My Views on Black People, with a Note on Afrocentrism

Darryl writes:

My last question to you Mr Robert Lindsay is what if the Egyptians are discovered to be Black or a darker skinned race – a true African race – then what? Just a hypothetical? How do your views of them change?

Are you sure you are basing your findings on fact and not on personal feelings. Your answer sounds more emotionally involved than needed (same for the others as well). Just what happens if they are discovered as Black?

I would just accept it. As a non-racist Leftist, I am somewhat pained that Blacks do not have enough accomplishments yet to speak of. I am constantly looking around for Black achievement and accomplishments and I try to play them up whenever I find them because there is so much talk of non-achievement that it is painful.
There is a wealth of material about the stagnation, retardation in terms of progress and wealth of failures and shortcomings of the Black race. There is a chorus of millions screaming this all the time. It’s trite, insulting to Blacks and demeaning to the bullies who beat up on Blacks like this.
Now and then, I write about the downside of Blacks, but it’s an overdone topic, and all it does is incite racism against Blacks. Some of my friends on here like Tulio and Alpha are Black, and I don’t feel like inciting racism against them.
So when it comes to Blacks, I prefer to look on the sunny side or else think about them as little as possible. Although Blacks might find it insulting, I don’t think Black people are all that important. The mistake that both Afrocentrists (and to a lesser extent ethnocentric Blacks in general) and anti-Black racists have in common is that both think that Black people, their behavior, evolution and track record is extremely important. In fact, to anti-Black racists, Blacks are almost at the center of their universe.
That’s ridiculous. Black people simply are not that important in my opinion. And as long as you pretty much ignore or avoid most of them, you won’t have a lot of problems with them either. Black problems are for Blacks to deal with, wring their hands over, and figure out. Whites like me are here to help, but Black issues are not at the center of our world; in fact, they are peripheral.
This also demonstrates the idiocy of Afrocentrism. Instead of dealing with the very real problems that Blacks face today, they spend all of their time in a defensive project aimed at revealing the great historical past of Black people. The ego-defensive nature of this movement is painfully obvious if not embarrassing to anyone who will look. That the past is dead is trite but true. It doesn’t matter if the claims of Afrocentrists are true or not. It doesn’t matter what Blacks did or did not do in the past. Let the dead lie. Life is for the living. Black people need to focus on the reality of Black people in the present and forget about the Black past.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

70 thoughts on “My Views on Black People, with a Note on Afrocentrism”

  1. Many of my disciples are black.
    Christianity and Islam has effed them over and they find peace in japa and pranayama.

  2. As you ‘Blocked’ me for debating our opinions on this matter so therefore not being able to comment back to you on your original post, I thought I take one last shot at educating you by posting this here. promptly censor me again Robert. You are fooling no-one but yourself.
    Ed Wyatt ”the vast majority of Whites are racist.” When are supposed intellectuals are people like you I am hardly surprised Robert. I get what your point is and I’d love to ‘fry’ them also. I think that the problem will not die with them unfortunately though. Because there are plenty of ignorant folk like you to keep the causal flame of racism burning long after they have been ‘fried’. It’s the casual acceptance of ‘causal’ racism which we need to educate people into abolishing. Nothing is more irritating that someone like you trying with all your might to have a point in this matter when if you think for long enough here logic and reasoning (the 2 coldest faculties a human has at his disposal) will even bring you to the realisation you are wrong. I will not sit here arguing the toss for your one small point which with any thought is flawed in the fact that those people are not are biggest problem. What people like you don’t realise is we deserve the shitty leaders and ‘racists’ you speak of as our leaders! Because they represent us on-mass! They are only a representation of the people. If the people changed so would the leaders but you would have us get rid of them as I’m sure many including me would to. Difference is you would see that as the end to the problem but truth is that’s not the case. Another equally shitty leader would replace them as the REAL problem was never sorted out! THE CASUAL racism which enables these Hardcore racist’s to get away with it!

    1. ”the vast majority of Whites are racist.”
      I don’t agree. I’ve been all over the world and my personal experience has been that the vast majority of whites I interact with are not racist.

        1. “According the PC lunatic daffynition…”
          As I am not a lunatic myself, why would I give any credence to their definitions?

  3. I don’t agree that racism is part of the human experience.
    It’s a matter of perspective, and also relates to how open or closed a society is or has been.
    I am from Punjab, a Sikh (indian would be biggest insult) over here for example, with the foundational idea that humanity is one family, it is based on clans.
    Where someone is from, who they associate with, etc. Certain assumptions can be made about them, and if they hold true they do, if they dont well you have a new friend.
    A system of broad classification based on ‘race’ was a european invention and I hope I will not be censored or banned I read the comments policy but as I’m unsure I’ll just speak freely and we can debate and learn.
    From what I’ve read, it seems that equating race with human experience is a concept born out of a society where a europe-oriented culture is dominant, i.e the USA.
    Going to other places, there is a subtle imperial influence but the original culture which is non-racial still dominates. An example of Punjab would be all the invaders were not called white skinned this, or brown skinned that but identified by their tribal origin, clan, geographic location, and cultural sphere.
    I.e hellenic, muslim (alalala terrorist), pedo persian, eunuch lusting turk, etc.

    As far as black people go, I think that as long as they define themselves as ‘black’ which is a nice word for n*** they will never amount to anything. Until they have their own nation, they will not amount to anything.
    It is obvious, that AA have become black, they have lost their older language, clan, and tribal identifications and are now caught up in this thing called blackness.
    Bearing this in mind, you do see a very quiet but existent movement for a black homeland in the SE Usa aka the black belt.
    I think that any nation of people, who is distinct, and whether due to real or perceived (historical) differences is outcast or an other in society is fundamentally un-able to properly prosper in a majority dominated culture that is alien and enemy to them.
    They, need their own nation whether independant or semi-autonomous in order to prosper.
    This is true of the Sikhs in ‘India’ as well.

    1. Hating Muslims, Turks, Persians or whatever is pretty much racism any way you slice it. People have been discriminating based on race, tribe or whatever long before Europeans came up with the idea. The notion that Euros invented modern racism is apparently a PC delusion.

    2. Sat Shriya Kal!
      “I am from Punjab, a Sikh (indian would be biggest insult) over here for example, with the foundational idea that humanity is one family”
      If humanity is “one family” then why would you consider Indian to be “biggest insult”?
      Desi, puh-lease.

      1. Bharati is fine, Indian implies a member of the hinduvta community following Hinduism which is essentially a creation of the british census, and is really there to celebrate divali and worship the Indian gov. while enriching yourself at the expense of the poor.
        It’s
        Sat Sri Akal.
        Why do you jump in defense of India? I won’t get insultive I’m just finishing my other post I wish to talk to rob and others like that only thank you.
        Respectfully, Arabs nor Indians have nothing to give me and both have tasted the Sarbloh Khalsa thank you.
        ANd, as I mentioned it is about cultural spheres, I mean not the ethnicities becuase by ethnicity I would be indian as well, I mean the dominant mainstream ideologies.
        The dharma, as everything is still religious, the only way states get people to go along with their bs willingly, and knowingly is the quasi-religious semi-spirtual ideology/propoganda or w.e you would want to call it.
        Dharma is the best way I can describe it.
        VJKVJF||

        1. “Why do you jump in defense of India?”
          I didn’t. I merely pointed out what I thought seemed like a hypocritical statement on your end.
          “Indian implies a member of the hinduvta community following Hinduism which is essentially a creation of the british census, and is really there to celebrate divali and worship the Indian gov. while enriching yourself at the expense of the poor.”
          What’s “the hindutva community”? I know what Hinduism is, I converted myself to a sect that’s older than the British census so it was not created by it.
          I do celebrate Diwali. I don’t worship Indian gov as I’m not an Indian citizen and I’m apolitical and don’t worship my own gov either. Enriching myself at the expense of the poor?. I am amongst the poor.
          So in short, non-Indian Hindu here, or rather non-Indian Dharmi to be more accurate.

        2. “AAVAIW, what exactly is a Guru? Can you go into detail about your religious practices?”
          Of course! My pleasure. Guru means teacher or guide. In my case I teach Vedanta and guide people in meditation and pranayama. I am also coordinating a spiritual tour of India (pilgrimage) this coming fall for anyone who’s interested. No fancy hotels! We will be staying in ashrams and dharmashallas. If it goes well, I expect to do this twice a year.

    3. You should see how Arabs treat Blacks. The idea that racism comes from Europe is a stupid assumption.

  4. I’d say european scientists codified it, and subjected it to the scientific process if anything and that gets europeans flak from others.
    I don’t hate the three groups, but their conduct was of that nature during their repeated attempts to come into my lands.
    They still have a very strong eunuch culture, I’m sure you heard of the dancing boys of afghanistan a region heavily influenced by them?

    Tbh, I just wanted to say a few things about the India article and didn’t think you would approve the comment so fast, was going to ask for it to be taken down.
    1. That girl talked about army discipline being foreign; does she ignore the sikhs, who today (june 6th) having 45 men slaughtered by Rajiv Gandhi’s admission 700+ and army cheif/professors admit 1000+ in modern times, with mostly .303s from the 19th century vs the IA that had tanks, helis, and commandos?
    2. The Bramin Elite had already infected India with the caste system, and it was and is a shithole no arguments there.
    3. The British were there to steal though, between two savages all I can say is it’s wrong to oppress someone, Churchill forced a famine in Bengal during WW2 to deny the INA of Subesh Chandra Bose resouces.
    4. Between the two, ideologically both are wrong but I’d take the side of the Hindu, simply because it is up to them to liberate themselves the British did not and still do not have altruistic intentions. See the 1.5-1.8 billion excess deaths
    5. The future remains to be seen, however the British solved other problems like religion in politics but introduced many others
    6. The Sikh empire defeated the British in the first war, and there were relentless agents, and bribing to win the second
    What I can say in the end, is that personally I know that self-determination is a requirement for any group of people to survive in what is essentially a facist society.
    This is true in America as well, as holidays like Columbus day are celebrated or the founding fathers who all owned slaves.
    There would have to be a rapproachment, the problem is most white americans are not part of the ruling elite and never were.
    Race is a created system here, to hide the fact that class struggle is the real name of the game.
    Things will get better, going forward as people realize the truth.
    All I can say is, the Khalsa is required to keep weapons there’s no problem fighting for justice and freedom.
    It’s obvious the IA is a bunch of dogs, and 30% of it is Sikh despite Sikhs being 2% of the popualtion.

    1. My city in California is full of Sikhs. I actually have a soft spot in my heart for the Sikhs although I don’t like India nor do I think much of Hindus. Sikhs are a part of India and as such are Hinduized, Indianized, and India-damaged and Hindu-damaged. Nevertheless, there is something about the Sikh that wants to rise above I think. We also have Pakistani Punjabis in this town, and I like them a lot too.

      1. I’ve always said that Pakistanis are Indians who wish they were Middle Eastern, and Greeks are Middle Easterners who wish they were European…Just a thought. 😀

        1. Greeks aren’t middle eastern in the slightest you idiot and most of Western civilization (at least the early schematics and structural foundations) came from Greece. Also the term “EUROPE” was coined BY GREEKS THEMSELVES!!
          The ancient Greeks regarded the Evros (Euros) river as a boundary between them and other non-Greek peoples. Later Europe referred to their homeland, as distinct from Anatolia where other tribes lived, speaking different languages. They invented certain mythologies to explain this. “Europe” comes from ancient Greek mythology: Europa was a Phoenician princess whom Zeus abducted after assuming the form of a dazzling white bull. He took her to the island of Crete where she gave birth to Minos, Rhadamanthus and Sarpedon, you moron……
          But then again, ignorance like this is common on blogosphere comment sections and this is why I don’t take anything or anyone on blogs as seriously as real professionals. Greeks are as European as anyone….

  5. The University of Timbuktoo. This is Sub-Saharan, bordering on Saharan. At 25000 students, it was big even by today’s standards. Of course it wasn’t exclusively sub-saharan, it was part of the Muslim world. But so was gunpowder, key to European imperialism, Chinese.
    Reference: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/119
    Until the Middle ages, Europeans north of the Alps didn’t have any more “cultural achievements” than the Africans had; we just know them (Norse mythology, Viking culture, etc) better. After thousands of years of “uncivilizedness” (in comparison to the middle east) for both cultures, Europeans happened to win the race. Why should Blacks take offense to this? They aren’t any less smart, the Sahara (and no, there is no way around arid lands) was simply harder for ideas to cross then the fertile lands of Turkey and Bulgaria!
    See map of aridity: http://geology.com/records/sahara-desert-map.shtml

    1. Never underestimate anyone should be the moral of that story. I believe it was the Arabs who stated that Norther Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans were at the same cultural and intellectual level around 1000 years ago, and the Semites, Persians, Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, Romans and Greeks were the only positive lights in regards to human Civilization (or the founding fathers of Civilization) . Of course we know whats happened since……

  6. I think if Martin Luther King had lived (and to a lesser extent, Malcolm X), black people would matter greatly. The assassinations of Robert and John F. Kennedy also pushed us into a right-wing world. The only reasons why blacks haven’t mattered is because of ongoing poverty and segregation.

    1. The only time I agreed with Pat Buchanan was when he said the primary problem with Blacks is that they have a 75% out of wedlock birth rate. Black men are nowhere to be found, and Black women have to be both the mothers and fathers in raising children.

      1. I see black men all the time. They are running from the cops, and they run fast. They are standing without apparent purpose outside of run down liquor stores. They are sitting on the porches of houses with black barred windows and unmowed lawns. They are in sports arenas dunking orange balls. I swear, if black men were as masterful in the world as they are on the court, they’d own us all. Oh, and allow they cannot be seen, apparently black men hit the recording studio, because they try very hard to get your attention as you drive in your car looking for something to listen to. Then I will see an actual black man as a fellow motorist, blasting bass in his car so loud that my windows nearly break and my whole car vibrates enough to give my female passenger an orgasm.
        Black men are everywhere, except in your hood.

  7. shut your shop and call blacks the coons they are….remove your rose tinted glasses and and accept that blacks are a gone case and totally hopeless…only you liberal terrorists suck up to blacks ….no sane person will ever be with them.

  8. I actually find blacks in Africa to be much more promising than blacks living in the US. The social dysfunction within black communities in the US is appaling, yet from what I have observed, Africans in Africa are fairly more cultured and not exposed to the same bullcrap American blacks have had over generations.
    I’ve met a good many Africans and these people are as industrious and hardworking as my own fellow Asians in many ways. If only they had the same cultural unity that Asians do and not the split up tribal lines within their countries due to isolation from the sheer geography of Africa, I think they’d be just as good as Asia’s rise.

  9. Being pro-black in America generally leaves little to no space for rational argumentation and problem-solving. Although, reading some of the dehumanizing comments anti-blacks regurgitate allows me to understand why blacks are so defensive. The problem with blacks in America is not pride, but lack thereof. We continue to make whites the core of our discussions as if we were facing the same problems of the early 20th century. The issues we face today are a product of the past, which molded black communities for failure, but they are not the same.
    Having said that, our analysis of American history is charged with emotional responses – rightfully so, I must add. However, it is time to stomp the moral and focus on the practical. When are we going to push forward for rebuilding our communities and gradually changing thug culture, which is the biggest culprit boasting the crime statistic? Anti-blacks observe us from a safe distance to draw conclusions that we are a damned race, when in actuality the culture disparity is what ultimately draws the line. I don’t deny biological differences between races, but anti-blacks seem to cling on the IQ as an effort to proving blacks incapable of co-existing with them. The lower IQ is a product of households that attribute little to no importance to the value of education.
    I would argue that individuality is the biggest defining factor of anyone’s character and that it is majorly determined by environment and upbringing. Attributing every single failure or success to race allows no logical explanation to when an individual does not fit the mold of their racial stereotype. There are black scientists, engineers, lawyers, PhD graduates, and the list goes on… I imagine there could be a significant difference in IQ between whites of the North and the South (in the U.S.), which could also be attributed to environmental upbringing.
    Until we rebuild our communities, raise healthy and problem-solving driven kids and take care of the birthrate, we will not succeed.
    Having said that, I welcome healthy debate and insightful counter-arguments that can shed light on an aspect I may not be grasping, perhaps? I’m young (19) and completely new to these racial perspectives. It’s amazing how many beliefs I have dropped in less than a year.

    1. I imagine there could be a significant difference in IQ between whites of the North and the South (in the U.S.), which could also be attributed to environmental upbringing.

      What do you mean by that? 😆

    2. There are black scientists, engineers, lawyers, PhD graduates, and the list goes on…

      The usual comeback from white nationalists involves some statement to the effect of saying, “They didn’t earn it, It was affirmative action.”. Another one reluctantly admits, a certain “cream of the crop” of blacks are superior, but not the other 99 percent.

      1. “They didn’t earn it, It was affirmative action.”
        Because they are hicks who have never even been near anything elite. For example, a black guy can get in to law school because of affirmative action. He won’t graduate because of it (grading is anonymous). He also won’t pass the bar because of affirmative action. The same goes for PhD’s etc.
        Those achievements establish a cognitive floor that everyone in the profession is above.

    3. I don’t deny biological differences between races, but anti-blacks seem to cling on the IQ as an effort to proving blacks incapable of co-existing with them. The lower IQ is a product of households that attribute little to no importance to the value of education.

      What white nationalists can’t answer is the fact that a lot of white households are the same. For instance, in Appalachia, where I live, so many white parents and children refuse to push kids in education, and the result is the same as with many black families.
      Of course, I’m not denying real potential doesn’t exist for these Appalachian kids, but they’re just not motivated by the environment.

    4. Although, reading some of the dehumanizing comments anti-blacks regurgitate allows me to understand why blacks are so defensive.

      When the shoe is on the other foot, and opponents call them “trailer trash” etc.., they can’t take it. They get hurt feelings and anger. They start yelling “Jew” etc.. But isn’t only fair that insults go both ways? 😆

      1. Why would the insult “white trash” bother them anyway? Why is that a hot button with them? It’s kind of like calling a black person a monkey.
        If whites are so superior, then why would little childish insults bother them, much as similar insults to blacks would result in a fight?

    5. Being pro-black in America generally leaves little to no space for rational argumentation and problem-solving.

      The original civil rights movement seemed to be more about “lack of economic opportunity” than segregation. Even though most of the south, as well as the nation was white, blacks were concentrated in certain areas. In those areas, they were colonized by whites who controlled all institutions of power, banks, politics, you name it. Meanwhile, they were trapped in debt or low wage jobs.

      1. Hey, thanks for replying! @JasonY
        I should clarify that I wasn’t specifically speaking of a social movement used to combat racism. I was speaking of how many pro-blacks seem to ignore the bigger picture of our communities nowadays, especially those on Tumblr (the internet warriors). I’m pro-black myself by the way.
        Regarding why the term ‘white trash’ might be insulting to them, maybe it’s the connotation behind the expression itself: only minorities can be trash by default, so they need a special designation to remind themselves that their behavior is not ‘white’ at all? I imagine that’s why it offends them.
        I don’t think white nationalists are doing a great job counter arguing if they ignore that the influence of culture basically determines if a black man is going to prison or college. Maybe I’m expecting too much from nationalists. Am I an idiot for believing them when they claim to be different from supremacists?
        I don’t know if I explained it poorly, sorry, but I assumed that there could be a possible difference in IQ between white people of the North compared to whites of the South. My comparison would have been a lot more efficient if it had been between urban whites vs rural whites.

        1. assumed that there could be a possible difference in IQ between white people of the North compared to whites of the South.
          You are correct. There is a gap, and it shows up in the NAEP.

      2. The original civil rights movement seemed to be more about “lack of economic opportunity” than segregation.
        Actually, it was originally about black v. white and segregation. When MLK started bringing up class issues and the possibility of uniting poor blacks and whites came in to view, MLK was marginalized.
        The residents Dixieland are racist, but the Yanks are pieces of shit.

        1. Good point. Just as much racism in the north actually. In fact, Boston almost erupted into riots over busing. In the north, IIv’e never seen ghetto blacks welcome outside the ghetto. In fact, if the north is so great, and southerners are such A holes, then why is there ghettos in the north to begin with?
          The KKK was just as popular in the north too, In addtion, black people in NYC going outside the ghetto, or whites going into black areas were (and are) often met with violence.

        2. Actually, it was originally about black v. white and segregation. When MLK started bringing up class issues and the possibility of uniting poor blacks and whites came in to view, MLK was marginalized.

          Anyone advocating far left views are destroyed in the US, or in US allied nations (in Latin America, Africa, Asia etc..) Look what happened to far left leaders in Latin America like Andalle, or the priest Romero in El Salvador?

  10. Whites like me are here to help,
    And we also caused the problems. It’s true that in this society blacks are marginalized and don’t have much power. At the same time, you can’t kidnap a huge population, force them into slavery for centuries, then free them but forcibly make them second-class citizens, and then institutionally recognize their legal status as non second-class citizens 50 years ago, and then think “welp, that’s that.”
    You can’t forcibly create a multi-racial society and then act like the problems that come with it are just the other group’s problem. Beyond ridiculous.
    America is uniquely shitty for this and many more reasons but this treatment a sin in every generation and every generation has a responsibility. OR…emigrate to Europe.
    HBD, libertarianism, race-anything, are just feel-good ideologies to avoid the world’s very real and very unjust suffering and one’s hand in it.

    1. their lot in their own land is even worse,
      Made up nonsense. Hunter-gatherer society was a better bet wrt to height, nutrition, and life expectancy than civilization until 200 years ago.
      Now is not forever.
      Every hegemonic civilization creates and recreates us vs. them, we superior they inferior; people who can step outside their place in time and circumstance understand this. Others, for whatever reason, cannot.

      1. I’m not watching it. The last time I watched something you provided, the video relied on a faulty premise and the comments section of the video featured the author of the study tearing the videomaker apart.
        Summarize this “refutation” briefly.

        1. Naturally, you can’t summarize anything briefly and just copy-pasta.
          Here is what I just claimed:
          Hunter-gatherer society was a better bet wrt to height, nutrition, and life expectancy than civilization until 200 years ago.
          You responded with nonsense subjective impressions from an equally silly book.
          It is a FACT that hunter-gatherers were taller. It is a FACT that they had more leisure time. It is a FACT that they were better nourished. It is a FACT that they lived longer.

        2. They didn’t live longer, Civilized World medicine is responsible for nearly doubling savages’ lifespan–and unfortunately, possibly causing the overpopulation in Africa in the process.
          They’re on track to reach 4 BILLION this century. To put that in perspective, that’s the population of the whole WORLD–in 1994!
          But letting savages die is “inhumane”…So we have to feed them, help them breed, help them stay alive, help them invade our countries
          As to height, how do you get that? Savages were shorter than humans, hence the pygmy stereotype.

        3. They didn’t live longer,
          Average life expectancy was indeed higher and life expectancy at later ages was also higher.
          and unfortunately, possibly causing the overpopulation in Africa in the process.
          Keep making stuff up…

        4. Savages were shorter than humans, hence the pygmy stereotype.
          EPGAH continues to demonstrate how deep modern ideology goes.

        5. QUOTE by EPGAH

          They didn’t live longer, Civilized World medicine is responsible for nearly doubling savages’ lifespan–and unfortunately, possibly causing the overpopulation in Africa in the process.
          They’re on track to reach 4 BILLION this century. To put that in perspective, that’s the population of the whole WORLD–in 1994!

          This situation would be bad if blacks only continued negative behavior. However, 4 billion could be a lot of money to be made. More people isn’t bad, but just means more customers.
          Pehaps we need to do some Mars colonization. More people need a place to go, just like back in Colombus’ day, and the great thing about Mars is nobody is really stealing it from anyone. You can’t even remotely claim that.

        6. More people, including Africans, are always customers, even if they’re bad people. Bad people have to eat too. So that’s 4 billion new mouths to feed, and a billion jobs created in order to feed them.

        7. So it’s worth having SEVERAL BILLION more violent criminals in exchange for ONE BILLION more jobs?
          Capitalists really ARE suicidal, if they accept that kind of “math”!

      2. Enlighten me.
        The only hunter-gatherer peoples I know of in Africa are of decidedly small stature, usually ill-nourished and often enslaved by the Bantu. The Bantu were at least pastoral and usually farmers.

        1. Yes, but your table just proves my point. From 33 to 67.2 is approximately doubled. We doubled the savages’ lifespan!

    2. Quotes by Swank

      At the same time, you can’t kidnap a huge population, force them into slavery for centuries, then free them but forcibly make them second-class citizens, and then institutionally recognize their legal status as non second-class citizens 50 years ago, and then think “welp, that’s that.”

      HBD, libertarianism, race-anything, are just feel-good ideologies to avoid the world’s very real and very unjust suffering and one’s hand in it.

      Usually they try to side-track the issue by claiming Jews were responsible for all of it. it’s a very weak argument, and then after blaming Jews as the source, they try to promote the “feel good” ideologies to “white-wash” the situation. 😆

      1. Indeed.
        The ONLY thing Anglos did that is worth ANYTHING is the Magna Carta.
        The West has been superior solely on its moral merits.
        Through this and its philosophy, all other achievements became possible.
        Everything good and great from the West comes from its faith in one’s fellow man and the commitment to being first, human. The people on the wrong side of that are just the hangers-on.

  11. Wrt height:
    “The hunter-gatherers’ diet was more varied and balanced than what agriculture later allowed. Average height went down from 5’10” (178 cm) for men and 5’6″ (168 cm) for women to 5’5″ (165 cm) and 5’1″ (155 cm), respectively, and it took until the twentieth century for average human height to come back to the pre-Neolithic Revolution levels.[48] Agriculturalists had more anaemias and vitamin deficiencies, more spinal deformations and more dental pathologies.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
    Now is not forever.

    1. Because if Men are in power, they’ll have an easier time avoiding the psychobitches? Alternately, a woman in power using a sociopathic Man as a beard would be worse than using a Beta as a beard, because some of his sociopathy WILL influence the country!
      See my second link, reposted here:
      http://imgbox.com/yM4fvRKH
      An interesting experiment, no? And done with Chinese, the alleged most in control of their feelings?

  12. Economic gender roles vary greatly in Africa.
    In large areas of Sub saharan Africa, especially those that are seasonally dry, a lot of the farming was traditionally done by men (including Most of Nigeria, Ghana, large parts of Mali, Senegal and the general Western Sahel/Savannah region.) In other tribes, men grew a staple(in addition to hunting/animal husbandry) and women a supplementary crop. This area was ascribed by the early scholar Hermann Baumann to what he called the “higher hoe culture” and by sociologist/scholar of sociobiology Stephen K. Sanderson to “intensive horticulture”; a phase intermediate in cultural complexity between primitive hoe cultures/horticulture and advanced plough cultures and where men have a greater role in farming. Polygamy in some parts of Africa (especially the West African savannah region) was more about having many sons who could work the land. Such was also the case in the early civilizations of the middle east(e.g. Mesopotamia) and parts of Asia.
    “…Goody ……. also discusses more male dominated but relatively extensive farming systems such as those that exist in much of West Africa, in particular the West African savannah, where polygyny is desired more for the creation of sons whose labor is valued. “[18][19]
    “Goody’s observation regarding African male farming systems is discussed and supported by anthropologists Douglas R. White and Michael L. Burton in in “Causes of Polygyny: Ecology, Economy, Kinship, and Warfare” [20] where authors note: “Goody (1973) argues against the female contributions hypothesis. He notes Dorjahn’s (1959) comparison of East and West Africa, showing higher female agricultural contributions in East Africa and higher polygyny rates in West Africa, especially in the West African savannah, where one finds especially high male agricultural contributions. Goody says, “The reasons behind polygyny are sexual and reproductive rather than economic and productive” (1973:189), arguing that men marry polygynously to maximize their fertility and to obtain large households containing many young dependent males.”[21]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Polygyny
    Also, Hunting in Africa increases in the dry season, when little grows. Dry seasons last about half the year in subsaharan Africa north of the forrest region(the sahel, savannah, and savannah-forrest transitional zone.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Africa_Climate_Today.png
    Arranged marriage was common in African cultures, as was the practice of bride price (which was common in tribal groups world wide and often provided to young men by their fathers or extended families.)
    The so-called female farming area in Africa, was mainly in much wetter Central Africa south from the Congo region. Even there men often had important subsistence roles, but they could vary greatly by ethnic group and location(Ethno linguist Jan Vansina on early Central African cultures, in his book, “Paths in the Rainforests” covers early subsistence)
    Jane Guyer’s work on the precolonial farming systems of various, Central, and a few West African tribes showed sex roles were fairly complex often with several tasks performed by each sex, and the roles of men in farming usually greater in earlier times(correcting the misconceptions of some earlier writers).
    See:
    “Female Farming in Anthropology and African History” by Jane Guyer
    http://books.google.com/books?id=GGomG4fhU5gC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=female+farming+jane+guyer&source=bl&ots=ysTsujoh4a&sig=m39KUZ0UgrgX9ocNJMJ4vxPHvCE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6hxrUNGFCavh0wGEjYFY&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=female%20farming%20jane%20guyer&f=false

    1. Arranged marriage was common in African cultures, as was the practice of bride price (which was common in tribal groups world wide and often provided to young men by their fathers or extended families.)
      Bride price is paid to the bride’s family,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.