BBC - We want to kill whitey
(m.facebook.com)
Comments (26)
sorted by:
Fuck that bitch. Everybody LAUGHED when she said "we do" as a smug aside.
And then they cry about "white supremacy" when people like me, who haven't given a damn about skin colour, who have friends of various races and political persuasions, suddenly take note, and decide that some of the "Far Right" aren't actually that wrong on their claims.
These people are drawing a line, and I'm damn sure which side I'm on, even if I'm not enthused about some of the other people on my side.
I never thought I'd die fighting side by side with a <insert whichever of the increasingly broad selection of groups aligning in opposition to the cult of woke>
That laugh, like wtf. Not to mention do they actually believe they would have had Wakanda if it was not for white people. Do they have any reason to believe that other then wishful thinking? They did not even invent the wheel, they adopted it in the 19th century. I know they had a few kingdoms but the left make them sound like some incredible utopias way ahead of europeans they were still playing with spears while Europeans were working with steam engines.
Blind, unthinking hatred.
They're playing a rhetorical game about how "kill whitey" means that they just want to overthrow things they call white supremacist structures. It's the same reason why that one professor said "white lives don't matter... as white lives"
They're defining "white" and "whitey" to not mean white people, but to mean some institutional power structure.
Of course, that won't matter when they smash your head in with a brick while they scream "kill whitey". It's a rhetorical game.
Yes, because they have this mistaken Marxist understanding of both history and economics that they are rationalizing. They are claiming that Africa had massive natural resource wealth that was drained from the continent by European Imperial empires, and if they had been allowed to be left alone in their perfect ethno-states, they would have thrived.
The ethno-state argument is wrong... because they still have ethno-states and poverty between different African ethno-states is stark because different countries have different economic and political structures. Natural resource wealth doesn't necessitate that you will successfully develop that. Liberia and Mali are perfect examples of that, particularly Mali because it contained one of the wealthiest humans to have ever lived: Mansa Musa. The Mali Empire had huge stores of gold that were being traded with Islamic Caliphates, and the dude himself changed the value of Gold & Silver across Europe because he devalued gold by passing so much of it out (and having a shit ton of that move through European trade roots).
Honestly, African kingdoms had been colonies of Islamic Empires for quite some time. Islam has probably done more damage to black Africans than European Christians have, particularly in regards to slavery & imperialism.
The wheel is only useful economic engine if you have an animal to use it. Good luck fighting off the lions with that docile pack animal. Most places didn't invent the wheel. Most places adopted it from people who had adopted it, and only where it was useful.
The arguments are misunderstandings of the problems that many of the African civilizations faced. Most of which involve little high-protein cash crops, no navigable waterways, and malaria. The last one is very severe because it means your population density is effectively capped.
One of the things that I've seen pointed to is that some of the African Empires had very large cities with massive streets that seemed to go on for miles, but the revisionists misunderstand why that's a problem. African Cities couldn't support dense populations when the threat of Malaria is so god damned high. They had to be broad and wide because you have a max density before whole swaths of your city get wiped out. Worse, you don't have significant amounts of running water or sewage. You can't irrigate as you might normally would in Europe outside of just the Nile river basin. Waterways completely dry up, and when they pool, they become breeding grounds for mosquitos... and therefore malaria. Worse, significant trade with the outside world in the Sub-Sahara is effectively impossible. If you can't trade, you can't automate, and you can't have a high population density, particularly during early stages of civilizational development, you're basically fucked. If you have those things, you have exponential growth and development.
The difference in development between Eastern Europe & Sub Saharan Africa compared to Mediterranean Europe & Africa is stark because you're looking at linear development in isolation versus exponential development of connected regions.
Ah, Europe had lions, too, up until the Roman era. Those lions on European heraldry are NOT African lions, but native European ones, that, yes, looked more or less just like the African sort (with maned males, and tufts on their tails), just like the Asiatic lion does (it's endangered/rare, but I saw one at the Sydney Zoo about 25 years ago.) Anyway, they're all one species, once widespread, but now people think of it as just "African". Sad. And yes, those were European lions getting fed to the Roman death entertainment complex.
As for bears, they were mostly wiped out early, too (with the white marine bears chased to the remote north. When North America was first discovered, fur-trading sea captains made note of the "many beares", that they described in all three colours (brown, black and white) as far south as Maine - they're cold WATER bears, not "snow and ice" bears, but they were similarly chased to the far north by 1800, and thus started being misnamed "polar" bears.)
Hunter-gatherers simply don't tend to be as aggressive about wiping out rival predators as farmer-herders are, at least, not without some incentive (such as the industrial fur and hide trade); stone-age humans probably mostly outcompeted the large (over 100 lbs adult weight avg) predators rather than aggressively genociding them, like the ongoing genocide against the wild wolf/coyote by higher-tech peoples.)
That would stand to reason since hunters need to maintain a prey population, and won't try to overhunt anything, whereas farmers need to keep predators to a minimum to achieve maximum output of their literal cash-cows.
No, they definitely have been known to overhunt; it's just that it's not really worth your time to hunt something inedible, unless you're after its fur (wolf and wolverine fur, for instance, doesn't ice up when you breathe on it), and if it's not bothering you. There's also the matter of the large, heavier carnivores simply being difficult and dangerous to kill, even with many men and dogs, when you only have stone-tipped weapons. It's the exact same reason wolves don't generally go out of their way to wipe out every bear, lynx and mountain lion in their territory, if their pups aren't being preyed upon. Them merely being competition isn't worth the trouble and risk.
Once you start investing your time and effort into raising and feeding livestock, however, the game totally changes, and rather than viewing the preds as mere competition, they now become thieves, and a whole different sort of psychology comes in. Also, the advent of metal-tipped spears and arrows helped a lot in humans becoming more pro-active in defending themselves and their herds (by calling for bounties, the oldest known one on wolves (golden "jackals") dates back to ancient Egypt. Oh, and when it comes to the difference between stone and metal arrowheads? The fletchers of Europe enjoyed about a hundred years of their trade being relevant than they otherwise would have done, thanks to North American natives being hot on them; until guns got better, the fur trade was mainly about them finding that steel arrowheads were far superior to stone ones, and helped them get rid of those pesky white bears all along the St Lawrence that they had previously been terrified of ... and made good trade on their skins in the process.)
That all makes sense.
I'm not denying any of that, In fact it was a good read, thank you. I'm not concerned on climate,resources, predators and diseases that impacted the people in Africa but rather the fact that they think it would have been Wakanda somehow when there is no reason to believe that do to all the things you mentioned. I am curious on how the African kingdoms have been, do you have a good non-biased source for that? When I think at Africa I think of war-leaders and primitive dwellings not castles, roads, organized warfare, sewage systems or arts.
Unfortunately, not at the moment for Classical African history. It seems to me that you'd be better off reading older sources, or simply having to dig through biased sources and filtering out the horse shit. There's bound to be African History chronicles prior to 1960. This is partly due to the fact that modern racialists are obsessive about trying to identify a Wakanda for Africa, but for the reason I mentioned, African history is fairly decentralized. The empires existed, they were even occasionally economic power houses outside of the Sub-Sahara or East Coast. The good, but biased, historians are forced by evidence to recognize that the narrative around African history doesn't make any god damned sense, but a lot of information is simply difficult to get a hold of. This means that for Classical African history you have to do a proper deep dive on African history. No general overviews, but actually digging through the weeds of the introduction of Islam, Christendom, ethnic conflicts between the different people's of Africa, and the known history of the East Coast from Chinese, Indus, and Pacific traders.
For example, I have a Nigerian novel written prior to the 1960's, and it was written in a kind of Nigerian-English vernacular. It was popular in Nigeria at the time and was a big diversity assignment that our SJ advocation was supposed to expose us to. Unfortunately, the reason it was popular was because many Nigerians in the 1950's could relate to it, not westerners. The novel is a story about the life an times of a kind of high-status man in a semi-tribal environment who has enormous flaws and leads his family to ruin through his aggression and emotionality. There's a passage in the book which references one of the more egregious acts the man did was beat his wife on a holy day for a goddess which mandated no violence during the day. The narrator pointed out that his behavior was egregious because it was a harsh beating, and specifically on a holy day. Not that beating your wife was particularly wrong. In fact, there's a portion of the book which goes over the fact that the wife had tried to escape beatings before and the village had to step in and calm the asshole down because it was getting out of hand... and normally for stupid reasons like 'the food wasn't ready', or 'she said something that insulted my honor'.
That's not exactly Wakanda now is it?
The Nigerians related to the story because it tells of a tale of what a lot of Nigeria had been like only 100 years ago or so. This was a story about their grandparents. Turns out "Negrophilia" is stupid. Fetishizing blackness is retarded. It's a weird thing that white people do, and the Africans, don't. Africans are a people much like anyone else, and they were living on a continent that wasn't easy to develop.
White SJWS: "Africa is filled with beautiful cultures and people!"
Black SJWs: "Yes it is! Kill yourself!"
Africans: "This place is nice, but our lives kinda suck. Sometimes it sucks because the Zulu are fucking asshole savages and ruin everything for everyone. Fuck them. I'll take any white person over a Zulu any. day."
For a good overview, I'd argue Thomas Sowell (Conquests & Cultures, and Immigration & Cultures are excellent, but he has plenty of books on Race as well) and Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs, & Steel and Collapse are both good). For a generic overview of why Africa is the way it is, they both run along the same path and it's why SJWs fucking hate them and try to discredit them.
War-leaders, yes.
Primitive dwellings, yes... but that's on every single continent, including Europe. Peasants live in pretty fucking rough conditions.
Roads: there were definitely roads in any place with significant trade. Which is basically North Africa and the Horn of Africa. Islamic colonization of Northern Africa and the transportation of raw materials (like gold) out of Northern Africa required significant infrastructure. There were times when Northern Africa surpassed European development, particularly on the Iberian Peninsula. The Horn of Africa had a massive trade network through the Indian Ocean, so they've had powerful city states, but they never needed full-size castles because there were relatively few significant wars. If the Ottomans & Persians monopolized access to India and China, anyone on the Horn of Africa was not willing to jeopardize a precious sea-route with conflict. The Chinese had their own internal struggles to deal with, the SE Asians were willing to tolerate Chinese trading expeditions, and the Indians (again) had their own internal problems. The Islamic Arabs wanted to profit from both.
Castles: As addressed: there wasn't a huge need for your typical Asian or European Castles, and remember that population density has a limit before malaria starts slaughtering people. Earthen and timber fortifications did exist, even in central Africa. But remember it has to make sense: no livestock animals means you can't use horsepower to drag heavy things, which means you need huge sums of people, and you need keep them from dying of Malaria. There were more traditional castles... but they are always is Islamic controlled territory, mostly because the Muslims were constantly going to war and needed fortifications. From the US Marine Hymn: "The shores of Tripoli", that's in Lybia. Islamic Piracy meant the US needed to break Islamic fortifications to stop the attacks.
Organized warfare: This is where you'd be seriously wrong, and the British made the same mistake you did at isandlwana. It's not classical European organized warfare, but the level of organization needed to command and time the attacks of multiple units numbering in the tens of thousands at a time, over a massive area is a major feat of logistics and organization. Under-developed in weapons, sure. Not under-developed in tactics or discipline. A thousand Zulu warriors sneaking up on your position while using the terrain as cover from enemy observation is an amazing skill. African populations weren't totally unfamiliar with war (again, see Islam), and even the Sub-Saharan ones wouldn't be a joke.
Sewage systems are actually super fucking advanced for most civilizations. It's not easy to build or maintain a good functioning sewer-system. Rome, even in the Roman Empire, was lightyears ahead of everything else. In Pompey, sewage flowed openly in the streets. It's why roads were depressed: it allowed sewage and rain to flow down the roads. Meanwhile they built little brick crosswalks at the same height as the edge of the road so you could walk over the flowing waste water. Even a thousand years later in Europe, the sewage for castles was a literal poop-chute to the outside.
As for art. Eh. Art is art. Make of it what you will.
Nah, that's just a smokescreen so people can't call them on their shit directly. It's to fool the normies.
When they do that just say, oh I get understand and no worries. Tell them nigger is just someone who is dastardly and no good. It doesn't necessarily mean black person.
Sure, I'm just saying that's the rhetorical warfare going on.
they will playing with spears when wexwere playing with nuclear missiles
Here's the thing that gets me. Capitalism is a white construct because it was invented by white men. However, communism/socialism, also invented by white men, is somehow the black alternative.
There's scant evidence that the concept of private property (and by extension, individual rights) ever really took root in subsaharan Africa. Socialism would seem to be a more natural state.
When everyone in your group knows/is related to and dependent upon each other, it kind of is. However, those types of groups tend to trade on a very capitalistic basis with other groups. And when all that you own is made out of stone, bone and wood and is basically disposable and easily replaceable, well, property isn't a thing to get all het up about. Territory might be, but not property.
Simple trade isn't really capitalism. Capitalism is about efficient allocation of resources. Mansa Musa used his immense wealth to do a bling tour and inadvertently crashed markets, without any plan to capitalize or even the cognition of what he had done. Definitely not a capitalist.
Well, I meant that the little socialist group will want to get the best price (in money, goods or services) they can demand from the other socialist group, rather than worrying about equally spreading their own resources to the other group in the name of "equality" or "fairness".
most of iriginal marxists were jews so they were black ;)
The writing has been on the wall for a while now. I hope you have all been making preparations for the coming war.
I scattered some Tsar Bomba mines across my lawn.
Guns, check. Gonna buy another this weekend. Getting in shape, check. I'm still a fatass, but I'm a fatass that can run 3 miles straight. I got a lot of food stockpiled, but I admit I don't grown my own. Yet. Water, again I have some stored, but rain barrels provide enough here. This is a wet fucking place; usually the problem is having too much water not too little.
Account needed. Public version here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r6TfHZm2Ss