners' ways are time-consuming and costly. What if we are impatient and want results now? When the population is so high, life seems to be cheap, expendable. Stones are fast and cost nothing. Trials are slow and expensive. And what really is this abstract 'justice'? Shouldn't we be more interested in removing offenders from society rather than getting this nebulous justice? Is jail and the death penalty really even about justice? Containing offenders, removing offenders from society so that they do not offend again, doesn't that seem to be the actual purpose both of jail and the death penalty?
If a Malthusian collapse-type scenario occurs, in particular, it is quite conceivable that it is the former personality that will ultimately emerge triumphant, victorious: with a desperate Africa, populated by a few billion, exploding into an orgy of rape and violence on a scale quite unlike anything that the planet has ever witnessed. After such rapid depopulation, the few survivors - those most successful in a social world of extreme predation - will continue on in an Africa in which what is old is new again: an Africa more authentic and decolonized than in centuries, one that has gone full circle, built on the bones of billions of losers, the winners finding themselves living just like their ancestors did before the first White explorers stepped off the boat. Darwin and his acolytes would feel that their theories about 'natural selection' were vindicated should such an event occur.
The African, if he is honest, might find that this old and yet new Africa is more to his liking. With all the complexities of money, politics, work, and technology out of the way, he can return to building harems and doing all else that he ultimately most likely feels happiest and most contented doing. After all, a lot of 'black criminality' seems to be about the White man trying to stop the African from doing what he simply enjoys doing: his idea of fun and enjoyment - a little molestation here and a little rape there - is often our idea of crime and deviance. Some of what induces in us such things as anger, fear, and offence induces in him such things as delight and joy.
A final point that came to mind: these signs really entail Africans fighting against their own nature. Those Africans who put up these signs are trying to eradicate the parts of their own nature that foreigners wish were never in there. In that regard, I am far less 'racist' than these foreigners: I have no desire to see Africans change their nature, what matters is only that good people are never victims of the African's bad nature. And, ultimately, no good people are among them; for instance, their women can hardly consider themselves good - or even victims - when it was their wombs out of which each generation of rapacious Africans came. You raised the males of which the feminists and others among you complain, so you are not without blame.
In conclusion, there is a clear conflict in Africa between two personalities: one that is more ideological/imported, implanted in Africa by colonialism; the other, more impulsive/instinctual/indigenous, that predated colonialism.
An interesting read. You should make its own post about it.
Yes, I too have noticed that there is some kind of duality in all of us about Western ideologies and our own. It's like a mind virus that takes over some people, doesn't take over others, and takes over other people in varying degrees.
> The foreigners' ways are time-consuming and costly.
See, worse than that. There are literal criminals who deserve their entire family or race/species getting wiped out, and what do you get from the "Western way"? After 1-2 years of back-and-forth bureaucracy you get a 15 year sentence if you are lucky. A daycare for niggers to be comfortably fed with tax payer money. What the fuck? It doesn't serve justice. It serves lawyers and bureaucrats, and some cucked optics.
This system doesn't satisfy anyone. And 100+ years ago we didn't have it to that degree. These are layers of processes and bureaucracies imposed upon us.
> still hasn't been conclusively won.
Because it's a creeping corruption that cannot be accepted. The processes suck, the outcomes suck, so who wants that? It serves the criminal and the bureaucrats in court and police.
> rehabilitative justice, and restorative justice
If someone kills any of my family members, I want to kill, and I want to do it personally. If it's a non-White, I want a genocide. I don't want "rehabilitation" or "restorative justice." These are buzzwords that go against my convictions. Like what the fuck do I want a singular subhuman to become "rehabilitated" for? WHO benefits from that?! That thing should have been tortured to death by me.
> Darwin and his acolytes would feel that their theories about 'natural selection' were vindicated should such an event occur.
To be fair, the theory is about something much different. It's about all life forms, and doesn't need to be proven any more.
> The African, if he is honest, might find that this old and yet new Africa is more to his liking.
And this is how we all might feel. We are tired of these judaized systems. ALL of them. When and if it breaks, we'd all be much more happier. Europe, America, Australia... it's oppressive on many levels.
1 month ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
This "dual mind" makes no sense to me as I grew up in a culture that didn't have these issues. The government was always "over there" and it was only to be employed as a last resort. Most issues can and should be solved at home.
I asked my dad where all the child rapists where when he was young in the 60s. He said that they would disappear. They never made it to trial. The police, what few people there were, were often in on it as well. Little Johnny was alleged to have raped a girl, so Little Johnny went on a hunting trip and never came home. If someone asked where Little Johnny was, he was living with his aunt in some faraway place in some other state.
The thing about the South is that they took pictures and documented their actions. You don't do that. You just take care of business and let your wives and children believe they live in a fairy land where bad things never happen. Then, when your sons get old enough, you explain how things really work. The women just don't need to know that kind of stuff.
The people trying to colonize Africa and the Middle East were trying to bring a false sense of civilization that never existed. They were living in the fairy land that real men created. They never understood what human nature really was like because they were never invited to be a party to these "hunting trips". They reasoned in books and in cultured forums never once asking the men who kept civilization standing what was really going on.
And when it came time to send people to foreign lands to "colonize" them, it was these academic ignorant types who lead the charge. They tried their experiments on the people and failed.
Had they asked backwoods Appalachian men to colonize the Middle East it would've ended up entirely differently.
It's been a long time but Lawrence of Arabia does a good job of explaining what civilization really is. There's a very poignant scene where Lawrence returns to report that he actually enjoyed killing the enemy, that he wanted to do it more and more and with larger armies. The other British officers, who at the time still had one foot in reality, basically slapped him on the back and welcomed him to manhood. They were the "backwoods" types who could pretend to be civilized and then turn around and shoot someone in the face and not feel bad about it.
The issue is, I believe, that Arabs and Africans are not intelligent enough to live this reality. They either must be savage or they must be wholly civilized, but they cannot balance both realities together. Only white man, particularly Western European types, who can actually manage to create the fairy land of civilization and at the same time do what must be done, fairly.
Being an American, growing up American, coming to realize what is really going on, means being able to deal with contradictions upon contradictions. We are told from an early age that we are "free". What exactly does that mean, and how are we free? Dig deeper and we realize that pretty much every American agrees we are NOT free, that we USED to be free, but things have changed, in a bad, bad way.
The thing that is most perplexing to everyone except Anglo-Saxons is how we deal with the obvious fact that we are not free. See, since the beginning of recorded history, Anglo-Saxons were mostly independent and self-governing. Kings were employed the same way a corporation might hire a CEO. They were activated for a time, then they went back to being mostly irrelevant. Most important issues were handled by families and villages.
Then along came the Norman invasion and all hell broke loose. Since the Norman invasion, England has been a weird hodge-podge of people thinking that the kings are in charge, people pretending that the kings are in charge, and people who knew better what was really going on but who wanted to go along anyway because the king had better health insurance.
When America was formed, the Anglo-Saxons had, for the first time in a very, very long time, the ability to choose their own government. And this worked, for a short time, and then all hell broke loose as things went off the rails. Thomas Jefferson predicted that the Anglo-Saxons would eventually rise up against the government and start the whole thing over again. He was wrong. And he was wrong because of what he said in the Declaration: we will tolerate as long as it is tolerable.
See, ultimately, we don't care who wears the funny hat or sits on the special rock. We will tolerate as long as it can be tolerated. We will go to EXTREME lengths to tolerate as long as it is tolerable.
But at some point, when they mess with our livelihood, our families, or our honor too much, we go off the rails. History is full of examples of what Anglo-Saxons do when they go crazy.
And the secret of it all is that we are always crazy. It just we can tolerate things pretty well for a time. We all secretly identify as the fool or the village idiot, or the crazy grandma with too many cats and not enough teeth. We know that any thin veneer of reasonableness or civilization is just polish on a turd. We all know who we are at our hearts, and we are fine with that.
Get some real Anglo-Saxons together, get us to let our hair down, and next thing you know we are dancing next to a fire dressed in mud and leaves and chanting something about murder or death and coming up with new ways to kill more people than have ever been killed before. We love chaos. We embrace it. We patiently wait for conditions to be right when chaos is the good choice.
Jews know the reality about who we are. That's why they want to exterminate us. Germans and French and Spaniards know us too well also. If it weren't for the water between the continent and the island, we would've been exterminated a long time ago, rightly so.
We still laugh about people who were foolish enough to trust us. It's funny to us, to know that we've probably been responsible for more deaths than any other single race on planet earth.
The only reason we don't build more nuclear bombs is because we are planning on making even more horrifying ways to die for our future enemies. Right now, guerrilla-style, asymmetric warfare seems to be the most interesting, honestly speaking.
EDIT: You probably wanted to know what civilization really is. For us, it's when husbands listen to their wives and we only polish our axes and keep them in a display case over the mantle of our fireplaces. When occasion arises, we quietly do what needs to be done and mums the word about it. All the while, we pretend like we are honest, hard-working folk who want nothing but to be peaceful and trade with our very bestest of best friends in the whole world. But inside we know that one day we'll have to kill you.
Civilization is not reality. It just helps other people cope with it.
I like that you can tell by the graphic design where in Africa these photos were usually taken. Most of these look like west Africa. Some signs do have clues, such as the bottom left one which lists "Clara Town", a slum in Liberia.
What these three sociologists were essentially getting at was that being modern, being affected by modernity was like being bestowed a whole new personality. Pre-Enlightenment and pre-European colonial peoples tended to live a comparatively more non-technologized, non-urbanized, tribal, collectivist existence. The Enlightened, colonial, and post-colonial period is marked by the negation of these things.
Tonnies observed this in Germany. McIver applied this concept to America. Al-Wardi took this from his understanding of American sociology during his time in the University of Texas and applied it to Iraq. He observed the personality that was Bedouin, nomadic, and tribal and its conflict with the alternate personality that was Westernized, urbanized, and detribalized replacing it. He observed that this 'split personality' created a conflict in many Iraqis.
For instance, the former personality has no problem with honour killings. There is nothing wrong with you killing a man who raped your mother, sister, or daughter. It seems justifiable in the eyes of many people, including yours truly. Yet the latter personality, in stark contrast, has a deep problem with it: everything must be by the rule of law, men can't take the law into their own hands, and the like. Thus an Iraqi man caught in such a predicament does not even know what to do, because his more authentic personality leads him in one direction and the personality implanted in him by European foreigners leads him in the other. What then does he do? He could kill the rapist. But he would risk coming into conflict with people dominated by the latter personality, such as the government, who do not believe in such things as *lex talionis* because of their Westernized, urbanite personality. Or he could go to said government, but risk coming into conflict with people dominated by the former personality, such as those in his family or tribe who might see him as a coward and the like.
Al-Wardi was also influenced in these views by the Tunisian protosociologist Ibn Khaldun, who observed much earlier than Tonnies that there was a clear divide between two types of groups. Successful groups eventually became urbanized, detribalized, degenerate, and weak. This led less successful groups to eventually overthrow them and become the new most successful group, only for the cycle to repeat itself. Thus four men of quite different backgrounds - Khaldun, Tonnies, MacIver, and al-Wardi - observed parts of this wider phenomenon both in Western and Islamic societies.
Let's apply this now to Africa. We don't need to worry about regional differences: one has to pass through seven or so countries to get from Liberia to Zambia, two of the pictured countries, demonstrating no real difference on this issue between western and southern Africa. On the one hand, you have what appears to be the more authentically African personality. This personality is more impulsive and instinctual. This personality is that of rebel interviewees who candidly admit on camera that they have raped many women. It's just what we all do, we can't help ourselves but to rape, and we shouldn't even try. It proves that we're real men and, well, why would you care about it, anyway? From this personality also comes other eccentricities, such as the notion in many African countries, especially southern African countries, that rape of a virgin girl can cure HIV/AIDS. (Other bizarre 'cures' for HIV/AIDS include toothpaste [according to Gambia's Yahya Jammeh] and having showers [according to South Africa's Jacob Zuma].)
You then have the personality that is Western in origin. Whether it comes from Christian African churches or obese feminists waffling about 'violence against women' on Zimbabwean television, all of these foreign sources - Christian, Leftist, liberal, whatever - converge on the polar opposite point of view. This personality tries to use ideology to repress African impulse and instinct. We don't have to rape, we can do better, we have to try to do better, and, besides, your reasoning about rape curing HIV/AIDS is based on false premises. 'Real men don't rape', says the sign, contrary to the understanding of these rebel types.
That's where these signs come into the equation. They represent the latter, more ideologized personality in mortal combat with the former, more impulsive and instinctual personality. At the moment, it seems like the latter is winning: birth rates are slowly but surely declining, feminist policies such as Namibia's Zebra policy are increasing in number, women's power is increasing, tribal identities are waning, and the foreign religions of Christianity and Islam continue to play a large role in life.
But the battle to solve this identity crisis, this conflict between dual personalities, still hasn't been conclusively won. These foreign, imported ideas that are becoming exceedingly strange, such as the rule of law, rehabilitative justice, and restorative justice, are still being challenged. 'Jungle justice', or 'street justice', still occurs. A suspected murderer, rapist, or thief can still find himself 'necklaced' or stoned to death by those crowds composed of those who engage in the 'mob violence' and who do not 'respect [the] rule of law' of the bottom-middle sign, who angrily decide to be their judge, jury, and executioner. And in certain ways, such punitive and retributive ways, which were once also the ways of the foreigner, have all-too-obvious appeal. The foreigners' ways are time-consuming and costly. What if we are impatient and want results now? When the population is so high, life seems to be cheap, expendable. Stones are fast and cost nothing. Trials are slow and expensive. And what really is this abstract 'justice'? Shouldn't we be more interested in removing offenders from society rather than getting this nebulous justice? Is jail and the death penalty really even about justice? Containing offenders, removing offenders from society so that they do not offend again, doesn't that seem to be the actual purpose both of jail and the death penalty?
If a Malthusian collapse-type scenario occurs, in particular, it is quite conceivable that it is the former personality that will ultimately emerge triumphant, victorious: with a desperate Africa, populated by a few billion, exploding into an orgy of rape and violence on a scale quite unlike anything that the planet has ever witnessed. After such rapid depopulation, the few survivors - those most successful in a social world of extreme predation - will continue on in an Africa in which what is old is new again: an Africa more authentic and decolonized than in centuries, one that has gone full circle, built on the bones of billions of losers, the winners finding themselves living just like their ancestors did before the first White explorers stepped off the boat. Darwin and his acolytes would feel that their theories about 'natural selection' were vindicated should such an event occur.
The African, if he is honest, might find that this old and yet new Africa is more to his liking. With all the complexities of money, politics, work, and technology out of the way, he can return to building harems and doing all else that he ultimately most likely feels happiest and most contented doing. After all, a lot of 'black criminality' seems to be about the White man trying to stop the African from doing what he simply enjoys doing: his idea of fun and enjoyment - a little molestation here and a little rape there - is often our idea of crime and deviance. Some of what induces in us such things as anger, fear, and offence induces in him such things as delight and joy.
A final point that came to mind: these signs really entail Africans fighting against their own nature. Those Africans who put up these signs are trying to eradicate the parts of their own nature that foreigners wish were never in there. In that regard, I am far less 'racist' than these foreigners: I have no desire to see Africans change their nature, what matters is only that good people are never victims of the African's bad nature. And, ultimately, no good people are among them; for instance, their women can hardly consider themselves good - or even victims - when it was their wombs out of which each generation of rapacious Africans came. You raised the males of which the feminists and others among you complain, so you are not without blame.
In conclusion, there is a clear conflict in Africa between two personalities: one that is more ideological/imported, implanted in Africa by colonialism; the other, more impulsive/instinctual/indigenous, that predated colonialism.
Yes, I too have noticed that there is some kind of duality in all of us about Western ideologies and our own. It's like a mind virus that takes over some people, doesn't take over others, and takes over other people in varying degrees.
> The foreigners' ways are time-consuming and costly.
See, worse than that. There are literal criminals who deserve their entire family or race/species getting wiped out, and what do you get from the "Western way"? After 1-2 years of back-and-forth bureaucracy you get a 15 year sentence if you are lucky. A daycare for niggers to be comfortably fed with tax payer money. What the fuck? It doesn't serve justice. It serves lawyers and bureaucrats, and some cucked optics.
This system doesn't satisfy anyone. And 100+ years ago we didn't have it to that degree. These are layers of processes and bureaucracies imposed upon us.
> still hasn't been conclusively won.
Because it's a creeping corruption that cannot be accepted. The processes suck, the outcomes suck, so who wants that? It serves the criminal and the bureaucrats in court and police.
> rehabilitative justice, and restorative justice
If someone kills any of my family members, I want to kill, and I want to do it personally. If it's a non-White, I want a genocide. I don't want "rehabilitation" or "restorative justice." These are buzzwords that go against my convictions. Like what the fuck do I want a singular subhuman to become "rehabilitated" for? WHO benefits from that?! That thing should have been tortured to death by me.
> Darwin and his acolytes would feel that their theories about 'natural selection' were vindicated should such an event occur.
To be fair, the theory is about something much different. It's about all life forms, and doesn't need to be proven any more.
> The African, if he is honest, might find that this old and yet new Africa is more to his liking.
And this is how we all might feel. We are tired of these judaized systems. ALL of them. When and if it breaks, we'd all be much more happier. Europe, America, Australia... it's oppressive on many levels.
I asked my dad where all the child rapists where when he was young in the 60s. He said that they would disappear. They never made it to trial. The police, what few people there were, were often in on it as well. Little Johnny was alleged to have raped a girl, so Little Johnny went on a hunting trip and never came home. If someone asked where Little Johnny was, he was living with his aunt in some faraway place in some other state.
The thing about the South is that they took pictures and documented their actions. You don't do that. You just take care of business and let your wives and children believe they live in a fairy land where bad things never happen. Then, when your sons get old enough, you explain how things really work. The women just don't need to know that kind of stuff.
The people trying to colonize Africa and the Middle East were trying to bring a false sense of civilization that never existed. They were living in the fairy land that real men created. They never understood what human nature really was like because they were never invited to be a party to these "hunting trips". They reasoned in books and in cultured forums never once asking the men who kept civilization standing what was really going on.
And when it came time to send people to foreign lands to "colonize" them, it was these academic ignorant types who lead the charge. They tried their experiments on the people and failed.
Had they asked backwoods Appalachian men to colonize the Middle East it would've ended up entirely differently.
It's been a long time but Lawrence of Arabia does a good job of explaining what civilization really is. There's a very poignant scene where Lawrence returns to report that he actually enjoyed killing the enemy, that he wanted to do it more and more and with larger armies. The other British officers, who at the time still had one foot in reality, basically slapped him on the back and welcomed him to manhood. They were the "backwoods" types who could pretend to be civilized and then turn around and shoot someone in the face and not feel bad about it.
The issue is, I believe, that Arabs and Africans are not intelligent enough to live this reality. They either must be savage or they must be wholly civilized, but they cannot balance both realities together. Only white man, particularly Western European types, who can actually manage to create the fairy land of civilization and at the same time do what must be done, fairly.
The thing that is most perplexing to everyone except Anglo-Saxons is how we deal with the obvious fact that we are not free. See, since the beginning of recorded history, Anglo-Saxons were mostly independent and self-governing. Kings were employed the same way a corporation might hire a CEO. They were activated for a time, then they went back to being mostly irrelevant. Most important issues were handled by families and villages.
Then along came the Norman invasion and all hell broke loose. Since the Norman invasion, England has been a weird hodge-podge of people thinking that the kings are in charge, people pretending that the kings are in charge, and people who knew better what was really going on but who wanted to go along anyway because the king had better health insurance.
When America was formed, the Anglo-Saxons had, for the first time in a very, very long time, the ability to choose their own government. And this worked, for a short time, and then all hell broke loose as things went off the rails. Thomas Jefferson predicted that the Anglo-Saxons would eventually rise up against the government and start the whole thing over again. He was wrong. And he was wrong because of what he said in the Declaration: we will tolerate as long as it is tolerable.
See, ultimately, we don't care who wears the funny hat or sits on the special rock. We will tolerate as long as it can be tolerated. We will go to EXTREME lengths to tolerate as long as it is tolerable.
But at some point, when they mess with our livelihood, our families, or our honor too much, we go off the rails. History is full of examples of what Anglo-Saxons do when they go crazy.
And the secret of it all is that we are always crazy. It just we can tolerate things pretty well for a time. We all secretly identify as the fool or the village idiot, or the crazy grandma with too many cats and not enough teeth. We know that any thin veneer of reasonableness or civilization is just polish on a turd. We all know who we are at our hearts, and we are fine with that.
Get some real Anglo-Saxons together, get us to let our hair down, and next thing you know we are dancing next to a fire dressed in mud and leaves and chanting something about murder or death and coming up with new ways to kill more people than have ever been killed before. We love chaos. We embrace it. We patiently wait for conditions to be right when chaos is the good choice.
Jews know the reality about who we are. That's why they want to exterminate us. Germans and French and Spaniards know us too well also. If it weren't for the water between the continent and the island, we would've been exterminated a long time ago, rightly so.
We still laugh about people who were foolish enough to trust us. It's funny to us, to know that we've probably been responsible for more deaths than any other single race on planet earth.
The only reason we don't build more nuclear bombs is because we are planning on making even more horrifying ways to die for our future enemies. Right now, guerrilla-style, asymmetric warfare seems to be the most interesting, honestly speaking.
EDIT: You probably wanted to know what civilization really is. For us, it's when husbands listen to their wives and we only polish our axes and keep them in a display case over the mantle of our fireplaces. When occasion arises, we quietly do what needs to be done and mums the word about it. All the while, we pretend like we are honest, hard-working folk who want nothing but to be peaceful and trade with our very bestest of best friends in the whole world. But inside we know that one day we'll have to kill you.
Civilization is not reality. It just helps other people cope with it.