[Chris Brown]

Faber was just stating the obvious. Talk about flogging a dead horse.

In other news, water is wet.

[Samseau]

I think part of what people forget about this incident is that Faber was just putting in a throwaway comment in a much larger newsletter.

Most of his letters for the past 20 years or so have had lots of diversions, interesting discussions on history, art, and philosophy. For him to talk about the problems of the Black race as a whole is not anything out of the ordinary for him, he was just doing his usual thing of talking about one subject while having digressions about another subject.

I don't think his intentions were to stoke a race war. I think in his mind, he was merely stating the obvious about the whole take on racism in America thing. The fact things blew up like this probably came as a major surprise to him.

As for the Black race, the question no one asks is why Blacks are so far behind other races in terms of work output and achievement. Is it, as most White Nationalists claim, because Blacks were later to "evolve" from the apes as other races of humans did or that something halted Black evolution as Blacks and Whites separated 500K years ago, or, was it because some great tragedy befell the Blacks in Africa which seriously stunted their growth and development? Some kind of major natural disaster, or perhaps there was an advanced African civilization that destroyed itself so much they went back to the hunter-gatherer age?

We really have no idea. The problem with racists is that they assume automatic and eternal inferiority of the Black race, but they are just guessing. I'm not convinced with regular evolutionary explanations and I strongly suspect there is much more to the story that we are unaware of. Our knowledge of the past is just pathetic, and I don't trust it at all.

[Johnnyvee]

(10-20-2017 01:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think part of what people forget about this incident is that Faber was just putting in a throwaway comment in a much larger newsletter.

Most of his letters for the past 20 years or so have had lots of diversions, interesting discussions on history, art, and philosophy. For him to talk about the problems of the Black race as a whole is not anything out of the ordinary for him, he was just doing his usual thing of talking about one subject while having digressions about another subject.

I don't think his intentions were to stoke a race war. I think in his mind, he was merely stating the obvious about the whole take on racism in America thing. The fact things blew up like this probably came as a major surprise to him.

As for the Black race, the question no one asks is why Blacks are so far behind other races in terms of work output and achievement. Is it, as most White Nationalists claim, because Blacks were later to "evolve" from the apes as other races of humans did or that something halted Black evolution as Blacks and Whites separated 500K years ago, or, was it because some great tragedy befell the Blacks in Africa which seriously stunted their growth and development? Some kind of major natural disaster, or perhaps there was an advanced African civilization that destroyed itself so much they went back to the hunter-gatherer age?

We really have no idea. The problem with racists is that they assume automatic and eternal inferiority of the Black race, but they are just guessing. I'm not convinced with regular evolutionary explanations and I strongly suspect there is much more to the story that we are unaware of. Our knowledge of the past is just pathetic, and I don't trust it at all.

I think it`s fruitless to try an explain race differences in general, and the difference between blacks and Caucasians in particular by attributing any "lesser development" to a mistake or unfortunate event, whether natural or man-made, in the history of blacks.(or any other race.)

Remember that evolution/nature only cares about survival. Most African countries have a much higher fertility rate than European countries, and so they are the real winners the race for survival.
It`s not given that high IQ is the best environmental adaptation.
In fact it seems to be detrimental to survival in the present environment.

Climate and diet seems a likely explanation to IQ differences though.
Colder climate environments equals more planning ahead necessary, and also a high energy (cooked) meat/fat rich diet, as opposed to a more plant based diet possible at warmer longitudes. This again equals the possibility of a bigger brain. (Expensive tissue hypothesis)
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=s...7000100023

[RedPillUK]

Does anyone here actually think the US would be better if run by blacks and not whites?

Oh, no one here thinks that?

Ok, so what's your problem then? Triggered?

[Beyond Borders]

(10-19-2017 11:01 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

Sup, BB.

I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but a few people seem to be putting words in my mouth. I did not say he was condoning slavery. I even said that few Western men would condone such an act. Faber is a Swede IIRC so he would be included in that group of Western men.

I never said he was racist. I generally avoid throwing that term around since, much like the JQ, it tends to take the wind out of the sails of an otherwise good discussion.

Whatever we might say about Faber, I don't think we would say that he's maniacally rubbing his hands together at the idea of a new era of slavery. I never said that and I hope that my writing did not come across as me accusing him of saying that.

Well, my apologies if I misinterpreted or misread you. While I'm not so sure he was trolling for subscribers the way you say, the point is a pretty minor one in the big scheme of things, and I imagine we agree on the bigger issues concerning race and the discussion of it more than we disagree.

[Tactician]

(10-19-2017 01:18 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

Every white man believes he would be the one to protest slavery if he were born into times when slavery was the norm. Every black man likes to think he would refuse to enslave others if he were of a time and people holding the keys to the shackles. Every single human on Earth loves to believe that if they'd been German in the Holocaust they'd have turned their rifle on their countrymen and sounded the alarm.

These are naive assumptions about the nature of evil that lies within us all.

And by refusing to see that the slave owners were not necessarily any different than others, we not only ensure we'll never understand those who disagree on the issue, but we ignore the true lessons of history and condemn ourselves to one way or another repeat them.

This bit reminded me about an article from The Last Psychiatrist.

Quote:

In Django Unchained, evil slaveowner Leonardo DiCaprio asks a question. Sorry, back up: why does everyone call him an evil slaveowner? As far as I can tell, he was a pretty average slaveowner, I'd even say he was "kind", in the sense that all his slaves "like" him, and he rarely "tortures" anyone and by the use of quotes you can see I'm hedging, my point here is how quickly people have to broadcast their indignancy. "He's evil." So what you're saying is you're against slavery? Thanks for clarifying.

This explains the near-universal anxiety over the movie's frequent use of the word nigger, and someone asked Tarantino if he thought he had used it too much in the movie, and his response was perfect: "too much, in comparison to how much it was used back then?" Nigger, and the violence, was all anyone was upset about. Terry Gross, NPR's mental Fleshlight, asked Tarantino her typically insightful and nuanced questions: "do you enjoy violent movies less after what happened at Sandy Hook?" Sigh. So there's the Terry Gross checklist for reviewing Django: gun=bad and saying nigger=bad. Check and check. You know what no one thought badworthy? When the white guy asked to have a certain slave sent to his room to try out her ample vagina, and the prim white lady of the house happily escorted her up. "Go on, do what you're told, girl."

I'd venture that Terry Gross and and the gang at HuffPoWo would rather be whipped than be-- that's rape, right?-- but that scene didn't light up their amygdalas, only hearing "nigger" did. I find that highly suspicious, or astoundingly obtuse, or both.

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: "Why don't they just rise up?"

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius. That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn't his country, he doesn't really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it's completely legitimate for a guy who doesn't know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven't yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don't think to ask this? But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don't rise up is that he-- that system-- taught them not to. When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If "the system tells you what to do" doesn't seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED. Why did Django rise up? He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes. How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check? Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage to kill white people?

"The dentist freed him." So? Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings. "He's 'one in ten thousand'?" Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart. "He got a gun?" Doesn't help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren't free. No. You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to. He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people. That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life. His powers were on loan, he wasn't even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man. But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner's question has a hidden, repressed dark side: DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn't own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that's the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery-- trying to rationalize what he is doing. That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident... do you see? "Why don't they just rise up?" is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: "why do the whites own slaves? Why don't they just... stop?" And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception. 1 in 10000, I guess. And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what's been repressed-- how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier "evil" to "slaveowner" if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then? "But at least I wouldn't be evil." Keep telling yourself that. And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what's up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot? You'd say what everybody says, "look wildman, don't ask me, that's just the system. Can't change it. Want to rape a black chick?"

Here's the article in full, it's a good read: https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/...would.html

[Leonard D Neubache]

(10-20-2017 02:56 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  

Does anyone here actually think the US would be better if run by blacks and not whites?
...

Your premise is flawed.

Get back to us when the US is actually run by whites and not Jews.

[Samseau]

(10-20-2017 02:08 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 01:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think part of what people forget about this incident is that Faber was just putting in a throwaway comment in a much larger newsletter.

Most of his letters for the past 20 years or so have had lots of diversions, interesting discussions on history, art, and philosophy. For him to talk about the problems of the Black race as a whole is not anything out of the ordinary for him, he was just doing his usual thing of talking about one subject while having digressions about another subject.

I don't think his intentions were to stoke a race war. I think in his mind, he was merely stating the obvious about the whole take on racism in America thing. The fact things blew up like this probably came as a major surprise to him.

As for the Black race, the question no one asks is why Blacks are so far behind other races in terms of work output and achievement. Is it, as most White Nationalists claim, because Blacks were later to "evolve" from the apes as other races of humans did or that something halted Black evolution as Blacks and Whites separated 500K years ago, or, was it because some great tragedy befell the Blacks in Africa which seriously stunted their growth and development? Some kind of major natural disaster, or perhaps there was an advanced African civilization that destroyed itself so much they went back to the hunter-gatherer age?

We really have no idea. The problem with racists is that they assume automatic and eternal inferiority of the Black race, but they are just guessing. I'm not convinced with regular evolutionary explanations and I strongly suspect there is much more to the story that we are unaware of. Our knowledge of the past is just pathetic, and I don't trust it at all.

I think it`s fruitless to try an explain race differences in general, and the difference between blacks and Caucasians in particular by attributing any "lesser development" to a mistake or unfortunate event, whether natural or man-made, in the history of blacks.(or any other race.)

Remember that evolution/nature only cares about survival. Most African countries have a much higher fertility rate than European countries, and so they are the real winners the race for survival.
It`s not given that high IQ is the best environmental adaptation.
In fact it seems to be detrimental to survival in the present environment.

Climate and diet seems a likely explanation to IQ differences though.
Colder climate environments equals more planning ahead necessary, and also a high energy (cooked) meat/fat rich diet, as opposed to a more plant based diet possible at warmer longitudes. This again equals the possibility of a bigger brain. (Expensive tissue hypothesis)
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=s...7000100023

Birth rates don't matter. Death rates are what matter. Once Whites decline to the point that they become tribal and stop the gibs for Blacks, the Black death rates will easily exceed the birth rates they've had over the 20th century.

Natural selection is based on death rates, not birth rates. Controlling death is 1000x more powerful than controlling birth. It's why ultimately men rule over women. Women bring life into the world, but men bring death into the world. Thus they have the final say.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(10-18-2017 01:06 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

You know what? Fuck this guy.

He's been a negative, bitter old prick for years, isolating himself off from the rest of humanity.

Yeah, he's got a fat bank account and is living in some Col. Kurz compound in the middle of Thailand. Big fucking deal. Too bad that, for all his money, he sounds like little more than a bitter old man with nothing to do with his time. At his age, and with his resources, he should be happy and wise, not a bitter old prick walling himself off from humanity.

Not my idea of a role mode. He should be mentoring young people and doing philanthropy. Not spewing this bullshit out there.

Lesson here. This is what happens when you stay negative for too long, and isolate yourself from the rest of humanity.

And something else: fuck Switzerland. Biggest collection of chickenshit, two-faced snakes in Europe.

"I'm neutral. Oooo, look at me! I'm going to keep my lily-white hands clean as I hide in the mountains and manage money."

Cunts.

.

I agree with most of this, but I quite like Swiss chocolate, spirits(Swiss Absinthe is arguably the best in the world), and watches.


God bless the Swiss and fuck this guy.

[Laska]

(10-20-2017 08:39 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 02:56 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  

Does anyone here actually think the US would be better if run by blacks and not whites?
...

Your premise is flawed.

Get back to us when the US is actually run by whites and not Jews.

Jews are too intelligent, that's why they tend to embrace bad values. It's like what happens to societies that become too advanced and decadent.

Also, Samseau: you're post was brilliant, and gives me hope. I'm going to reread that for the next couple of days.

[Gmac]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20...llegations

[Chris Brown]

Why does everyone like to shit on blacks? Yeah sure we are fucked up to a certain extent. But what about Aborogines and Muslims who like to blow shit up or drug dealing South Americans? Why didnt Faber mention the Gypsies or comment on if America was run by Eskimos?

[Bacchus]

(10-20-2017 01:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

As for the Black race, the question no one asks is why Blacks are so far behind other races in terms of work output and achievement. Is it, as most White Nationalists claim, because Blacks were later to "evolve" from the apes as other races of humans did or that something halted Black evolution as Blacks and Whites separated 500K years ago, or, was it because some great tragedy befell the Blacks in Africa which seriously stunted their growth and development? Some kind of major natural disaster, or perhaps there was an advanced African civilization that destroyed itself so much they went back to the hunter-gatherer age?

We really have no idea. The problem with racists is that they assume automatic and eternal inferiority of the Black race, but they are just guessing. I'm not convinced with regular evolutionary explanations and I strongly suspect there is much more to the story that we are unaware of. Our knowledge of the past is just pathetic, and I don't trust it at all.

The answer from Sapiens and Guns, Germs, and Steel explains the differences in races. First, from Sapiens, Africans didn't mate with Neanderthals, as Europeans did. Neanderthals were intelligent, but antisocial. Homo sapiens had better group dynamics and outbreed the Neanderthal. Europeans retain something like 1% Neanderthal genes. Africans do not have this as part of their DNA.

A further explanation from Guns, Germs, and Steel, Sub-Saharan Africa remained hunter-gatherers far longer than Eurasia because crops and animals present on the continent resisted domestication. Domesticated crops and animals spread throughout Eurasia because the continent's east-west orientation meant a similar climate. Wheat, whose wild ancestors originated in Turkey, could spread through Asia and to Europe. This allowed humans to abandon the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and focus on agriculture, which leading to specialization and civilization. Civilization has different evolutionary pressures than hunting and gathering.

The north-south orientation of Africa prevented domesticated crops from spreading from the civilizations of North Africa to the interior of the continent. Wheat will not grow in a jungle. Hence, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle remained the only viable lifestyle option in Africa for far longer. Also, the lack of domesticated animals in Africa impeded the division of labor. Diamond memorably makes the point that history would be a lot different if Africans were able to domesticate the rhino and could ride rhinos into battle. Instead, African animals can be tamed but not domesticated (i.e. bred in captivity). Therefore, sub-Saharan Africa remained a hunter-gatherer society much longer than Eurasia and did not develop complex civilizations.

[Gmac]

(10-20-2017 11:55 PM)Chris Brown Wrote:  

Why does everyone like to shit on blacks? Yeah sure we are fucked up to a certain extent. But what about Aborogines and Muslims who like to blow shit up or drug dealing South Americans? Why didnt Faber mention the Gypsies or comment on if America was run by Eskimos?

He does actually talk about Native Americans.

Check the vid.

[fenetre]

(10-20-2017 11:55 PM)Chris Brown Wrote:  

Why does everyone like to shit on blacks? Yeah sure we are fucked up to a certain extent. But what about Aborogines and Muslims who like to blow shit up or drug dealing South Americans? Why didnt Faber mention the Gypsies or comment on if America was run by Eskimos?

Nobody is shitting on blacks per se.

It seems to me that there is anger surrounding the issue of race from many angles.

There are those in denial about the facts and react emotionally as evidenced above from some.

There are others, probably like Faber, who are pissed off about the lies being peddled, about how we are being force-fed this BLM-type rhetoric about the poor blacks being always oppressed by the white man.

And also those who are fed up with the constant humiliation of whites (and self-sabotage and -abasement to be fair) and the indoctrination of white children with anti-white, pro-black/minority propaganda.

Black populations have a nature; characteristics that will never change - as do all ethnicities/tribes, etc.

If we stop with all the bullshit and learn about our natures, we can learn to live better together.

But this is being prevented because muh racisss.

If black voices were more like Sowell, Peterson and Williams, and less like Sharpton, Obama and BLM, we'd have healthier relations.

I don't know anybody who is an actual white supremacist. Whites have deep flaws also, which we all know about.

But there's only so much shit healthy white men can take. They're being blamed for everything, and yet there's this expectation of them to also fix everything.

There's a sense of powerlessness and fear involved that is fuelling the anger. Damned if you and damned if you don't, as it were.

Regarding your other point. Gypsies are widely despised in Europe where they are larger in number than in the US. Their criminality is notorious but it is largely petty crime.

Black criminality is brutal in comparison. Rape, murder, violent assault. The consequences of black crime are more felt by the population than petty gypsy pickpocketing, tax dodging, theft, burglary and so on.

Faber's comments have to be related to the BLM nonsense being continuously peddled by the media - which Muslims, Eskimos and gypsies don't have.

[Thomas Jackson]

(10-20-2017 11:58 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 01:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

As for the Black race, the question no one asks is why Blacks are so far behind other races in terms of work output and achievement. Is it, as most White Nationalists claim, because Blacks were later to "evolve" from the apes as other races of humans did or that something halted Black evolution as Blacks and Whites separated 500K years ago, or, was it because some great tragedy befell the Blacks in Africa which seriously stunted their growth and development? Some kind of major natural disaster, or perhaps there was an advanced African civilization that destroyed itself so much they went back to the hunter-gatherer age?

We really have no idea. The problem with racists is that they assume automatic and eternal inferiority of the Black race, but they are just guessing. I'm not convinced with regular evolutionary explanations and I strongly suspect there is much more to the story that we are unaware of. Our knowledge of the past is just pathetic, and I don't trust it at all.

The answer from Sapiens and Guns, Germs, and Steel explains the differences in races. First, from Sapiens, Africans didn't mate with Neanderthals, as Europeans did. Neanderthals were intelligent, but antisocial. Homo sapiens had better group dynamics and outbreed the Neanderthal. Europeans retain something like 1% Neanderthal genes. Africans do not have this as part of their DNA.

A further explanation from Guns, Germs, and Steel, Sub-Saharan Africa remained hunter-gatherers far longer than Eurasia because crops and animals present on the continent resisted domestication. Domesticated crops and animals spread throughout Eurasia because the continent's east-west orientation meant a similar climate. Wheat, whose wild ancestors originated in Turkey, could spread through Asia and to Europe. This allowed humans to abandon the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and focus on agriculture, which leading to specialization and civilization. Civilization has different evolutionary pressures than hunting and gathering.

The north-south orientation of Africa prevented domesticated crops from spreading from the civilizations of North Africa to the interior of the continent. Wheat will not grow in a jungle. Hence, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle remained the only viable lifestyle option in Africa for far longer. Also, the lack of domesticated animals in Africa impeded the division of labor. Diamond memorably makes the point that history would be a lot different if Africans were able to domesticate the rhino and could ride rhinos into battle. Instead, African animals can be tamed but not domesticated (i.e. bred in captivity). Therefore, sub-Saharan Africa remained a hunter-gatherer society much longer than Eurasia and did not develop complex civilizations.

Guns Germs and Steel has been pretty refuted by all of the honest historians/anthropologists. It's an attempt to minimize European accomplishment and excuse the lack of development in other places.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(10-21-2017 04:47 AM)fenetre Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 11:55 PM)Chris Brown Wrote:  

Why does everyone like to shit on blacks? Yeah sure we are fucked up to a certain extent. But what about Aborogines and Muslims who like to blow shit up or drug dealing South Americans? Why didnt Faber mention the Gypsies or comment on if America was run by Eskimos?

Nobody is shitting on blacks per se.

It seems to me that there is anger surrounding the issue of race from many angles.

There are those in denial about the facts and react emotionally as evidenced above from some.

There are others, probably like Faber, who are pissed off about the lies being peddled, about how we are being force-fed this BLM-type rhetoric about the poor blacks being always oppressed by the white man.

And also those who are fed up with the constant humiliation of whites (and self-sabotage and -abasement to be fair) and the indoctrination of white children with anti-white, pro-black/minority propaganda.

...

Faber's comments have to be related to the BLM nonsense being continuously peddled by the media - which Muslims, Eskimos and gypsies don't have.

Is anyone still missing the forest for the trees?

Again, does Faber specifically hate blacks or is he just skirting the real issue like a pussy?

[Agastya]

(10-20-2017 01:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think part of what people forget about this incident is that Faber was just putting in a throwaway comment in a much larger newsletter.

Most of his letters for the past 20 years or so have had lots of diversions, interesting discussions on history, art, and philosophy. For him to talk about the problems of the Black race as a whole is not anything out of the ordinary for him, he was just doing his usual thing of talking about one subject while having digressions about another subject.

I don't think his intentions were to stoke a race war. I think in his mind, he was merely stating the obvious about the whole take on racism in America thing. The fact things blew up like this probably came as a major surprise to him.

As for the Black race, the question no one asks is why Blacks are so far behind other races in terms of work output and achievement. Is it, as most White Nationalists claim, because Blacks were later to "evolve" from the apes as other races of humans did or that something halted Black evolution as Blacks and Whites separated 500K years ago, or, was it because some great tragedy befell the Blacks in Africa which seriously stunted their growth and development? Some kind of major natural disaster, or perhaps there was an advanced African civilization that destroyed itself so much they went back to the hunter-gatherer age?

We really have no idea. The problem with racists is that they assume automatic and eternal inferiority of the Black race, but they are just guessing. I'm not convinced with regular evolutionary explanations and I strongly suspect there is much more to the story that we are unaware of. Our knowledge of the past is just pathetic, and I don't trust it at all.

The last paragraph is the most intelligent thing posted in this entire thread. The reason we see Western Europe as being a superior civilization is really mostly due to the fact we just have access to their historical records. These cultures reached their civilizational peak fairly recently and as such we imagine that they were dominant throughout history.

It's also the same reason why SJW's complain so much about white supremacy -- it's simply the most well-known and recent system of oppression that has existed on the planet. Equally awful barbarisms were practiced by Muslims, Mongols, and others -- they just either happened far earlier or aren't as visible to western audiences.

As for why black people and black countries seem to be suffering, I have a few possible answers:

1) Historically, there were only three real resources that came out of most of Sub-Saharan Africa that the wider world was willing to pay for. These were gold, exotic animal products, and human slaves.

This created situations where many sub-Saharan African civilizations were little more than gigantic organized kidnapping rings. I recommend reading about the history of nations like the Ouaddai in Sudan or the empire of Kanem Bornu. These places almost entirely funded themselves through the capture of slaves -- because without slaves, there was nothing in modern-day Chad, Uganda, or the Congo that the Arabs Chinese or Europeans would want. This model of civilization fucked over massive parts of Africa. The enslaved people had their communities and cultures destroyed and were subjected to mass genocide -- the slavers themselves built nothing of value since their entire civilization was dedicated towards kidnapping other people for money.

Other civilizations existed almost exclusively for the purpose of providing outsiders with these goods and fell apart once their resource supply dwindled. Great Zimbabwe, for example, prospered as long as its mines had gold in them. Once those ran dry, the entire civilization basically fell apart. Complex civilizations require several different foundations in order to work -- many areas of Africa did not have the luxury of these numerous foundations.

Africa provided slave labor to most of the Middle East, Europe and the Americas because that was the only legitimate good it could provide anyone.
Africa is held up as the most resource-rich of continents, but for the vast majority of history, most of those resources would have been useless to any society. Until the twentieth century, no one on the planet would have known what the hell to do with Africa's abundant stores of cobalt, uranium, or rubber.

2) Africa's civilizations were just never very well studied and are not well known in the West. The two that come to mind are Ethiopia and the civilizations of West Africa. I will post more on this later but Ethiopia at least was a worthy civilization, not on the level of Britain or Japan but still capable of some impressive achievements.

The civilizations that existed in Mali and Nigeria were also impressive ; Mansa Musa, the king of the Mali Empire, was the richest man on earth and caused worldwide inflation when he donated most of his wealth to charity on the way to Mecca. Scholars in Timbuktu were using trigonometry and algebra -- that civilization had one of the largest universities and best systems of education around at that time. Again, I will post more on this later as it is an interesting topic and will shatter a lot of misconceptions. People see Africa as a perpetually barbaric wasteland -- this may apply to certain parts of it, but its actual civilizations are simply not well-known, especially in the West. Timbuktu, for example, is/was home to hundreds of thousands of mathematical, astronomical, and historical documents -- of which only 14 have been translated and studied.

So basically, it's a mixture of shitty environmental factors and poor understanding that Africa is seen the way it is today. I would agree with the IQ arguments for certain parts of Africa like the Congo which literally created or achieved nothing, but the picture is more complicated than most people realize.

[Guile]

Faber seems like a smart guy. I'm guessing he knows how the world works. So why is his anti-PC rant directed at blacks rather than the (((people))) who use PC propaganda as a weapon to maintain their position as the power brokers of America? In other words, why is Faber blaming the symptom [BLM, SJW's etc] and not the (((cause)))? Just sayin'.

Oh, and just throwing this out there. These brackets are starting to creep me out... I'm starting to get this weird feeling that if I say (((their))) name three times, Harvey Weinstein will appear in my kitchen and ruin my pots.

[iop890]

(10-21-2017 06:37 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Is anyone still missing the forest for the trees?

Again, does Faber specifically hate blacks or is he just skirting the real issue like a pussy?

[TigerMandingo]

(10-22-2017 06:25 AM)Guile Wrote:  

Faber seems like a smart guy. I'm guessing he knows how the world works. So why is his anti-PC rant directed at blacks rather than the (((people))) who use PC propaganda as a weapon to maintain their position as the power brokers of America? In other words, why is Faber blaming the symptom [BLM, SJW's etc] and not the (((cause)))? Just sayin'.

Faber sounds like a Jewish name, though I can't find any evidence that he is. If he's not, he's most likely very sympathetic to their causes. Kinda like Rupert Murdoch.

[Beyond Borders]

A few of you seem concerned about him just focusing on black people and "shitting" on them. It seems like you're just basing your reaction to the singled out sentences shared by the media, his comments alone without context in other words, instead of the fact that they were comments set to a larger backdrop in his letter.

His main beef was with the liberals and he was referring to a hot button topic that is ALREADY in the news - he didn't just randomly decide to start calling out African Americans. And he was discussing a particular issue (tearing down of statues) that liberals are braying about.

What other races would he discuss when talking about the uproar over Civil War statues being torn down? The white race, true, but he makes it clear his main bone to pick is with the liberals.

So, he wasn't randomly ranting about black people - he was giving his controversial opinion on one particular issue that is specifically related to whites and blacks.

Is he obligated to make a rant about every possible race out there every time he opens his mouth about any issue concerning any race that will be offended? Don't worry - I'm sure he has opinions of other races that would piss people off too....

And I don't really get this "my issue is bigger than your issue" stance of guys demanding he bring every single issue they themselves believe in every time he opens his mouth. The Jew theories, for example. It's like an NGO who feeds starving children blasting those save the whales advocates because they chose the lesser cause to rally around.

Anyhow, here's that bigger chunk of the letter that I posted again for context:

Quote:

I don't want to enter into a serious discussion of the tearing down of monuments of historical personalities, but I cannot omit mentioning how the liberal hypocrites condemned the Taliban when they blew up the world's two largest standing Buddhas (one of them 165 feet high), situated at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains of central Afghanistan, in 2001. But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved. And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority. I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out as well. (And let's not forget that the African tribal heads were more than happy to sell their own slaves to white, black, and Arab slave dealers.)

Just because the media likes to create discussions out of single sentences taken out of their greater context doesn't mean we have to have the discussion on their terms. Whether you think he's a prick or not, it's far more intellectually honest to deal specifically with what he was actually saying.

[Agastya]

I think most people's beef with it is the idea that blacks are naturally stupider and less capable of building civilization that whites. It's an argument that may hold true in a massively broad sense over billions of individuals, but it also has serious flaws because it ignores a lot of things. Environmental factors are a big reason why Africa didn't develop civilizations on quite the level of India, Europe, East Asia, or the Middle East. And a general lack of study/ignorance explains why the legitimate civilizations that Africa did have just aren't well known in the west.

The average Joe doesn't know shit about ancient Ethiopia or the Mali empire, which were, at the time, some of the richest and most powerful civilizations on earth. They also don't know that some Egyptian pharoahs were black (Kushite dynasty) or the black Kushite kingdom in Sudan built pyramids and fought the Assyrians and Romans. They also don't recognize the fact that many of the Islamic Moors who conquered Spain in Europe's Dark Ages were black -- these people built marvels like the Alhambra and the city of Granada. People just see the current state of Africa and imagine that it was always some war-torn shithole, which is historically incorrect.

I think it's legitimate to call this guy out because he's repeating a stereotype that is A) factually wrong and B) an attack on the heritage of billions of people.

[Laska]

(10-22-2017 05:19 PM)Agastya Wrote:  

I think most people's beef with it is the idea that blacks are naturally stupider and less capable of building civilization that whites. It's an argument that may hold true in a massively broad sense over billions of individuals, but it also has serious flaws because it ignores a lot of things. Environmental factors are a big reason why Africa didn't develop civilizations on quite the level of India, Europe, East Asia, or the Middle East. And a general lack of study/ignorance explains why the legitimate civilizations that Africa did have just aren't well known in the west.

The average Joe doesn't know shit about ancient Ethiopia or the Mali empire, which were, at the time, some of the richest and most powerful civilizations on earth. They also don't know that some Egyptian pharoahs were black (Kushite dynasty) or the black Kushite kingdom in Sudan built pyramids and fought the Assyrians and Romans. They also don't recognize the fact that many of the Islamic Moors who conquered Spain in Europe's Dark Ages were black -- these people built marvels like the Alhambra and the city of Granada. People just see the current state of Africa and imagine that it was always some war-torn shithole, which is historically incorrect.

I think it's legitimate to call this guy out because he's repeating a stereotype that is A) factually wrong and B) an attack on the heritage of billions of people.

A lot of those civilizations were run by outsiders, and the Moors weren't black. The first black emperor of Rome is usually credited with its downfall, etc.. The fact is that black's aren't just vastly less accomplished and have lower average IQ scores than whites, but also compared to every other race on Earth.

If you watch The Magic Flute, you see the very same race baiting from the black character as exists now. Black men who are good examples to men in general, and who conquer life like Donovan Sharpe does, don't race bait. Race baiting is like feminism or socialism: it's a crutch for those on the lower end of life. If you're Black, so what? You could be born naturally intelligent, just like white guys are often born stupid, ugly, or in bad health. We all have to play the cards we're delt. Be like Donovan Sharpe, and conquer life.

Edit: when I say "if you're Black," I mean it to men in general.

[Agastya]

(10-22-2017 05:50 PM)Laska Wrote:  

A lot of those civilizations were run by outsiders

This is completely false, though these civilizations were frequently destroyed by outsiders. The Songhai empire in Mali and Nigeria was destroyed by Moroccans and the Ethiopians were eventually conquered by the Italians (though not before defeating their first invasion attempt).

I challenge you to prove that any of these civilizations were built by outsiders. African civilizations south of the Sahara were entirely built by indigenous blacks.

(10-22-2017 05:50 PM)Laska Wrote:  

and the Moors weren't black The first black emperor of Rome is usually credited with its downfall, etc.

The Moors came from the Saharan area that comprises Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania. Many were at the very least extremely dark-skinned Arabs and Berbers who had significant contact and ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans.

I have never heard of a black emperor of Rome, internet searches turn up nothing.

(10-22-2017 05:50 PM)Laska Wrote:  

The fact is that black's aren't just vastly less accomplished and have lower average IQ scores than whites, but also compared to every other race on Earth.

I won't disagree with you on this on a bigger scale, but I also think it's disingenuous to claim that the legitimate achievements of Sub-Saharan Africa were entirely the result of other civilizations. Sure places like Angola and Namibia really never accomplished anything, but places like Mali and Ethiopia absolutely have a claim to a legitimate civilization.