Sperg about race realism here - So we can stop shitting up the community watch thread

[Shadfan666xxx000]

Interesting example. I looked up this mosque. Turns out the French rebuilt it from ruins in 1906. Which is the picture you presented.

A choice quote from Wikipedia:
French ethnologist Michel Leiris, in his account of travelling through Mali in 1931, states that the new mosque is indeed the work of Europeans. He also says that local people were so unhappy with the new building that they refused to clean it, only doing so when threatened with prison.[12]

Did you really think you could slip this one through?

I didn't realize there was a revolt against that particular mosque being rebuilt. Numerous other examples of this style exist from which the French drew reference throughout the city so perhaps I was hasty in including that example.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

I didn't realize there was a revolt against that particular mosque being rebuilt. Numerous other examples of this style exist from which the French drew reference throughout the city so perhaps I was hasty in including that example.

Give it up my dude.

This is just sad.

 

[ZeCommissar]

It's a not as much of an "intelligence" problem than it is of an identity one.


You are one stupid nigger. Are you seriously implying that European and Asian soils were more favorable to growth than Africa? Never mind the need to fucking blanket your ass 8 months a year. I don't see how the African continent would have hindered the development of its locals in any way, coping nigger commie faggot.

I don't know how low IQ you would have to be to not realize how Sub-Sahara Africa has no viable livestock due to the animals there being too unpredictable for human domestication. This is extremely evident when you see literally no one on this Earth, including Europeans using Zebras and African Buffalo on their farms. Not having a Horse equivalent immediately puts you on the downside when it comes to warfare and farming. Not having a cattle equivalent means you can't till soil as easily, which means you don't need to really use wheels.

Not to mention Fall and Winter only lasts for around 6 months. How are you going to make a valid point about seasons when you don't even know how long they last?

The case is similar in the Americas as well. While you can domesticate American Bison they are far larger and more aggressive than cattle. If they were a viable livestock option then the settlers would have used them instead of the cows they brought with them. Instead they were seen as a menace and slaughtered almost to extinction. South America only has llamas and alpacas as livestock, and they aren't nearly as good as cattle. But the crops in South America were good enough that some notable empires like the Inca were able to form in the region.

Without advanced agriculture you cannot have a advanced civilization, which means you are always in survival mode instead of settling down and being able to build more advanced buildings and societies.

You "don't see how the continent could have hindered development in any way" because you are ignorant.

 

[L'Homme de la Lune]

I don't know how low IQ you would have to be to not realize how Sub-Sahara Africa has no viable livestock due to the animals there being too unpredictable for human domestication. This is extremely evident when you see literally no one on this Earth, including Europeans using Zebras and African Buffalo on their farms. Not having a Horse equivalent immediately puts you on the downside when it comes to warfare and farming. Not having a cattle equivalent means you can't till soil as easily, which means you don't need to really use wheels.

Not to mention Fall and Winter only lasts for around 6 months. How are you going to make a valid point about seasons when you don't even know how long they last?

The case is similar in the Americas as well. While you can domesticate American Bison they are far larger and more aggressive than cattle. If they were a viable livestock option then the settlers would have used them instead of the cows they brought with them. Instead they were seen as a menace and slaughtered almost to extinction. South America only has llamas and alpacas as livestock, and they aren't nearly as good as cattle. But the crops in South America were good enough that some notable empires like the Inca were able to form in the region.

Without advanced agriculture you cannot have a advanced civilization, which means you are always in survival mode instead of settling down and being able to build more advanced buildings and societies.

You "don't see how the continent could have hindered development in any way" because you are ignorant.

So you can only grow food if you have cattle to operate near industrial-level machinery and no one in the world before has cultivated soil without animals to work with? Also, implying that tilling soil is the only use for the wheel is the most retarded shit I have read on this site.

 

[Shadfan666xxx000]

Give it up my dude.

This is just sad.

There's nothing to give up. Even if the great mosque were as much of a French invention as you insinuate, it was clearly based off of earlier works in the city enough to have the levels of foreign influence debated upon.

 

[ZeCommissar]

So you can only grow food if you have cattle to operate near industrial-level machinery and no one in the world before has cultivated soil without animals to work with? Also, implying that tilling soil is the only use for the wheel is the most exceptional shit I have read on this site.

Yeah, because I totally said it was impossible to farm without livestock. Except if you know how agriculture worked throughout history you would know that livestock is extremely crucial for advanced agriculture beyond subsistence farming. If you can't get past subsistence farming you can't get time to actually build any sort of advanced civilization. Yeah they could farm, but not at the levels other civilizations could due to environmental limitations which also caused technological limitations.

I didn't imply anything about the wheel except that it wasn't used in those areas due to a lack of a beast of burden. No shit you can use wheels for other things like water wheels, grinding grain etc. Do I have to also hold your hand and explain wheels are mostly used for transport? But to use transport you need a cart, and to power a large cart you need a BEAST OF BURDEN. How are you going to grind up excess grain when you don't have excess grain since you can only subsistence farm for you, your family, and maybe your village.


You are literally trying to nitpick at the smallest detail thinking you have found something, when it just makes you look like a retard.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

The case is similar in the Americas as well. While you can domesticate American Bison they are far larger and more aggressive than cattle. If they were a viable livestock option then the settlers would have used them instead of the cows they brought with them. Instead they were seen as a menace and slaughtered almost to extinction.

Speaking of low-iq people.
Listen to what you're saying here - European settlers should have gone through the trouble of domesticating Bison from scratch, rather than just bringing their own cattle over.

 

[ZeCommissar]

Speaking of low-iq people.
Listen to what you're saying here - European settlers should have gone through the trouble of domesticating Bison from scratch, rather than just bringing their own cattle over.

Nice, instead of trying to refute the more important points this is the line you decide to go to.

If Bison were as valid as cattle they would have been used just as much as cattle. If Bison were as docile as cattle then why wouldn't they? There were estimated to be 60 million of the damn things pre 1800, so its not like the effort wouldn't have been worth it.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

If Bison were as valid as cattle they would have been used just as much as cattle.

If Bison were in contact with humans that had the cognitive ability to attempt domestication then yes they would have been.
Can you show the recorded attempts of the Native Americans to domesticate the Bison?

 

[Syaoran Li]

If Bison were in contact with humans that had the cognitive ability to attempt domestication then yes they would have been.
Can you show the recorded attempts of the Native Americans to domesticate the Bison?

Considering it took until the latter half of the 20th Century for the American Bison to be widely domesticated and the fact that European settlers didn't domesticate the bison because they already had cattle and other livestock already brought over from Europe, so it wasn't really necessary.

The only reason why anyone even tried to domesticate bison was largely because of conservation efforts and trying to keep the species from going completely extinct.

Native Americans did domesticate the turkey, which is one of only three major domesticated animals originally from the Americas, the others being llamas and alpacas.

Things like advanced agriculture, the right kinds of livestock, and easier access to surface minerals such as iron, copper, and tin are crucial in the development of any worthwhile civilization. That's the primary reason why Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia succeeded while Sub-Saharan Africa largely floundered in terms of widespread technological and societal development.

Tellingly, the most developed and advanced parts of Sub-Saharan Africa prior to colonization were all near major trade routes, such as the Gold Coast or the Gulf of Aden.

Most of the problems with the African-American community are cultural due to a mix of poverty, political manipulation by major political parties, and the fact that mainstream society on both sides have deemed it completely verboten for anyone to actually question the toxic elements of Black culture (lest they be branded a racist or an Uncle Tom)

Tellingly, most Africans and Caribbean blacks (Jamaicans, Haitians, etc.) outright hate inner-city black Americans due to their uniquely toxic culture. And it's not just the "evil privileged whites" and East Asians (who are practically Honorary Whites in the eyes of SJW's) who have problems with the black community, a lot of Hispanics despise them and even many Native Americans tend to look down on blacks.

Seriously, I've visited a few reservations when I was on the road with my Dad, and apparently the locals hate black tourists a lot, but are fairly chill with white tourists (particularly older white tourists) since they tend to listen and be more respectful and actually spend money on the reservations, even if it's just to buy tacky souvenirs.

Race realism is utter bunk and anyone who actually believes in it is retarded. Culture is the real problem at hand and you can't judge entire countries and continents based on what their descendants in the United States are like.

Judging Africa because of what hood rats do is as dumb as judging Northern Ireland because of what hillbillies do.

 

[MrTickles]

The great mosque of Djenne here is an example of exactly what I speak of as an example. It wasn't simply small mud huts and indignants in this area but there were numerous organized societies based in this area. The basic question you believe to be answered here is whether sub saharan Africans can work in organized society and it is answered here and elsewhere with attestation from numerous written sources. We can shit talk and dick measure with every country in the world and some may win and some may lose but this race realist argument does not completely hold water.

It pales in comparison to most other religious structures in terms of adornment and workmanship.

 

[L'Homme de la Lune]

Yeah, because I totally said it was impossible to farm without livestock. Except if you know how agriculture worked throughout history you would know that livestock is extremely crucial for advanced agriculture beyond subsistence farming. If you can't get past subsistence farming you can't get time to actually build any sort of advanced civilization. Yeah they could farm, but not at the levels other civilizations could due to environmental limitations which also caused technological limitations.

I didn't imply anything about the wheel except that it wasn't used in those areas due to a lack of a beast of burden. No shit you can use wheels for other things like water wheels, grinding grain etc. Do I have to also hold your hand and explain wheels are mostly used for transport? But to use transport you need a cart, and to power a large cart you need a BEAST OF BURDEN. How are you going to grind up excess grain when you don't have excess grain since you can only subsistence farm for you, your family, and maybe your village.


You are literally trying to nitpick at the smallest detail thinking you have found something, when it just makes you look like an exceptional individual.

You absolutely did imply that the reason why the negros didn't have the wheel was because they didn't have the need for it with agriculture.

Not having a cattle equivalent means you can't till soil as easily, which means you don't need to really use wheels.

Pretty sure the egyptians made use of the wheel with the slaves they had. But yeah, pretending that niggers are equal and it was merely a bad luck that they still, to this day, eat the shit of a cow fresh off its asshole, isn't an retarded position to hold. The amount of trannies, jews and niggers coping in this thread is insane.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

I don't know how low IQ you would have to be to not realize how Sub-Sahara Africa has no viable livestock due to the animals there being too unpredictable for human domestication. This is extremely evident when you see literally no one on this Earth, including Europeans using Zebras and African Buffalo on their farms. Not having a Horse equivalent immediately puts you on the downside when it comes to warfare and farming.

And yet.. they can be.

Do you think that the native animals of Europe and Araby magically became amenable to following the human lead overnight?

No. It took generations of work by intelligent, long-term orientated people to select the best animals and break them to our will.

There are few of those people left in the domain of the Zebra.

Have you ever been outside the United States, my friend? Realism about the fact that the races differ, as do individuals, comes naturally to anyone who has lived a genuinely cosmopolitan life. It doesn't morally condemn anyone- only a filthy libertarian would think that a stupid white man is 'lazy' because he doesn't achieve at the level of his intellectual superiors. The same is true of race.

 

[ZeCommissar]

You absolutely did imply that the reason why the negros didn't have the wheel was because they didn't have the need for it with agriculture.
Pretty sure the egyptians made use of the wheel with the slaves they had. But yeah, pretending that niggers are equal and it was merely a bad luck that they still, to this day, eat the shit of a cow fresh off its asshole, isn't an exceptional position to hold. The amount of trannies, jews and niggers coping in this thread is insane.

Wew lad. What does Egypt have to do with this? Egypt didn't use the wheels because of slaves, they used it because they had cattle you fucking sped. It is RIGHT BESIDE the fertile crescent.

Yes I did imply that the africans didn't invent the wheel due to poor agriculture, I just didn't imply agriculture is the only use for it like you said I did in your previous post. Agriculture and transport are the BASIC BLOCKS for the wheel to be first used in a ancient civilization, if you don't get past that rung then you remain stuck.

And yet.. they can be.
Ver archivo adjunto 849836
Do you think that the native animals of Europe and Araby magically became amenable to following the human lead overnight?

No. It took generations of work by intelligent, long-term orientated people to select the best animals and break them to our will.

There are few of those people left in the domain of the Zebra.

Have you ever been outside the United States, my friend? Realism about the fact that the races differ, as do individuals, comes naturally to anyone who has lived a genuinely cosmopolitan life. It doesn't morally condemn anyone- only a filthy libertarian would think that a stupid white man is 'lazy' because he doesn't achieve at the level of his intellectual superiors. The same is true of race.

Oh my bad. I didn't realize isolated cases of singular animals being tamed automatically meant that the animal is fit for widespread human domestication. That's why zebras are rode around like horses everywhere and Europeans eventually broke them into widespread domestication.

Oh wait they didn't. You know why they didn't? Because the point of the zebra being a unsuitable animal still stands.

I don't dispute that the races are different. I dispute that the races are different to the point that it merits ethnostates and segregation, or that one race is leaps and bounds more superior than the other.

The end-goal for people that call themselves racial-realists is always the same: the regression of civil rights for those of other races.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

So you can only grow food if you have cattle to operate near industrial-level machinery and no one in the world before has cultivated soil without animals to work with? Also, implying that tilling soil is the only use for the wheel is the most exceptional shit I have read on this site.

Shame you don't read your own posts

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Oh my bad. I didn't realize isolated cases of singular animals being tamed automatically meant that the animal is fit for widespread human domestication. That's why zebras are rode around like horses everywhere and Europeans eventually broke them into widespread domestication.

Oh wait they didn't. You know why they didn't? Because the point of the zebra being a unsuitable animal still stands.

Are you incapable of following more than a single sentence at once? Here, I'll bullet point it for you:

1. Wild animals are wild
2. Wild animals outside Africa were wild when non-Africans broke those animals in
3. While non-Africans would be perfectly capable of breaking in zebras, etc, as well, and have done so with individual animals in many, many cases, there would be very little reason to do so as part of a breeding programme rather than a hobby, given there are other animals that already get the job done

You are aware of the basic facts in regards discussions about animal domestication like the successful Soviet program to domesticate those foxes, right? That only took a few generations to deliver serious improvements, admittedly with far higher tech levels than the people who domesticated modern farm animals had to work with.

 

[ZeCommissar]

Are you incapable of following more than a single sentence at once? Here, I'll bullet point it for you:

1. Wild animals are wild
2. Wild animals outside Africa were wild when non-Africans broke those animals in
3. While non-Africans would be perfectly capable of breaking in zebras, etc, as well, and have done so with individual animals in many, many cases, there would be very little reason to do so as part of a breeding programme rather than a hobby, given there are other animals that already get the job done

You are aware of the basic facts in regards discussions about animal domestication like the successful Soviet program to domesticate those foxes, right? That only took a few generations to deliver serious improvements, admittedly with far higher tech levels than the people who domesticated modern farm animals had to work with.

When it comes to the very very earliest domestication about cattle from Aurochs it is very lucky that they were even domesticated at all. The earliest domestication of those beasts weren't even in Europe, but in Central Asia. Of course domestication had to start with wild animals with wild tendencies. It only needed to have happened once by chance for it to spread from a localized area to around a good portion of the world.

Its not that Africans don't have the mental capacity to domesticate animals (guinea fowl) it's just that the native African animals were harder to break past the "wild" to "domesticated" threshold than the other ones.

The non-african ones may have been hard too, but all it takes is one tiny chance of mutation or whatever you would call it for a population to be more docile for a human to exploit it. Such a docile population in Africa would quickly be killed due to the inhospitable enviroment. I'm not going to address the soviet fox program since you kinda debunked it yourself by saying they used modern technology and knowledge to do it.

Of course we could probably after a long period of time find a solution to fully domesticating a zebra population, but that would require modern solutions like the Russian foxes did. Modern solutions that no one in the past knew nevermind Africans. Also there WAS a need to domesticate zebras by European settlers in Africa. By your claims those settlers should have had the drive to domesticate them except they didn't.

Also taming individual animals or very small groups of said animal doesn't mean it's suitable for domestication. This makes the "many" cases of zebras being tamed invalid.


Sub-Sahara Africa was mostly isolated from the rest of the world, and the only real parts that had contact with the outside world were West Africa, Nubia, and The Horn/Ethiopia. It is telling that the most impressive African empires came from regions that had traded more advanced knowledge, crops, and animals from nearby neighbors, compared to the more isolated African populations. However by that time the other parts of the world already had a huge head start over Africa.

 

[L'Homme de la Lune]

Wew lad. What does Egypt have to do with this? Egypt didn't use the wheels because of slaves, they used it because they had cattle you fucking sped. It is RIGHT BESIDE the fertile crescent.

Yes I did imply that the africans didn't invent the wheel due to poor agriculture, I just didn't imply agriculture is the only use for it like you said I did in your previous post. Agriculture and transport are the BASIC BLOCKS for the wheel to be first used in a ancient civilization, if you don't get past that rung then you remain stuck.

Do you know how to read? You must really have that nigger dick deep in your throat to spew your garbage the way you do. Niggers didn't invent the wheel because they are inferior beings. Having beasts or not isn't necessary to use a wheel, the beast only does what a human can do but with more strength.

Shame you don't read your own posts

You sure told me.

 

[ES 148]

The best part about this thread is being reassured that 'race realists' are too dumb to ever enact any kind of segregatory legislation

 

[Autocrat]

Yeah, because I totally said it was impossible to farm without livestock. Except if you know how agriculture worked throughout history you would know that livestock is extremely crucial for advanced agriculture beyond subsistence farming. If you can't get past subsistence farming you can't get time to actually build any sort of advanced civilization. Yeah they could farm, but not at the levels other civilizations could due to environmental limitations which also caused technological limitations.

I didn't imply anything about the wheel except that it wasn't used in those areas due to a lack of a beast of burden. No shit you can use wheels for other things like water wheels, grinding grain etc. Do I have to also hold your hand and explain wheels are mostly used for transport? But to use transport you need a cart, and to power a large cart you need a BEAST OF BURDEN. How are you going to grind up excess grain when you don't have excess grain since you can only subsistence farm for you, your family, and maybe your village.


You are literally trying to nitpick at the smallest detail thinking you have found something, when it just makes you look like an exceptional individual.

Oh my god. Why are you coping so fucking hard?
You just admitted that the Inca's did it with human labor. If they could get to subsistence farming, (which they would do as a tribe, not as an individual or family unit) an industrious enough tribe could amass enough slave labor for advanced agriculture.
Let's be realistic. Egypt managed to build pyramids in ancient times. That was a monumental feat.
It is very likely they got their cattle from nearby Asia. Why couldn't sub Sahara in turn get their cattle from them, a few thousand years later?

I'm not even saying it's racial. But to say that it isn't cultural, and that they were just dealt a bad hand is naive.

Its not that Africans don't have the mental capacity to domesticate animals (guinea fowl) it's just that the native African animals were harder to break past the "wild" to "domesticated" threshold than the other ones.

It is impossible to say how domesticated animals truly started out. We can breed domestication into existence. We do not know how many domesticated animals became the way they were through natural selection, or human selection. We know that chickens are essentially man made to be tiny food producers that wander aimlessly around a yard and would die if it weren't for humans. Obviously modern technology was not used to do that.

I'm not saying they didn't have the mental capacity for it.

Not having a cattle equivalent means you can't till soil as easily, which means you don't need to really use wheels.

Do I have to also hold your hand and explain wheels are mostly used for transport? But to use transport you need a cart, and to power a large cart you need a BEAST OF BURDEN.

Transporting, like this?

Please tell me how that wouldn't be better done with a personal cart.
Rather than have your wife spend an entire day getting water every 3 days, she can carry at least double that with a cart. More if the women work together.

Better yet, dig a well. Rather than wait thousands of years for a western NGO to show you how.