They did, you just don't think about them because they are in North Africa, West Africa, and East Africa.. It's like saying South Americans never made civilization.
North Africa bears no relationship, civilizationally, culturally, and genetically to sub-Saharan Africa. Before the Arab invasion the people of North Africa were basically historically Mediterranean peoples (think Sardinians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Berbers, etc). The Arab invasion brought other genetic lines, and Islamic civilization has brought a persistent genetic flow from sub-Saharan Africa due to the slave trade.
There have been some notable sub-Saharan and Saharan civilizations. Most prominently in Ethiopia and the horn of Africa, but also some in Nigeria, an older civilization in Zimbabwe about which very little is known, etc.
It is true that sub-Saharan Africa is one of the few parts of the world in which no people ever invented a written language (once again, the closest being Ethiopian which was borrowed from Arabian scripts).
There have been some notable sub-Saharan and Saharan civilizations. Most prominently in Ethiopia and the horn of Africa, but also some in Nigeria, an older civilization in Zimbabwe about which very little is known, etc.
It's kind of sad that that history implies a couple civilizations eventually fell to the forces of degradation in their society.
And do you think that's because "they don't care", or do you think it might be one of the most aggressively inhospitable regions on earth for civilization because of poor soil quality, no cash crops, rampant malaria (preventing any significant population density near water), rivers that only flow days out of the year, no domestic animals, and mega-fauna in direct competition with human settlements.
When even Mediterranean civilizations were fully aware of sub-Saharan Africa as early as the Carthaginian Empire and never managed to properly colonize it until the 18the century, it speaks to a larger problem.
If all things were equal, it would not be possible to claim that a 6 month voyage across the Atlantic to Canada, Mexico, or Brazil, would be less difficult than settling the Ivory Coast. It's not equal, and Africa (and Australia) are uniquely shit at being able to be placid and prosperous enough to develop civilizations.
And do you think that's because "they don't care", or do you think it might be one of the most aggressively inhospitable regions on earth for civilization because of poor soil quality, no cash crops, rampant malaria (preventing any significant population density near water), rivers that only flow days out of the year, no domestic animals, and mega-fauna in direct competition with human settlements.
While some parts of your description individually describe some parts of Africa, Africa is huge and highly varied. Additionally, your argument goes counter to the most widely subscribed (and imho, supported) theories of history. Your description is not remotely accurate for most of the Africa.
You raise another very good example of how unique sub-Saharan peoples are. Sub-Saharan African peoples never domesticated any animals. We have dozens of examples of domestication across Europe, the Middle East, India, Asia, and even the Americas. Zero in Africa.
Where did the earliest civilizations arrive? Inhospitable places like Egypt, the arid areas of Mesopotamia, the arid Indus, etc. These were areas that were very hard to live in and required civilization to make a go of it. See, e.g., the "hydraulic empires" theory. Difficult climates across the globe require civilizations, social structures, hierarchies, and working together. That almost never happened in sub-Saharan Africa.
There are many factors for why sub-Saharan Africa is uniquely alone in the world in never developing a written language or any substantial civilization. It's interesting that if you compare to, e.g., North and South America, we do see many examples of complex civilizations in the Americas, examples of written language, etc., and those were all developed in isolation from the greater Afro-Euroasian world. Large parts of North America are basically a paradise for civilization building (e.g. the East Coast).
Malaria? Rome was a mosquito-infested malarial swamp...until the Romans built a sewage and drainage system in 600BC.
Spare me, the most widely subscribed theory of history is that Europeans made Africa poor and prevented them from developing by extracting their natural resource wealth through colonialism. It is entirely false and heavily supported by enormous efforts of academic bias, rhetorical warfare, and straight up making shit up.
As for Africa, yes, but that's the point, OP wants to talk about Sub-Saharan Africa, which is what my quote specifically refers to; not Egypt.
There are zero domesticatable species in Africa. Even Zebra and African Elephants have some utility because they are similar to mostly domesticatable animals like horses, donkeys, and Asian Elephants, but even modern technology finds it utterly impossible. Zebras may look like horses, but they aren't the same kind of horse that even a Mustang is.
Egypt, Mesopatamia, and the Indus valley were explicitly hospitable at the time of their development, and had extremely regular river flows which made civilization possible. Difficult climates do the exact opposite. If the worst climates developed civilization, we would see ancient mega structures in Northern Scotland, Scandanavia, Mongolia, and the Sahara itself would have long and thriving civilizations before the ancient Sumerians or Yamato.
And it is important that a civilization requires complex social structures organizing together, that is explicitly impossible in Sub-Saharan Africa. We can see how impossible it is because Nigera, for example, has dozens of completely unique languages (over 500 actively spoken languages in the country) and over 60 different ethnic groups. Why? Because each tribe was geographically isolated from one another by geography, disease, and competition for tens of thousands of years.
Rome wouldn't exist, with or without sewage and drainage, with Malaria being as prevalent and perpetual as it is in Africa. Malaria is one of the reasons modern Europeans couldn't sufficiently explore into the continent because there was no malaria treatment until well over a thousand years since the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Spare me, the most widely subscribed theory of history is that Europeans made Africa poor and prevented them from developing by extracting their natural resource wealth through colonialism. It is entirely false and heavily supported by enormous efforts of academic bias, rhetorical warfare, and straight up making shit up.
As I referenced earlier, check out Wittfogel and the hydraulic empires. It's a great read.
European colonialism in Africa is largely a 19th century phenomenon and lasted for less than a hundred years. Extractive colonialism was, no doubt, damaging. That does nothing to explain the thousands of years of pre-European contact history.
There are zero domesticatable species in Africa.
Strong disagree.
Egypt, Mesopatamia, and the Indus valley were explicitly hospitable at the time of their development, and had extremely regular river flows which made civilization possible.
You think the river flows of the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, etc., were reliable and regular? You just have to check out the pantheon of ancient Egyptian and Sumerian gods to get an idea of just how regular the waters were. Or, you know, the Noah myth... (Gilgamesh)
Your argument is just not grounded in reality.
Rome wouldn't exist, with or without sewage and drainage, with Malaria being as prevalent and perpetual as it is in Africa.
Another argument with no grounding in reality. Malaria is or was endemic in the Mediterranean basin, in South America, in India, in Southeast Asia, in parts of China, etc. Malaria was a major issue in ancient Rome, for instance. Why is it uniquely only sub-Saharan African peoples who were so impacted by malaria?
Plus, your arguments make the false assumption that all of sub-Saharan Africa is of a similar clime. This is false. South Africa (and much of southern Africa more generally, for instance), is totally different.
East Africa: Ethiopia and Somalia(Kush and Sheba), yes
West Africa, no. no.. no... Trading enough gold and slaves to arabs ripping you off (They paid gold for salt pound for pound and paid out gold for a tiny fraction of the same weight in copper) so that you can build some mildly improved mudhuts does not make a civilization.
I mean technically they are a civilization now, to some extent, but not appreciably before the age of exploration.
North American civilizations existed. All North American tribal civilizations were subsumed by the American civilization and are now dependent on it for their existence as a people. The same can be said for Central and South American civilizations being dependent on European-Christian civilizations, despite the fact that they were significantly more advanced than the ones in North America.
What mattered to the proto-civilizations in those regions you marked was the profit to be made by 'kings' and 'lords'. Lacking the very concept of caring for one another and only suffering quietly as they were sold enmasse over the scale of almost three millennia is another reason why they never made it to a fully self-sustaining civilization.
Even small rural villages in east asia accomplished that, once the yoke of marxism was burnt down.
This is 100% fucking backwards. Profit motive for kings was not the basis of proto-civilizations. That's barely even a reasonable argument for Feudalism.
Most of them did get wiped out by the Bantus. See, that's the issue - without a steady supply of slaves to extort, the few 'african civilizations' that depend on profit for their rulers and not the well-being of their peoples tend to almost always collapse. Same thing with a majority african countries today. Without constant foreign aid, they die.
I was talking about that. You just dropped a few words from it.
Foreign Aid explicitly devastates foreign countries. Most governments don't operate on the well-being of their peoples.
Exactly. All the rulers of these so-called 'countries' and 'civilizations' ever cared for was to enrich themselves at the expense of the people living there.
Exactly. All the rulers of these so-called 'countries' and 'civilizations' ever cared for was to enrich themselves at the expense of the people living there.
Yeah. Same with Western Civilization. And Eastern Civilization. And Islamic Civilization. And Native American Civilization.
Benefiting the people tends to be a happy by-product of governments, not a feature.
Maybe because one of the other reasons he might be there: To try to create an incident for his own benefit that might well end with her getting fired. It's not difficult to imagine the headlines that might result from a "poor black kid getting kicked out of a library so he can't get ahead in life".
Or she (correctly) recognizes that there's a not insignificant chance he might chimp out and harm or kill her. Or she's just a true believer and thinks that it's okay if a black kid shares his music with the entire library.
When they talk about the demise of third spaces they conveniently leave that part out. It's not just libraries; public spaces in general have gone to shit because civilized behavior is no longer a prerequisite for using them.
Our downtown library needed metal scanners and armed security, it is overrun with sniffers, junkies and insane "streetpeople" most of whom are Native and thus "untouchable".
A security guard got stabbed to death a couple of years back...
They're always looking for reactions. In some places they intentionally walk in the middle of the street hoping you'll stop your car so they can fight you/jack your vehicle/both.
The librarian wasn't throwing them out because it was an empty library on a Saturday and OP is a useless coward who didn't even have the balls to ask a librarian to ask him to be quiet.
OP is effectively a Liberal Democrat Party voter in the UK. "That behavior is truly uncooth, but I'm literally never going to do anything remotely like something about it."
Balls to ask a librarian to ask a nigger to stfu? The fact you think that's appropriate to deal with niggers man... Its telling. Nogs don't give a shit about some old Lady telling them to obey a rule.
They cannot conjugate verbs. Not because it's "african american vernacular english", but because they can't conceive of people other than themselves or times other than the present.
Holy shit before clicking that I thought you were just dropping a new euphemism but it really is "Niggas in da ER." It looks like a liposuction procedure maybe. Those kinds of outpatient clinics, along with anesthesiology done for dental work, are rife with DEI fatalities.
The lefty goblin women currently going to college for librarian studies (why is this a degree) are so inculcated in the absolute bullshit that if you ask that question where they congregate they will tell you that expecting quiet in a library is racist now. I'm not even joking, look it up.
I should change it up to others, but that's the one we have been annoying each other with. I'm fairly certain he'll play it at my funeral with tears in his eyes. I'll look down with my wife and think about buns hun.
Do you think thier might be a step between "nothing" and "genocide" that you might be missing?
"Should, I ask the librarian to tell them to be quiet? No, I'm too much of a bitch coward for that. Better just beat my dick raw to a race war fantasy with my impotent rage rather than doing literally anything at all."
How you gonna win a race war when you have less courage than a fucking Karen?
Like a white man calling for genocide the music in the library is too loud?
Is there something genetically inferior about the white race that makes them so prone to extreme swings of violence... or are you just making shit up because you need an excuse to ignore all other factors like ideological capture, grievance mongering, and socialist subversion?
See, unlike you, I think whites are capable of civilization, even if there are cowardly & hyper-sensitive retards that demand mass murder because loud noises. See, whites can be effected by degenerate cultures (like the modern western one), and can be ideologically captured and groomed to such an extreme degree that you get Reddit whites who suicide-bomb IVF clinics for their war against life. Unlike you, I don't think whites are inherently anti-white by their genetics or something. I think culture matters. Particularly a pathologically nihilistic one promoted by Leftism.
If you want to assert a moral framework to society, you're not going to be doing it hoping the government murders for you (and totally never turns that power back on you). Turns out you'll have to make an effort.
Niggers have always been a slave race. The smart ones that somehow, against all odds manage to figure out what they're used for, are pulled down by their own societal norms for the unforgivable sin of "acting white".
Do you think thier might be a step between "nothing" and "genocide"
Yes, its called all the steps we've been trying for the last century+ in America.
Its not been working too well. Its why the "radical" opinion went from giving them rights, to treating all races as equal, to "we cannot know peace while they draw breathe."
Actually it was working fine for most of a century until Socialism became the norm in black communities. Despite the useless reductivity, we can look through those past several hundred years and not only see integration but prosperity in both American blacks and American indians even going so far back as post-colonial times.
Instead where we find the most tension and conflict is when the government is managing and stoking that tension through resentment and grievance mongering.
Or are we just going to make excuses about how the whites of Portland are genetically incapable of integrating into society, and that a white genocide in Portland is a moral imperative because genetics can be the only determining factor for all cultural differences and never ideology because it would indicate that socialist policies don't work?
Well cat's out of the bag, we aren't going back to times when these things don't exist. But if you, individually or as a group, can be so corrupted by these concepts that your entire existence is perverted by them, then I don't think you can be trusted in general.
Much like the black's favorite animal the pitbull.
that a white genocide in Portland is a moral imperative
Yes. Their sins have stacked too high to merely be forgiven or blamed on some external corrupting source. All of the West Coast outside of maybe the rural types should be met with judgement.
We can't go back to not Socialism. IDK, looks like the Soviet Union fell. I don't think feeding into enemy narratives and demanding that we should socialize since socialism is inevitable is correct.
Their sins have stacked too high to merely be forgiven
See, I don't think white people deserve to be genocide for the alleged crimes of their race. I think they can do better than socialism.
we should socialize since socialism is inevitable is correct.
I said nothing of the sort. I simply said the concept has been created and we can't just undo its creation. Original Sin came into existence and we can't just pretend otherwise, we can only save those willing to be cleansed of it. Those who instead choose to revel in the hedonism granted by its fruits, should have a limit to the sacrifice willing to save them.
In this case, you could change socialism with "crack" and everything I said would be the same.
I know you are fishing for weak gotchas and conduct your arguments on assumptions of what people believe, but a large amount of whites deserve the same treatment as the common nigger. That's just not first on the docket, for various reasons. You can't glue the pieces together before you've even cut the wood.
You being a useful idiot and a government slave isn't really a good enough excuse to justify maltreatment of others. Race control policies aren't really necessary, but you'll beat your own white friends to death when they tell you to stop being a weird race freak. You know, for white solidarity or whatever.
this is one of those times you just got to fight fire with a bigger fire, play music loudly too or better yet sing along to the music they are listening too, honestly iv had European people do the same stuff in public from the young to the old, parents raising their kids on tablets blasting music from what ever game they are playing, i tend to just start whistling out of tune until they get the messege
There's a youth component for sure. But also "black hood" culture is the dominant influence on young people. Stereotypical bad black behavior is glorified on tv, so white kids want to be cool, act "black."
hispanics.. our neighborhood was quiet for last 20 years. then we got 4 new neighbors in last 2 years. 2 was hispanic, 1 was korean and 1 was fillipino. the two hispanic oens have loud ass parties often, like 2-3 times a month. the koreans actually called the cops on them. there is a city ordinance that says they cant have loud ass outdoor party noise past 10pm. but they have it till 10:40pm cause they know cops wont get there fast enough.
Why do you think africans never made it to civilization? They never cared.
PS: Play classical music.
They did, you just don't think about them because they are in North Africa, West Africa, and East Africa.. It's like saying South Americans never made civilization.
North Africa bears no relationship, civilizationally, culturally, and genetically to sub-Saharan Africa. Before the Arab invasion the people of North Africa were basically historically Mediterranean peoples (think Sardinians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Berbers, etc). The Arab invasion brought other genetic lines, and Islamic civilization has brought a persistent genetic flow from sub-Saharan Africa due to the slave trade.
There have been some notable sub-Saharan and Saharan civilizations. Most prominently in Ethiopia and the horn of Africa, but also some in Nigeria, an older civilization in Zimbabwe about which very little is known, etc.
It is true that sub-Saharan Africa is one of the few parts of the world in which no people ever invented a written language (once again, the closest being Ethiopian which was borrowed from Arabian scripts).
It's kind of sad that that history implies a couple civilizations eventually fell to the forces of degradation in their society.
And do you think that's because "they don't care", or do you think it might be one of the most aggressively inhospitable regions on earth for civilization because of poor soil quality, no cash crops, rampant malaria (preventing any significant population density near water), rivers that only flow days out of the year, no domestic animals, and mega-fauna in direct competition with human settlements.
When even Mediterranean civilizations were fully aware of sub-Saharan Africa as early as the Carthaginian Empire and never managed to properly colonize it until the 18the century, it speaks to a larger problem.
If all things were equal, it would not be possible to claim that a 6 month voyage across the Atlantic to Canada, Mexico, or Brazil, would be less difficult than settling the Ivory Coast. It's not equal, and Africa (and Australia) are uniquely shit at being able to be placid and prosperous enough to develop civilizations.
While some parts of your description individually describe some parts of Africa, Africa is huge and highly varied. Additionally, your argument goes counter to the most widely subscribed (and imho, supported) theories of history. Your description is not remotely accurate for most of the Africa.
You raise another very good example of how unique sub-Saharan peoples are. Sub-Saharan African peoples never domesticated any animals. We have dozens of examples of domestication across Europe, the Middle East, India, Asia, and even the Americas. Zero in Africa.
Where did the earliest civilizations arrive? Inhospitable places like Egypt, the arid areas of Mesopotamia, the arid Indus, etc. These were areas that were very hard to live in and required civilization to make a go of it. See, e.g., the "hydraulic empires" theory. Difficult climates across the globe require civilizations, social structures, hierarchies, and working together. That almost never happened in sub-Saharan Africa.
There are many factors for why sub-Saharan Africa is uniquely alone in the world in never developing a written language or any substantial civilization. It's interesting that if you compare to, e.g., North and South America, we do see many examples of complex civilizations in the Americas, examples of written language, etc., and those were all developed in isolation from the greater Afro-Euroasian world. Large parts of North America are basically a paradise for civilization building (e.g. the East Coast).
Malaria? Rome was a mosquito-infested malarial swamp...until the Romans built a sewage and drainage system in 600BC.
Spare me, the most widely subscribed theory of history is that Europeans made Africa poor and prevented them from developing by extracting their natural resource wealth through colonialism. It is entirely false and heavily supported by enormous efforts of academic bias, rhetorical warfare, and straight up making shit up.
As for Africa, yes, but that's the point, OP wants to talk about Sub-Saharan Africa, which is what my quote specifically refers to; not Egypt.
There are zero domesticatable species in Africa. Even Zebra and African Elephants have some utility because they are similar to mostly domesticatable animals like horses, donkeys, and Asian Elephants, but even modern technology finds it utterly impossible. Zebras may look like horses, but they aren't the same kind of horse that even a Mustang is.
Egypt, Mesopatamia, and the Indus valley were explicitly hospitable at the time of their development, and had extremely regular river flows which made civilization possible. Difficult climates do the exact opposite. If the worst climates developed civilization, we would see ancient mega structures in Northern Scotland, Scandanavia, Mongolia, and the Sahara itself would have long and thriving civilizations before the ancient Sumerians or Yamato.
And it is important that a civilization requires complex social structures organizing together, that is explicitly impossible in Sub-Saharan Africa. We can see how impossible it is because Nigera, for example, has dozens of completely unique languages (over 500 actively spoken languages in the country) and over 60 different ethnic groups. Why? Because each tribe was geographically isolated from one another by geography, disease, and competition for tens of thousands of years.
Rome wouldn't exist, with or without sewage and drainage, with Malaria being as prevalent and perpetual as it is in Africa. Malaria is one of the reasons modern Europeans couldn't sufficiently explore into the continent because there was no malaria treatment until well over a thousand years since the collapse of the Roman Empire.
As I referenced earlier, check out Wittfogel and the hydraulic empires. It's a great read.
European colonialism in Africa is largely a 19th century phenomenon and lasted for less than a hundred years. Extractive colonialism was, no doubt, damaging. That does nothing to explain the thousands of years of pre-European contact history.
Strong disagree.
You think the river flows of the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, etc., were reliable and regular? You just have to check out the pantheon of ancient Egyptian and Sumerian gods to get an idea of just how regular the waters were. Or, you know, the Noah myth... (Gilgamesh)
Your argument is just not grounded in reality.
Another argument with no grounding in reality. Malaria is or was endemic in the Mediterranean basin, in South America, in India, in Southeast Asia, in parts of China, etc. Malaria was a major issue in ancient Rome, for instance. Why is it uniquely only sub-Saharan African peoples who were so impacted by malaria?
Plus, your arguments make the false assumption that all of sub-Saharan Africa is of a similar clime. This is false. South Africa (and much of southern Africa more generally, for instance), is totally different.
North Africa, yes
East Africa: Ethiopia and Somalia(Kush and Sheba), yes
West Africa, no. no.. no... Trading enough gold and slaves to arabs ripping you off (They paid gold for salt pound for pound and paid out gold for a tiny fraction of the same weight in copper) so that you can build some mildly improved mudhuts does not make a civilization.
I mean technically they are a civilization now, to some extent, but not appreciably before the age of exploration.
You can say it's not a civilization, but it still was (and it was an Islamic one for a period of time).
Again, even if we are arguing that it's not a civilization because it's primitive, that doesn't mean that "primitive civilizations" can't exist.
Primitive and completely dependent on more advanced civilizations for any of its civilized aspects
Those aren't different terms.
North American civilizations existed. All North American tribal civilizations were subsumed by the American civilization and are now dependent on it for their existence as a people. The same can be said for Central and South American civilizations being dependent on European-Christian civilizations, despite the fact that they were significantly more advanced than the ones in North America.
What mattered to the proto-civilizations in those regions you marked was the profit to be made by 'kings' and 'lords'. Lacking the very concept of caring for one another and only suffering quietly as they were sold enmasse over the scale of almost three millennia is another reason why they never made it to a fully self-sustaining civilization.
Even small rural villages in east asia accomplished that, once the yoke of marxism was burnt down.
This is 100% fucking backwards. Profit motive for kings was not the basis of proto-civilizations. That's barely even a reasonable argument for Feudalism.
Most of them did get wiped out by the Bantus. See, that's the issue - without a steady supply of slaves to extort, the few 'african civilizations' that depend on profit for their rulers and not the well-being of their peoples tend to almost always collapse. Same thing with a majority african countries today. Without constant foreign aid, they die.
That's not a quote from me.
Foreign Aid explicitly devastates foreign countries. Most governments don't operate on the well-being of their peoples.
I was talking about that. You just dropped a few words from it.
Exactly. All the rulers of these so-called 'countries' and 'civilizations' ever cared for was to enrich themselves at the expense of the people living there.
Yeah. Same with Western Civilization. And Eastern Civilization. And Islamic Civilization. And Native American Civilization.
Benefiting the people tends to be a happy by-product of governments, not a feature.
Is there any chance he's doing a YouTube prank? Did he look like he was looking for a reaction?
Why isn't the librarian doing her job? You shouldn't be forced to enforce the rules, that's her job.
On a related note, I don't get people who do the yelling into the speakerphone bit. And then they have the gall to get upset if people listen in.
Maybe because one of the other reasons he might be there: To try to create an incident for his own benefit that might well end with her getting fired. It's not difficult to imagine the headlines that might result from a "poor black kid getting kicked out of a library so he can't get ahead in life".
Or she (correctly) recognizes that there's a not insignificant chance he might chimp out and harm or kill her. Or she's just a true believer and thinks that it's okay if a black kid shares his music with the entire library.
Apparently libraries need bouncers now
Libraries across America are under constant siege by sexual predators and junkies. Anyone trying to do serious work is at home on the internet.
When they talk about the demise of third spaces they conveniently leave that part out. It's not just libraries; public spaces in general have gone to shit because civilized behavior is no longer a prerequisite for using them.
Civilized behavior requires a Roman level of retaliation against uncivilized behavior.
Bro 100%. American society is based around trying to hide away from negroes and other third worlders.
Our downtown library needed metal scanners and armed security, it is overrun with sniffers, junkies and insane "streetpeople" most of whom are Native and thus "untouchable".
A security guard got stabbed to death a couple of years back...
They're always looking for reactions. In some places they intentionally walk in the middle of the street hoping you'll stop your car so they can fight you/jack your vehicle/both.
People who walk in the middle of the street like that deserve to be run over with absolute impunity.
I don’t get it either.
Because 98% of librarians are neomarxist commie fucks.
The librarian wasn't throwing them out because it was an empty library on a Saturday and OP is a useless coward who didn't even have the balls to ask a librarian to ask him to be quiet.
OP is effectively a Liberal Democrat Party voter in the UK. "That behavior is truly uncooth, but I'm literally never going to do anything remotely like something about it."
Balls to ask a librarian to ask a nigger to stfu? The fact you think that's appropriate to deal with niggers man... Its telling. Nogs don't give a shit about some old Lady telling them to obey a rule.
Stop being fucking weak coward on the internet and interact with people in public spaces.
They cannot conjugate verbs. Not because it's "african american vernacular english", but because they can't conceive of people other than themselves or times other than the present.
Black surgeon video :
https://x.com/skiptracedery/status/1924154708647907417
Holy shit before clicking that I thought you were just dropping a new euphemism but it really is "Niggas in da ER." It looks like a liposuction procedure maybe. Those kinds of outpatient clinics, along with anesthesiology done for dental work, are rife with DEI fatalities.
The lefty goblin women currently going to college for librarian studies (why is this a degree) are so inculcated in the absolute bullshit that if you ask that question where they congregate they will tell you that expecting quiet in a library is racist now. I'm not even joking, look it up.
When my son does that, I get his speakers on Bluetooth and play Baby Got Back
>not playing kawaii weebshit on speakers
Step it up, senpai.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8PO16yrsNk
Omg that's just adorable!
Edit: oops, wrong comment replied to, moved.
A classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIbp5C-5WXM
I just love oldies.
I should change it up to others, but that's the one we have been annoying each other with. I'm fairly certain he'll play it at my funeral with tears in his eyes. I'll look down with my wife and think about buns hun.
Quit being a pussy and do something about it.
TND?
Do you think thier might be a step between "nothing" and "genocide" that you might be missing?
"Should, I ask the librarian to tell them to be quiet? No, I'm too much of a bitch coward for that. Better just beat my dick raw to a race war fantasy with my impotent rage rather than doing literally anything at all."
How you gonna win a race war when you have less courage than a fucking Karen?
Yes. Telling him to knock it off and getting stabbed in the heart for your trouble.
You can't really escalate on a gradient with creatures who will readily jump straight to killing you over being mildly inconvenienced.
Like a white man calling for genocide the music in the library is too loud?
Is there something genetically inferior about the white race that makes them so prone to extreme swings of violence... or are you just making shit up because you need an excuse to ignore all other factors like ideological capture, grievance mongering, and socialist subversion?
See, unlike you, I think whites are capable of civilization, even if there are cowardly & hyper-sensitive retards that demand mass murder because loud noises. See, whites can be effected by degenerate cultures (like the modern western one), and can be ideologically captured and groomed to such an extreme degree that you get Reddit whites who suicide-bomb IVF clinics for their war against life. Unlike you, I don't think whites are inherently anti-white by their genetics or something. I think culture matters. Particularly a pathologically nihilistic one promoted by Leftism.
I'm saying there's a very good reason why someone might hesitate to ask a feral nigger to turn down his music.
And that isn't what I asked.
If you want to assert a moral framework to society, you're not going to be doing it hoping the government murders for you (and totally never turns that power back on you). Turns out you'll have to make an effort.
Niggers have always been a slave race. The smart ones that somehow, against all odds manage to figure out what they're used for, are pulled down by their own societal norms for the unforgivable sin of "acting white".
Yes, its called all the steps we've been trying for the last century+ in America.
Its not been working too well. Its why the "radical" opinion went from giving them rights, to treating all races as equal, to "we cannot know peace while they draw breathe."
Actually it was working fine for most of a century until Socialism became the norm in black communities. Despite the useless reductivity, we can look through those past several hundred years and not only see integration but prosperity in both American blacks and American indians even going so far back as post-colonial times.
Instead where we find the most tension and conflict is when the government is managing and stoking that tension through resentment and grievance mongering.
Or are we just going to make excuses about how the whites of Portland are genetically incapable of integrating into society, and that a white genocide in Portland is a moral imperative because genetics can be the only determining factor for all cultural differences and never ideology because it would indicate that socialist policies don't work?
Well cat's out of the bag, we aren't going back to times when these things don't exist. But if you, individually or as a group, can be so corrupted by these concepts that your entire existence is perverted by them, then I don't think you can be trusted in general.
Much like the black's favorite animal the pitbull.
Yes. Their sins have stacked too high to merely be forgiven or blamed on some external corrupting source. All of the West Coast outside of maybe the rural types should be met with judgement.
We can't go back to not Socialism. IDK, looks like the Soviet Union fell. I don't think feeding into enemy narratives and demanding that we should socialize since socialism is inevitable is correct.
See, I don't think white people deserve to be genocide for the alleged crimes of their race. I think they can do better than socialism.
I said nothing of the sort. I simply said the concept has been created and we can't just undo its creation. Original Sin came into existence and we can't just pretend otherwise, we can only save those willing to be cleansed of it. Those who instead choose to revel in the hedonism granted by its fruits, should have a limit to the sacrifice willing to save them.
In this case, you could change socialism with "crack" and everything I said would be the same.
I know you are fishing for weak gotchas and conduct your arguments on assumptions of what people believe, but a large amount of whites deserve the same treatment as the common nigger. That's just not first on the docket, for various reasons. You can't glue the pieces together before you've even cut the wood.
Ya we tried segregation and race traitors like you said blacks have a right to white people and our money.
You being a useful idiot and a government slave isn't really a good enough excuse to justify maltreatment of others. Race control policies aren't really necessary, but you'll beat your own white friends to death when they tell you to stop being a weird race freak. You know, for white solidarity or whatever.
this is one of those times you just got to fight fire with a bigger fire, play music loudly too or better yet sing along to the music they are listening too, honestly iv had European people do the same stuff in public from the young to the old, parents raising their kids on tablets blasting music from what ever game they are playing, i tend to just start whistling out of tune until they get the messege
Very true, children of every race and ethnicity are out of control. But only black kids will gang beat you for saying something.
There's a youth component for sure. But also "black hood" culture is the dominant influence on young people. Stereotypical bad black behavior is glorified on tv, so white kids want to be cool, act "black."
"Nigga heil Hitler! All my niggas Nazis nigga heil Hitler!" 🎵🎵
hispanics.. our neighborhood was quiet for last 20 years. then we got 4 new neighbors in last 2 years. 2 was hispanic, 1 was korean and 1 was fillipino. the two hispanic oens have loud ass parties often, like 2-3 times a month. the koreans actually called the cops on them. there is a city ordinance that says they cant have loud ass outdoor party noise past 10pm. but they have it till 10:40pm cause they know cops wont get there fast enough.
Check your white privilege with this stunning piece of "journalism." https://archive.is/rvddu
"WHY DO RICH PEOPLE LOVE QUIET? The sound of gentrification is silence."
You can hear and feel the music/sound from 3 houses away. Thats how loud these assholes are.
Yeah. Neighborhood got more diverse.
WHUCHUMEEN LIBARY?!
Keep pretending reality isn't happening. "Fake! Just retreat to the woods and pretend it's not happening! Just sue! Case closed!"