Eyeballing the graphs in the Journal of Endoctrinology, looks like American blacks become physically adult roughly four years earlier than American whites. Which makes them approximately intermediate between chimps and men. This is consistent with black females typically experiencing menarche at nine and white females typically experiencing menarche at twelve. Data on puberty in black males seems curiously hard to find, suggesting that it is horribly politically incorrect. Just eyeballing American blacks, looks to me that black males experience puberty at about the same age as black females or close to it, while white males experience puberty about two years later than white females, but that is just a wild assed guess.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a study that says the difference is only one year, as measured by the start of testicle growth. Maybe I am prejudiced, but I find that hard to believe. The interesting measure that people should care about is not growth of testicles, which no one can see, but growth in bones, which everyone can see, and which can be objectively measured far more accurately. Maybe there is not much difference in the age and which testicles start to grow, but there is surely a pretty big difference in the age at which bones have substantially grown. It is also kind of suspicious that there is a only a one year difference in the start of testicle growth, which is hard to define and hard to measure, and a three year difference in menarche, which is entirely unambiguous to define and measure. Much as indications of climate change are more alarming the less they can be accurately measured, and the less alarming the more they can be accurately measured.
Which makes educating whites and black children in the same classrooms segregated by age, rather than by physical development, pretty much insane.
Similarly, stupid to put girls and boys in the same classroom by age during puberty, though not as stupid as putting whites and blacks in the same classroom by age. Indeed, it is pretty obvious that during puberty, kids should be sorted by their puberty stage, not by age.
The reason we don’t do what we obviously should do is that what we are doing advantages female children over male, and young black men over white male children.
>This is consistent with black females typically experiencing menarche at nine and white females typically experiencing menarche at twelve.
Exactly so. Pretty much all 11-year-old black girls are hot enough to instantly arouse the lizard brain, whereas in contrast, only a minority of 11-year-old white girls are hot enough to instantly arouse the lizard brain. (But that minority does exist) That’s why discussions of the age-realist type can’t really be complete without taking HBD into consideration, bringing us to an “intersectionality” of realist theory.
It follows that when discussing “girls aged X,” the race of the girls should be referenced, if possible. The core underlying mechanisms (adrenarche, menarche, etc.) are more-or-less the same, but their average ages of onset differ due to racially-determined factors such as fat accumulation on hips and thighs.
Blah, blah, blah, egalitarianism. Blah, blah, blah, Churchianity. Blah, blah, blah, muh progressivism.
Irving:
“We are not all equal but we were all equally made in the image of God.”
Daily reminder that Christianity is an inherently compromised progressive religion and a Jewish offshoot (ie not white, not for whites, does not have the interest of whites in mind) and if you are the special kind of person who complains about white extinction on the internet and is also an unironic Christian you deserve exactly what you will get
No, there is no reminder here, you heathen.
Anon: reminder, Christianity is inherently progressive
Progressive Christian: no, there is no reminder here, you heathen
do you disagree that Christianity is inherently progressive? If so, are you thus compelled to be less Christian or less progressive?
Are you Mr. Magoo in real life?
Your boy said “Christianity is an inherently COMPROMISED progressive religion”.
That is my beef.
TL;DR Environments favoring r-selection are not conducive to civilization development.
TL;DR previous post: Environments favoring r-selection are not conducive to good governance.
“The reason we don’t do what we obviously should do is that what we are doing advantages female children over male, and young black men over white male children….”
———————————————————-
Wait a minute. No it doesn’t!
In fact, judging from the marks, NOTHING gives blacks any scholastic advantage…
no scholastic advantage, but it does let them pretend to have closer to parity for a while, and more importantly, it lets them beat us up in school and hit on our women. Glenfilthie, if you’re under 40 you should know about niggers in school first hand.
I hope I’m not doxing myself too much by laughing at the way the Quaker dykes who ran my elementary school had to potty train the dindu refugees of countries where the brutal civil war destroyed all the toilets. Revilo Oliver said that Jews never betray their race, but the Jew families that adopted the dindus got cucked lol
>the Jew families that adopted the dindus
There are actually kikes doing that, now? I guess Kevin MacDonald will be forced to adjust his “pathological altruism” theory to include kikes. Haha!
You don’t know the half of it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/magazine/the-strange-case-of-anna-stubblefield.html
Summary: Jewess marries a dindu, has kids, teaches a paralyzed vegetative dindu to type (with her supporting his hand, like a ouija board), he types “I love you”, so she divorces dindu #1 and shacks up with veggie dindu.
Veggie dindu can’t type when anyone else supports his hand, so Jewess is arrested for rape, convicted, and imprisoned for 10+ years.
Oh yeah, there was this story. Though frankly it doesn’t sound like “pathological altruism” at all, rather, it appears to be typical perverted, depraved, indeed pathological Jewish fetishism. Probably has a sadistic element, too, which isn’t even typical of Jews, who are more into exploring bodily secretions than abusing the hapless. But I guess there’s everything for everyone.
>Which makes them approximately intermediate between chimps and men.
No
IMAGO DEI are all IMAGO DEI and equally ready for salvation, amirite cuck?
PS. Will the Catholic Church have a transman or a transwoman priest first?
There’s never a clear line of separation between closely related species like humans and chimps. So obviously humans and chimps are going to share many things in common, and of course some humans may have more chimp-like qualities than others, but that’s no reason to say that those humans are “intermediate between chimps and men”. All humans have chimp-like characteristics, and so were we to stick to Jim’s reasoning, we would have to conclude that no human is ever purely human, but that all humans are one part human, one part chimp, which is preposterous.
DAE humans have different genetics and some are genetically and visually more similar to chimps?
Oh, but all featherless bipeds are IMAGO DEI and of the type ‘souls’.
Do you understand that that philosophy has been obsolete since Darwin?
I don’t deny that some humans are more chimp-like than others. I’m just saying that all humans are chimp-like to a more or less degree, and so it stands to reason that one can be chimp-like and fully human at the same time.
You see, newfag, when a daddy fucks a mommy, and he doesn’t use a condom and she isn’t on the pill, he gives her a recombinated sample of half his genes, excluding the non-recombinated y-chromosome parts, and she uses that and her mitochondria to form a baby, just like you! Consequently the baby will look and act like the parents and relatives. Awwww.
Humanity is a social construct. The definition of species was always just a proxy for what was really wanted, the collection of individuals that fit in an ecological niche. That is the definition of a subspecies. In nature, there are only individuals, families, nations, and subspecies. Upon which are socially constructed species, families, orders, and phyla of subspecies.
When the daddies of a society are prohibited from having more than one mommy, the most capable daddies have babies only with the most beautiful mommies, who thus face intense selective pressure causing endometriosis and D-cups, and the society over time becomes White. When they rut like the beasts of the jungle they never emerged from, they end up looking and acting like niggers, and completing their development four years earlier, making putting them in the same cage with humans or cats completely inappropriate.
peppermint, if you want to abolish species as a taxonomic category, that is up to you, but that’s irrelevant to the point that I was making.
The distinction between a race difference and a species difference is arbitrary, like the distinction between a large hill and a small mountain.
That negroes are the same race as whites is not a biological fact, but a fact about scientific terminology. Negroes are the same race as whites because Darwin did not want to draw an arbitrary line in the Sahara.
Spotted owls and Barred owls are different species, even though they interbreed freely and even though the difference between them is less than the difference between whites and east Asians – because bird watchers will give a species designation to the most trivial differences.
You: all IMAGO DEI are equally human
Me: humanity is a social construct
You’re right, when you define them as human, they get to be human. Meanwhile, American buffalo have been separated from Eurasian cattle for a long time, but they’re interfertile. Coyotes and wolves are also interfertile. Humans have been separated from niggers for ca. 10k-100k years, but humans and niggers are unfortunately interfertile as well.
It is possible that blacks are between whites and chimps without being half way, or around half way, between them. They are clearly much closer to whites than to chimps.
>It is possible that blacks are between whites and chimps without being half way, or around half way, between them. They are clearly much closer to whites than to chimps.
Exactly
Blacks and chimps use simple tools. Whites and chinks build cities. Huge difference.
>Blacks and chimps use simple tools. Whites and chinks build cities. Huge difference.
Blacks build cities too.
Whites, blacks and chinks use language, both for speaking and writing, and chimps do not. Whites, blacks and chinks are capable of reasoning, and chimps are not. Whites, blacks and chinks have vastly more genetic commonality among themselves than either race does chimps. Etc.
Bullshit.
Their so called cites were small aggregations of mud huts. The great Zimbabwe is not that impressive, and gene testing shows that the blacks that built it are substantially descended from Hebrews, presumably Hebrew gold miners.
That is to say, discursive reasoning
This discussion reminds me of this:
“When African and Indian music was played near their large outdoor enclosures, the chimps spent significantly more time in areas where they could best hear the music. When Japanese music was played, they were more likely to be found in spots where it was more difficult or impossible to hear the music. The African and Indian music in the experiment had extreme ratios of strong to weak beats, whereas the Japanese music had regular strong beats, which is also typical of Western music.”
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/06/chimps-music.aspx
It’s not conclusive proof or anything, but some races are more chimpanzaic than others, as attested by their distant family members themselves.
— Whites, blacks and chinks are capable of reasoning, and chimps are not.
d00d what the fuck does that even mean
— Whites, blacks and chinks have vastly more genetic commonality among themselves than either race does chimps.
Oh look its the nerdy interfertility rate nerdence again. Behavior is what matters, not scoring points in a debate by saying DNA over and over. The average nigger as an individual is incapable of living in a White city without serious accommodations, like dogs. A city of niggers is Detroit. But I’m sure you’ll be all like ‘muh Mansa Musa’ next.
Using words like nigger and human is only remotely meaningful if we’re talking about actual observed behavior. Biology is about behavior. Genes cause behaviors that cause genes to propagate. The only purpose of saying that coyotes are the same species as wolves is to recognize that if they meet you can get solitary creatures that will attack humans. Similarly, the only point of saying that niggers are the same species as humans is to recognize that if cuckstains feed human women to niggers you can get solitary creatures that attack dogs.
Trolling aside, Irving is somewhat correct here. Niggers — Africans and Abbos — aren’t really “halfway” between humans and chimps, they are humans, but they are substantially more primative (i.e resembling primates in their characteristics. Not to be confused with “primitive”) than Whites and East-Asians. In the strictly biological sense Niggers are humans selected for material abundance and tropical climates, extremely r-selected.
Sociologically rather than biologically, that is, comparing different behaviors regardless of their biological root, Jim and Peppe do have a point, in that Nigger behavior is often closer to that of other primates than to that of real humans, a fact much more pertinent to the interests of civilization than scientific genetic classification.
The fun thing is that I remember a time when the line was drawn at making and using tools, before it was shown that chimps, corvids and octopi make and use tools. Now it’s “discursive reasoning” and “language”, something that parrots and gorillas are capable of. We’ll see what the next line will be.
Or in short: humanoid retards can’t build civilization, are civilizationally useless, regardless of being humanoid. So, could as well be chimps or half-chimps. Not worthy of the title “real humans”.
>Their so called cites were small aggregations of mud huts.
Axum was a major city in its day. I’d also point to Timbuktu, but it seems as if it was run by Arabs.
There are plenty of cities in existence today that were built by and that are maintained by blacks, however. I’ve traveled extensively in Ethiopia and Kenya, and I know there are quite a few cities in each of those countries.
>The great Zimbabwe is not that impressive, and gene testing shows that the blacks that built it are substantially descended from Hebrews, presumably Hebrew gold miners.
They’ve got Hebrew rituals, but I didn’t know that there was an established genetic connection.
>The distinction between a race difference and a species difference is arbitrary, like the distinction between a large hill and a small mountain.
This may be, but this isn’t what I was disagreeing with. You said previously that there is such a thing as a human race — at least, that’s what was implied by your use of the word “human” — and that blacks are “approximately intermediate” between humans and chimps. It is the latter claim which I exception to.
>That negroes are the same race as whites is not a biological fact, but a fact about scientific terminology. Negroes are the same race as whites because Darwin did not want to draw an arbitrary line in the Sahara.
OK, so let’s say that each race–white, red, black, brown, yellow, whatever–is its own species, and leave it at that.
Darwin wrote the book, so all educated people should use his terminology. Just don’t go concluding that because he chose to define blacks and whites as one species, that is scientific proof we are all equal and equally made in the image of God.
Axum was the capital of a coastal empire, and that coast today does not look all that black. Axum is, approximately, Sheba. What color was the queen of Sheba? Not black enough for her skin color to be remarked upon.
And if you go inland from that coast, south or west, you run into Ethiopians, who are black, but are not exactly Negroes – Ethiopian women look hot, while female negroes have a disturbing resemblance to female gorillas. Maybe the queen of Sheba looked part Ethiopian, part arab. She was likely black by the one drop rule. Whatever she looked like, the people who built and ruled Axum probably looked like her.
>OK, so let’s say that each race–white, red, black, brown, yellow, whatever–is its own species, and leave it at that.
Fine, but some human races are still evidently more primative (resembling primates) than others. Not “50%” chimps, but substantially closer to chimps than other races are. There’s no way around this reality.
okay, but a buffalo is a cow selected for the harsh North American winter
>Fine, but some human races are still evidently more primative (resembling primates) than others. Not “50%” chimps, but substantially closer to chimps than other races are. There’s no way around this reality.
Look, it is perfectly obvious to me that some races are in fact more chimp-like than other races. The point that I was making, though, is that the fact that a race is more chimp-like does not, by itself, mean that that race is less human, which is what Jim had originally said.
— They’ve got Hebrew rituals, but I didn’t know that there was an established genetic connection.
The genetic tests were done and the fact that you don’t know about them means you’re an intellectual cuckold willing to ignore evidence if the US government tells you to.
“The point that I was making, though, is that the fact that a race is more chimp-like does not, by itself, mean that that race is less human…”
How could it not mean that? Chimps are not human. More chimp-like == more non-human like == less human. That’s a truism.
>Darwin wrote the book, so all educated people should use his terminology. Just don’t go concluding that because he chose to define blacks and whites as one species, that is scientific proof we are all equal and equally made in the image of God.
We are not all equal but we were all equally made in the image of God.
>The point that I was making, though, is that the fact that a race is more chimp-like does not, by itself, mean that that race is less human, which is what Jim had originally said.
Tautological argument, bro. Some people claim that Blacks are the most purely human race due to lack of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA. That’s not how humanhood should be defined, in my humble opinion. Defining humanhood in strictly biological terms is autistic, really. Races that are incapable, or have degenerated to the point of no longer being capable, of building and maintaining civilization, shouldn’t be considered proper humans, genetic clustering be damned.
>How could it not mean that? Chimps are not human. More chimp-like == more non-human like == less human. That’s a truism.
No, it is not a truism.
I answered this objection in a previous post.
“I answered this objection in a previous post.”
You’re basically saying that “less human” does not make sense because in your opinion “human” is a discrete category. Which is also a truism.
I’ll have to repeat myself because it’s a really crucial point right here: if we go by the absurd strictly genetic classification of species, then the people arguing that Africans are the only pure humans have a point – unlike the rest of humanity, Africans really do lack Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, ergo are most pure homo-sapiens. This “who is a human?” question is a huge Pandora’s Box.
The argument from DNA is insufficient, because some races are chimp-like whereas others aren’t, hominid DNA or no hominid DNA. AI is obviously not human because zero hominid DNA, even though AI could probably eventually build and maintain civilization. So building and maintaining civilization, too, isn’t a sufficient condition for humanhood. You need both substantial hominid DNA (as indeed Whites, Asians, Blacks, etc. all have) and the ability to produce the work of humanhood, which is civilization – thus, Niggers have to be excluded from the ‘human’ category as well as AI, for opposite reasons.
So to sum up my argument, a human is a member of a race or group that:
1) Possesses substantial, overwhelming homo-sapiens DNA (sorry, robots);
2) Is capable of building and maintaining civilization (sorry, Niggers).
Without both conditions, aren’t human.
Defining a human as any member of a group capable of civilization is absurd, because then we’ll have to proclaim future robots as “humans”, which is wrong of course. Hey, the robots could make excellent neighbors, not stabbing you in the throat for 3$ or raping and choking to death your pregnant wife, but this does not a human make: need hominid DNA.
Similarly, defining a human as any member of a group possessing hominid DNA is absurd, because then we’ll have to proclaim Niggers as “humans”, which is wrong of course. Yeah, the Niggers biologically resemble humans, can breed with humans, and even use rather sophisticated tools and communicate by a language, but this does not a human make: need civilizational faculties.
There it is folks.
>So to sum up my argument, a human is a member of a race or group that:
>1) Possesses substantial, overwhelming homo-sapiens DNA (sorry, robots);
>2) Is capable of building and maintaining civilization (sorry, Niggers).
Jack, what is “civilization”? Everything would seem to hinge on how you define this word. If we use the dictionary definition, it would seem that blacks are capable of building and maintaining civilization.
When and where have blacks built civilization without whites standing over them with whips?
Remove whites from Detroit and Haiti, what happens?
Blacks of course don’t have is science, but if you insist that civilization, in order for it to be worthy of the name, must have science, then you’ve basically excluded everyone except East Asians, Western Europeans and certain high-caste Indians from the human species.
>When and where have blacks built civilization without whites standing over them with whips?
First of all, a black civilization built by blacks through the constant prodding of whites is still a black civilization.
That said, I really can’t answer this question until we agree on a definition of “civilization”.
Which definition of civilization have blacks built?
Written language?
Architecture?
Law?
Money?
Check out the “Scenes from Earth” encoded in the golden records that were bolted to the Voyager probes prior to their launch in 1977:
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/sceneearth.html
Mostly third-world subject matter. I imagine aliens trying to puzzle out how a species that builds houses of mud brick and tree leaves was able to launch a sophisticated robot into interstellar space.
>Written language?
Ge’ez (Ethiopia) and Nsibidi (Nigeria).
>Architecture?
Lalibela comes immediately to mind.
>Law?
Every society has laws
>Money?
The Axumites had money engraved with the face of their emperor.
Axum was, more or less Sheba, and the Queen of Sheba was not black enough for the Hebrews to comment on it.
The earliest Ethiopian writing is not Ethiopian, but “Ethiopian Semitic” – sounds like Solomon’s men at work, as usual.
Wherever we see early civilization attributed to blacks, turns out Jews or Hebrews just happened to be there.
Lalibela was built after the fall of Jerusalem to Muslims, in substantial part by Christian refugees from Jerusalem, who were not negroes.
And even after a thousand years of race mixing, are still mulatto, rather than black.
» if we go by the absurd strictly genetic classification of species, then the people arguing that Africans are the only pure humans have a point – unlike the rest of humanity, Africans really do lack Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, ergo are most pure homo-sapiens
no, because that means that Neanderthals and Denisovans are also humans, and as Irving keeps pointing out, humans are humans and therefore humans are humans, IMAGO DEI, amen.
Are cows buffalo? are niggers human? are mosquitoes wasps? are bats mice? are polar bears grizzly bears? are horses asses? are lions tigers? are orcas dolphins? are peacocks chickens? are coyotes wolves? If you deny the primacy of race, you’re forced to memorize which of these are interfertile.
Interfertility was chosen as the definition despite being retarded because it was known that breeding was important, but breeding wasn’t really understood, and at any rate we didn’t have the tools to study ethology and ecology the way we now do but wanted something observable.
There is no way to split Neanderthals from humans that doesn’t also split niggers from humans. People used to think there was. Now we know differently, and nothing has changed in the world but the species definitions, which is why species was always a stupid definition. If Neanderthals had always been described as a different race, discovering that they had interbred with humans would not have changed the fact that they are a different race.
The difference between barred and spotted owls is the same as the difference between French and German. They fill the same ecological niche, but look slightly different and don’t usually interbreed.
Individuals, families, nations and races exist. Species, genuses, etc. are for our bookkeeping purposes.
>Axum was, more or less Sheba, and the Queen of Sheba was not black enough for the Hebrews to comment on it.
Axum was Axum, not Sheba. Sheba was in Yemen, and Yemen and the southern part of modern Saudi Arabia, for a fairly long period, were colonies of the Axumites.
And the Queen of Sheba was not black, no one ever said she was. The Sabeans were originally from the Levant.
>The earliest Ethiopian writing is not Ethiopian, but “Ethiopian Semitic” – sounds like Solomon’s men at work, as usual.
>Wherever we see early civilization attributed to blacks, turns out Jews or Hebrews just happened to be there.
Jews in Ethiopia have always been underclass. Ge’ez is not theirs.
>Lalibela was built after the fall of Jerusalem to Muslims, in substantial part by Christian refugees from Jerusalem, who were not negroes.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Lalibela is named after the king who directed the construction of those churches. And, there were no substantial numbers of refugees from Jerusalem to Ethiopia after the Muslim takeover of Jerusalem. Although there’s always been an Armenian presence in Ethiopia — and by the way, much of the Armenian alphabet is based on Ge’ez — Ethiopia has always been, since the decline of Axum, something of a hermit kingdom, with little non-ecclesiastical contact with the outside world.
>And even after a thousand years of race mixing, are still mulatto, rather than black.
>And even after a thousand years of race mixing, are still mulatto, rather than black.
Bullshit.
When people inveigh against blacks, they include people who are only part black too. While it is true that habesha are not technically black, they are black for the purposes of this conversation.
According to this:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x8pm8sVcHqceiNFJMO082kxaBF5ePr4__bAK05VQRFw/edit#gid=1681484272
most Ethiopians are half-black, or even less than half-black.
pdimov, if by black we mean negroid, and if by negroid we mean bantu, then the Ethiopians we are talking about, the habesha, are not black at all. And yes, habesha are 60 to 65 percent Caucasoid
I think that by black in this context we mean Africans without non-African admixture.
Irving: niggas wuz kangs before de wite debbils stole everything and left them eating each other. Racist Whites are never told about Great Zimbabwe and Axum and Mansa Musa in school because nigga history is ignored by the system of wite supremacy. I’m a great iconoclastic cosmopolitan and I know things about the world that you would never guess. There’s this Semitic language whose writing system looks like Greek that niggas developed themselves. Niggas wuz Greeks, look at Greek pottery the niggas depicted on it are all black as coal. Beethoven was a nigga and niggas invented 20th century music too. And when you hail an uber, remember that a nigga invented the traffic lights.
You forgot that Sumerian cuneiform was derived from nsibidi, which niggaz were taught by baboons.
>I think that by black in this context we mean Africans without non-African admixture.
If you consider Obama black, then you must consider, in order to be consistent, Ethiopians to be black. And, what the Ethiopians have accomplished must be attributed to the Ethiopians, and by consequence to blacks.
I have generally called Obama half black or mulatto.
If blacks do civilized stuff only when they are substantially mixed with Jews, (Solomon’s men creating Ethiopian writing, the Jewish descended Christians fleeing Jerusalem and creating Ethiopian cities, the gold miners that settled what is now Zimbabwe) then we have to attribute those accomplishments to Jews.
>Axum was the capital of a coastal empire, and that coast today does not look all that black.
The point here is that when people complain about blacks, they are including precisely the kinds of people on the coast where Axum is located.
>Axum is, approximately, Sheba.
No, Sheba was in Yemen.
>What color was the queen of Sheba? Not black enough for her skin color to be remarked upon.
I get what you mean now. Yes, the queen was an Ethiop, but is there any reason why the Bible should be expected to mention her dark skin?
>And if you go inland from that coast, south or west, you run into Ethiopians, who are black, but are not exactly Negroes
Its a distinctive look, to be sure
>Ethiopian women look hot, while female negroes have a disturbing resemblance to female gorillas.
I agree with the first part
>Maybe the queen of Sheba looked part Ethiopian, part arab. She was likely black by the one drop rule. Whatever she looked like, the people who built and ruled Axum probably looked like her.
That Ethiopians were routinely confused with south Indians in the ancient world is sufficient evidence that the Axumites were dark skinned
Axum was a coastal empire that extended a fair way North. Thus the race that inhabited and built Axum was likely substantially different from those inland, west and south.
Axum is on the cline between white and black, and over the ages the boundary has moved back and forth quite a distance.
>If blacks do civilized stuff only when they are substantially mixed with Jews,
Ethiopians are not mixed with Jews. Genetic tests have shown that even Ethiopian Jews are not mixed with Jews.
>(Solomon’s men creating Ethiopian writing,
Ge’ez was created in the 4th century or thereabouts, long after Solomon’s day.
>the Jewish descended Christians fleeing Jerusalem and creating Ethiopian cities
Ethiopian cities were created by Ethiopians. Stop making shit up.
That said, Christianity was brought to Ethiopia through an influx of what seems to have been Levantine priests and monks, i.e. Frumentius and the 9 saints, etc. Maybe this is what you’re referring to.
You specifically mentioned Lalibella, which was built by refugees fleeing the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem – who were probably roughly the same appearance and skin color as the current inhabitants of Jerusalem.
All your examples are on the cline between black and white, and over the past thousand years a lot of large groups of people have traveled long distances through that cline.
Obama is a filthy nigger and needs to go back to Africa because America is a White nation. Ethiopians are mulattos and probably aren’t even the same as the people who derived Ge’ez in the fifth century BC from the same system begotten from Egyptian heiroglyphics that begat Greek and Latin, certainly today’s Egyptians have significant genetic differences from the Egyptians of the fifth century BC; them being mulatto is significant because Africa is full of full-blood niggers.
You’re a lying intellectual cuckold desperate to justify your love of black cock that ironically is only because you know deep down inside that niggers aren’t human. What is forbidden is sexy to women and transsexual cucks.
Try preaching about how wonderful niggers are on a college campus instead, they will be much more receptive and less interested in checking your facts. You might even find some black cocks to suck.
“If you consider Obama black, then you must consider, in order to be consistent, Ethiopians to be black. And, what the Ethiopians have accomplished must be attributed to the Ethiopians, and by consequence to blacks.”
People whose descendants are half black were capable of building civilization, therefore blacks were capable of building civilization. Argument by Obama. QED.
>Axum was a coastal empire that extended a fair way North. Thus the race that inhabited and built Axum was likely substantially different from those inland, west and south.
Axum is located in the northern part of modern Ethiopia, which is to say that it is not a coastal city, although it certainly was a coastal empire.
In any case, Axumites were routinely mistaken for south Indians in the ancient world. This proves that they were dark skinned.
“I agree with the first part”
Google’s AI agrees with the second.
>You specifically mentioned Lalibella, which was built by refugees fleeing the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem – who were probably roughly the same appearance and skin color as the current inhabitants of jerusalem.
Lalibela was built by a king of that name, who was a part of a dynasty who were well-known to spend lots of money on the building of new churches, possibly as a way to ingratiate themselves with a clergy which considered them illegitimate, because not of the Solomonic line. Where in the world did you hear that it was built by Christian refugees from Jerusalem?
On google earth, a short distance west of Lalibella, there is a photo entitled “Gondar, Etiopia”, which shows the main square in Gondar. Two of the people in the photo are black, three are chocolate colored. This is obviously on the cline between black and white. Invaders, migrants, conquerors, and refugees have been heading back and forth through all of history. Slaves being dragged northwards and armies marching southwards.
Further, it is near the Red Sea and the Nile, which were the main transport routes for blacks heading north and whites heading south.
Ancient Egyptians, who had a civilization, were Hamitic; Ethiopians are half Hamitic and half negroid.
» Lalibela, revered as a saint, is said to have seen Jerusalem, and then attempted to build a new Jerusalem as his capital in response to the capture of old Jerusalem by Muslims in 1187. — cuckipedia
» built immediately after the fall of Jerusalem
» but not by refugees who fled to the Christian kingdom and immediately set about building the same stuff they had at home in their new land
» no, it was built by niggers
>On google earth, a short distance west of Lalibella, there is a photo entitled “Gondar, Etiopia”, which shows the main square in Gondar. Two of the people in the photo are black, three are chocolate colored. This is obviously on the cline between black and white. Invaders, migrants, conquerors, and refugees have been heading back and forth through all of history.
You just said that Lalibela was built by Christian refugees from Jerusalem. Do you have any proof for this claim?
Now that you mention Gondar, though, you should check out the castles.
you think you’re tikkuning the olam with this we wuz kangs crap, that you probably whitesplain to niggers and feel superior to them when they are bored by it. but you’re actually feeding this: https://youtu.be/rUEgTaM28ls?t=750
is that really what niggers need?
but it’s not about what niggers need, is it? It’s about your needs. In the end, cuckolding yourself isn’t about loving the bull, it’s about being so afraid to try and struggle that your throw away your chance in order to claim that your victory was inevitable. Niggers are just toys to you.
>Ancient Egyptians, who had a civilization, were Hamitic; Ethiopians are half Hamitic and half negroid.
Ethiopians are basically a mix of North African, Levantine, Arab and non-negroid black.
Irving, sometimes you get it. You’re not as ignorant as Jim, or Jack, or Peppermint.
Peppermint…
“When they rut like the beasts of the jungle they never emerged from, they end up looking and acting like niggers, and completing their development four years earlier, making putting them in the same cage with humans or cats completely inappropriate.”
Ladies, this is your brain on Southron biology. A warning for those who actually studied such matters in depth.
“Whites and chinks build cities. Huge difference.”
African peoples developed civilization. They observably met the criteria—large and thickly populated settlements; a variety of specialized occupations; the ability to produce and store surplus food and other goods; variety and ranking of social positions; the development of an important art style; trade over long distances.
You are focusing on one part—technology—and assuming that because Africans failed to build urban levels on the same size and scope as Europeans that Africans were uncivilized or savage. Yes, there is no comparison regarding level of sophistication, but those African cities that did exist were notable. At the end of the 13th century, a European traveler encountered the Benin City in West Africa (present Nigeria, Edo State), writing:
“The town seems to be very great. When you enter into it, you go into a great broad street, not paved, which seems to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes street in Amsterdam…The Kings palace is a collection of buildings which occupy as much space as the town of Harlem, and which is enclosed with walls. There are numerous apartments for the Prince`s ministers and fine galleries, most of which are as big as those on the Exchange at Amsterdam. They are supported by wooden pillars encased with copper, where their victories are depicted, and which are carefully kept very clean. The town is composed of thirty main streets, very straight and 120 feet wide, apart from an infinity of small intersecting streets. The houses are close to one another, arranged in good order. These people are in no way inferior to the Dutch as regards cleanliness; they wash and scrub their houses so well that they are polished and shining like a looking glass.” (Source: Walter Rodney, ‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, pg. 69).
And, of course, there is Timbuktu.
Jim…
“Their so called cites were small aggregations of mud huts.”
Fucking educate yourself.
http://www.pbs.org/wonders/fr_wn.htm
Jack…
“So to sum up my argument, a human is a member of a race or group that:
1) Possesses substantial, overwhelming homo-sapiens DNA (sorry, robots);
2) Is capable of building and maintaining civilization (sorry, Niggers).
Without both conditions, aren’t human.”
This is exactly the bullshit science that drives people mad, because 1) you are creating your own standard by which to measure humanity and 2) it has been factually established by dozens of archaeologists and anthropologists that Africans built and maintained civilization.
“Yeah, the Niggers biologically resemble humans, can breed with humans, and even use rather sophisticated tools and communicate by a language, but this does not a human make: need civilizational faculties.”
Again, basing it on YOUR standard, which is woefully biased.
“Fucking educate yourself.”
MC Corvinus, ladies and gentlemen, with his latest hit “fucking educate yourself”.
“Again, basing it on YOUR standard, which is woefully biased.”
Not woefully biased at all. I don’t like it because it makes Neanderthals not human while they probably were, but it’s an objective standard.
“… the ability to produce and store surplus food and other goods…”
Sounds useful. Too bad they seem to have lost this arcane knowledge.
» When you enter into it, you go into a great broad street, not paved, which seems to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes street in Amsterdam…
open expanses of empty ground are very impressive
» The Kings palace is a collection of buildings which occupy as much space as the town of Harlem, and which is enclosed with walls. There are numerous apartments for the Prince`s ministers and fine galleries, most of which are as big as those on the Exchange at Amsterdam. They are supported by wooden pillars encased with copper,
i.e. sparse collection of mud huts
» and which are carefully kept very clean.
I once visited the home of a negro professor. He was assiduously clean and eagle eyed about students getting his stuff dirty.
White people are constantly doing this thing where they go look at the Other and write embarrassingly cocksuckingly about how much better the Others do things. Then later on someone else says that that writing was racist because it’s fetishizing or whatever.
There’s a reason to say the niggers are clean. Medieval European cities were famously dirty, with a thousand years of horse and human manure seeping into the groundwater for the wells, and people routinely died of diseases. Then some kind Beninites invented the toilet and the horseless carriage…
» The town is composed of thirty main streets,
Imagine a trailer park, but spread out over a larger area. Oh, but trailers have parts that you can only get if you have a real city with factories somewhere.
A category difference between whites/blacks and blacks/chimps is that there is substantial overlap in ability between whites and blacks whereas there is not between blacks and chimps.
If you wanted to construct a civilisation solely populated by blacks you could do so, just not with a randomly selected group. If you wanted to construct a civilisation solely populated by chimps you could not do so.
“If you wanted to construct a civilisation solely populated by chimps you could not do so.”
I can’t help but wonder what chimps’ time to civilization would be. It would probably be measured in thousands of years, but I suspect that it would be finite.
Ravens that inhabit cities are significantly smarter than those that don’t, even without a hypothetical “you” who’s trying to uplift them.
only when you drop the H. Sapiens x Nigger designation arguing that it’s too confusing and refer to the strain you build the civilization with incorrectly as H. Nigger.
If Ethiopia was the only country in the world, we would need to call them H. Aethiopes, formed by the merger of H. Sapiens with H. Nigger, where H. Sapiens was formed by the merger of some prehistoric race and H. Neanderthalensis. It is not useful to select crossbreeds, declare them to be H. Nigger, and then ascribe their traits to H. Nigger, except rhetorically.
Surely you could also do it with pure blacks. The average black IQ is something like 80, meaning that 2% or so will have an IQ of over 110. There are about a billion blacks so that is 20 million people. You could have a reasonably sized country that contains only black people with a higher IQ than the average Europe, China, or Japan, albeit heavily truncated at the extremes.
You could not do something like this with chimps. You could not even build Zimbabwe with chimps.
» Lalibela, revered as a saint, is said to have seen Jerusalem, and then attempted to build a new Jerusalem as his capital in response to the capture of old Jerusalem by Muslims in 1187. — cuckipedia
» built immediately after the fall of Jerusalem
» but not by refugees who fled to the Christian kingdom and immediately set about building the same stuff they had at home in their new land
» no, it was built by niggers
peppermint, Saladin did not follow up his conquest of Jerusalem in 1187 with a massacre. In fact, he dealt quite fairly with the Christians, especially with the Ethiopian Christians, and actually, Saladin was better to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians than were the Catholics. In any case, there’s no known mass exodus of Christians from Jerusalem, and of the ones who left, pretty much all of them returned to Europe. The idea that any significant number of them went to Ethiopia is the most preposterous thing that you can say, especially when one considers not only the complete lack of any corroboratory evidence but also the fact that in order to get there, these refugees would have had to pass through Egypt, a Muslim country that had already been conquered by Saladin. And as for the churches, it is worth noting that the Lalibela churches were the first of their kind. That part of Ethiopia has many of them, many of which were built before the Crusades. So it is clear that the Ethiopians did not need refugees from Jerusalem to build the churches in Lalibela.
The Horn of Africa has always been partially Semitic, due to the ease of access by sea.
Here is a picture of Haile Selassie: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Haile_Selassie_in_suit_and_cloak_in_1960s.jpg
Does not exactly look like Freddie Gray.
Is it a coincidence that civilisation in Africa vanishes as accessibility from the Middle East and Europe decreases? The Great Zimbabwe was once the great exception, and why it was so mysterious, though the recent genetic evidence seems to have made it another banal case of Semitic influence.
As I said, I don’t necessarily consider Ethiopians black, and Ethiopians usually don’t consider themselves black, but what I do know is that people who like to subject blacks to racial abuse certainly consider Ethiopians to be black, which is why I think it justified to point to the example of Ethiopians as a black people who have shown themselves capable of creating and sustaining civilization.
Also, I find the hypocrisy in the way that the one-drop rule is applied to be appalling. Blacks are typically forced to “own” the bad mulattoes while whites get to claim the good mulattoes. Thus, someone like Obama is (according to peppermint) a nigger who has to go back to Africa, but of course people like Pushkin or Dumas are fully Russian or fully French.
Oliver…
“Is it a coincidence that civilisation in Africa vanishes as accessibility from the Middle East and Europe decreases?”
It is absolutely laughable when you make this assessment. Africa today contains a civilization. It may not be YOUR cup of tea, but remember, Europeans willingly chose to invade the world and invite the world.
Irving…
“Also, I find the hypocrisy in the way that the one-drop rule is applied to be appalling. Blacks are typically forced to “own” the bad mulattoes while whites get to claim the good mulattoes.“
No shit.
pdimov…
“I don’t like it because it makes Neanderthals not human while they probably were, but it’s an objective standard.”
Those who state that today’s blacks = Neanderthal is hardly objective.
“Too bad they seem to have lost this arcane knowledge.”
Well, when those pesky Europeans back then, and those interfering Chinese now, demand “free stuff”, what do you expect?
Peppermint…
“open expanses of empty ground are very impressive”
“i.e. sparse collection of mud huts”
Hate to admit your dead wrong, huh. That’s all you got?
“… someone like Obama is (according to peppermint) a nigger who has to go back to Africa…”
Obama is black according to Obama, so he, along with Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal, would be fully eligible for a complimentary trip to Africa, all expenses paid.
Self identification ought to be respected. We’re not some kind of Nazis, after all.
“Those who state that today’s blacks = Neanderthal is hardly objective.”
You still consider Neanderthal an insult? How quaint.
» but of course people like Pushkin or Dumas are fully Russian or fully French.
we wuz kangs! we wuz novelists! we wuz beethoven! we build stone churches like are found in the Middle East in Ethiopia to symbolically continue the Middle East Christianity! we invent writing!
do you understand that the reason no one claims Lalibela and Ge’ez for niggers is that even Wikipedia knows the story?
do you understand that Zimbabwe was claimed to have been built by niggers for over a century because when humans arrived they didn’t know that humans had been there before?
do you realize how pathetic it is to claim traffic lights as a major invention?
» let’s take the Blacks who don’t even exist but are predicted by muh bell curve mufugguh fit to a sample drawn from a population of H. Nigger and H. Sapiens x Nigger, then put them in one country and expect them to act like humans because we all know IQ is the only characteristic that matters
they will eat each other. They will form gangs and eat each other.
Then you will say that it’s because they weren’t given time to form positive institutions first. So you’ll take another trillion dollars of White taxpayer money and create institutions for them, and expect them to uphold those institutions.
And when they don’t, you’ll blame the other White countries for fighting racist trade wars instead of just giving them everything.
Corvininus: There is no other archaeological evidence of any major building in Africa before the arrival of Europeans.
As Niall Ferguson pointed out, Sub-Saharan Africa today is poorer relative to Europe than it was under direct European rule, and poorer even than it was before European exploration of Africa. All development in Africa is due to development in White and Asian countries reducing the relative cost of imports.
>we wuz kangs! we wuz novelists! we wuz beethoven! we build stone churches like are found in the Middle East in Ethiopia to symbolically continue the Middle East Christianity! we invent writing!
What are you talking about? I’m not making any of this up, both Pushkin and Dumas, in the America of the early 19th century, would have been considered niggers, and it would have been legal for them to have been made into slaves.
>do you understand that the reason no one claims Lalibela and Ge’ez for niggers is that even Wikipedia knows the story?
Who is “no one”? Lalibela was built by Ethiopians and Ge’ez was created by Ethiopians. None of this is contradicted in Wikipedia, not that Wikipedia’s opinion matters anyway.
>do you understand that Zimbabwe was claimed to have been built by niggers for over a century because when humans arrived they didn’t know that humans had been there before?
I don’t care about Zimbabwe. I brought up Ethiopia because I know Ethiopia.
>do you realize how pathetic it is to claim traffic lights as a major invention?
Yes, which is why I don’t think that blacks should make claims of that nature.
“do you understand that Zimbabwe was claimed to have been built by niggers for over a century because when humans arrived they didn’t know that humans had been there before?”
Actually the early White explorers knew something was up, although they couldn’t explain it, and seemed only half-convinced by their own speculations about King Solomon’s Mines and the Queen of Sheba (which was later proved broadly correct).
Even if they didn’t know anything about Blacks, or had never even seen a Black, it’s just weird that there’s nothing remotely similar around, no trail of buildings following the Bantu expansion, no earlier, lesser stages as the builders learnt their trades, and then sudden disappearance. The obvious conclusion is that this is some earlier version of the abandoned Portuguese trading forts which they already knew about, but clearly far too old to be the Portuguese.
However around 1900 the story was changed for PC reasons and the official story is still that it was built by Bantus.
“» let’s take the Blacks who don’t even exist but are predicted by muh bell curve mufugguh fit to a sample drawn from a population of H. Nigger and H. Sapiens x Nigger, then put them in one country and expect them to act like humans because we all know IQ is the only characteristic that matters they will eat each other. They will form gangs and eat each other.
“Then you will say that it’s because they weren’t given time to form positive institutions first. So you’ll take another trillion dollars of White taxpayer money and create institutions for them, and expect them to uphold those institutions.
“And when they don’t, you’ll blame the other White countries for fighting racist trade wars instead of just giving them everything.”
I’ve got some sympathy, but you take this too far. I don’t think Thomas Sowell and Herman Cain would eat one another. That such overlap exists the point at issue so you can’t just assert that it doesn’t – if the distributions don’t overlap as the statistics would suggest, prove it. I think the existence of a small but finite honestly middle class Black population is pretty conclusively proved by personal observation.
“Pushkin was born into Russian nobility in Moscow. His matrilineal great-grandfather was Abram Gannibal, who was brought over as a slave from what is now Cameroon.[9]”
“Abram Petrovich[1] Gannibal, also Hannibal or Ganibal or Abram Hannibal or Abram Petrov (Russian: Абра́м Петро́вич Ганниба́л; 1696 – 14 May[2] 1781), was an Afro-Russian nobleman, military engineer and general. Kidnapped as a child and presented as a gift to Peter the Great, he was raised in the Emperor’s household, and eventually rose to become a prominent member of the imperial court in the reign of Peter’s daughter Elizabeth.”
Obviously black as coal.
Pushkin was 1/8th Ethiopian. Had he been born in America, he would have been considered a nigger, and could possibly have been made a slave
“Had he been born in America, he would have been considered a nigger, and could possibly have been made a slave”
Really? It was legal in America to take a random octoroon off the street and make him a slave? Because nigger?
In 1799, when Pushkin was born, there were slaves in America that were only 1/8th black.
“In 1799, when Pushkin was born, there were slaves in America that were only 1/8th black.”
Yes, because they were children of slave women who were 1/4th black. Slaveness, like Jewishness, flows matrilineally. “Could have been possibly enslaved” is nonsense. He would have been a slave owner, not a slave.
Are you part Ethiopian?
>Yes, because they were children of slave women who were 1/4th black. Slaveness, like Jewishness, flows matrilineally.
Fair enough.
>“Could have been possibly enslaved” is nonsense. He would have been a slave owner, not a slave.
given the one-drop rule, he would have been considered black in America, and indeed it is evident from his portrait that he wasn’t a pure-blooded white man, and so he couldn’t have passed.
In any case, in 1799, it wasn’t the case that all slaves in America were born into slavery.
>Are you part Ethiopian?
One of my parents is an Egyptian Copt from the Levant and the other is Ethiopian.
“given the one-drop rule, he would have been considered black in America, and indeed it is evident from his portrait that he wasn’t a pure-blooded white man, and so he couldn’t have passed.”
My American history is not up to speed, but from what I read, he would legally have been considered “colored”, not “black”, and he would probably not have been bothered had he decided to use a white-only facility even if a colored-only one were available, as long as he didn’t make a point of his ancestry.
It’s indeed evident from his appearance that he’s not pure white, but people were polite back then and would likely have pretended not to notice.
>My American history is not up to speed, but from what I read, he would legally have been considered “colored”, not “black”
Perhaps you’re thinking of South Africa. In America, the one drop rule was enshrined into law.
>and he would probably not have been bothered had he decided to use a white-only facility even if a colored-only one were available, as long as he didn’t make a point of his ancestry.
Maybe
>It’s indeed evident from his appearance that he’s not pure white, but people were polite back then and would likely have pretended not to notice.
Nah, people would have noticed. He might not have been given a hard time about it, but I’m sure if he tried to marry a white woman or something, someone would have confronted him about it.
“In America, the one drop rule was enshrined into law.”
Which specific law are you referencing? A random perusal of Cuckipedia gives me
“In 1890, Louisiana passed a law requiring separate accommodations for colored and white passengers on railroads. Louisiana law distinguished between “white”, “black” and “colored” (that is, people of mixed European and African ancestry). The law already specified that blacks could not ride with white people, but colored people could ride with whites before 1890.”
Lousiana should be representative of the Evils of Segregation and Slavery.
“I’m sure if he tried to marry a white woman or something, someone would have confronted him about it.”
And I’m sure that he would have had no problem at all. Isn’t certainty great?
That’s just another manifestation of the double standard you so dislike. Mulattoes who act stereotypically black are considered black, and those who act stereotypically white are considered white.
so, to reiterate,
H. Nigger is equal to H. Sapiens in civilizational ability,
* because H. Aetheopes (a race bred from H. Nigger x Sapiens) maintained a city built by their king who had the holy city of Jerusalem rebuilt in his lands with an unknown number of refugees from the fall of Jerusalem, and had a writing system developed from the writing systems of surrounding peoples
* A few writers that are consequential enough to mention may have been H. Sapiens x Nigger
* cruel H. Sapiens did the jim crow slavery colonialism apartheid on H. Nigger resulting in the lack of any further evidence of H. Nigger’s civilizational ability
You think you’re helping H. Nigger by forcing them into the same places with H. Sapiens and trying to treat them the same. If you actually knew some individuals of H. Nigger, or paid attention to statistics on quality of life, you would know that they like integration less than we do.
>H. Nigger is equal to H. Sapiens in civilizational ability,
Blacks do not have the same or comparable civilizational ability to whites, and I never said that they did.
>maintained a city built by their king who had the holy city of Jerusalem rebuilt in his lands with an unknown number of refugees from the fall of Jerusalem
There is no evidence for this claim and there is considerable evidence that this claim is false.
>and had a writing system developed from the writing systems of surrounding peoples
Most if not all writing systems are in some sense developed from other writing systems. The Romance alphabet, for instance, can be traced to the Semitic Phoenician alphabet.
>A few writers that are consequential enough to mention may have been H. Sapiens x Nigger
There’s no maybe, they were.
>cruel H. Sapiens did the jim crow slavery colonialism apartheid on H. Nigger resulting in the lack of any further evidence of H. Nigger’s civilizational ability
This isn’t about jim crow or apartheid or anything else.
>You think you’re helping H. Nigger by forcing them into the same places with H. Sapiens and trying to treat them the same.
I have no problem with racial separatism, but again, that’s not what this is about.
Oliver Cromwell…
“Corvininus: There is no other archaeological evidence of any major building in Africa before the arrival of Europeans.”
Are you an idiot, and do you also play one on T.V.?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/timbuktus-ancient-relics-lay-in-ruins-at-hands-of-militant-group-328799/?no-ist
http://www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi5/5_wondr3.htm
“As Niall Ferguson pointed out…”
After divorcing his white wife and marrying a Somali woman–they have a mixed kid. I see he upped his game.
“Sub-Saharan Africa today is poorer relative to Europe than it was under direct European rule, and poorer even than it was before European exploration of Africa.”
Pillaging and plundering was the specialty of white European Christians. And, obviously, Africa was considered having valuable resources compared to Europe, you know, like gold and ivory.
Just. Stop. Now.
A small, crude, mudbrick mosque is depicted.
Plus, where we have records, Timbucktu’s more impressive buildings were built by Arabs.
Again, it is on the cline between white and black, and as brown fades to black, buildings fade to but huts and cities disappear. Dark brown people can build crude, simple, primitive cities, with a bit of light brown supervision and advice. Black people cannot. Timbuktu was built by dark brown people with light brown supervision and advice.
Yes, qualifies as a city, but only barely.
Oliver Cromwell
“There is no other archaeological evidence of any major building in Africa before the arrival of Europeans.”
Are you an idiot, or do you play one on TV?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/timbuktus-ancient-relics-lay-in-ruins-at-hands-of-militant-group-328799/?no-ist
“As Niall Ferguson pointed out…”
Interesting how he divorced his white wife and married an Ethiopian. They have a mixed kid.
“…and poorer even than it was before European exploration of Africa.”
Seriously? Dude, there was gold and ivory there to take.
look at that mud brick mosque! It might take me a whole year to build it!
Wikipedia says about Timbuktu
“A century and a half later, in around 1510, Leo Africanus visited Timbuktu. He gave a description of the town in his Descrittione dell’Africa which was published in 1550.[8]”
but carefully omits the actual description. Which you can find here:
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/world_civ/worldcivreader/world_civ_reader_2/leo_africanus.html
It’s not all bad though.
“The king is a declared enemy of the Jews. He will not allow any to live in the city. If he hears it said that a Berber merchant frequents them or does business with them, he confiscates his goods.”
mud huts except for a crude mosque built by an Arab.
Law of poster girls applies.
Corvininous:
“Are you an idiot, and do you also play one on T.V.?
“http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/timbuktus-ancient-relics-lay-in-ruins-at-hands-of-militant-group-328799/?no-ist
“http://www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi5/5_wondr3.htm”
Timbuktu is a mud city built by Arabised Berbers. Does it not strike you as odd that all other old buildings in Africa are 1. religious sites of Semitic religions 2. about as far as possible away from Great Zimbabwe as it is possible to get, but as close to areas of white settlement as it is is possible to get? Do you completely lack any capability for critical thought?
“Pillaging and plundering was the specialty of white European Christians. And, obviously, Africa was considered having valuable resources compared to Europe, you know, like gold and ivory.
“Just. Stop. Now.”
Don’t. See. Your. Point.
“Dark brown people can build crude, simple, primitive cities, with a bit of light brown supervision and advice.”
Corrected for accuracy –> Non-whites, including black, dark brown, and light brown, are able to build civilizations, including cities.
“No one ever suggested that Muslims cannot build cities. Still a case of importing civilization from Europe to Africa.”
Mansa Musa had the vision. He hired people to carry it out.
“The fact is that no city or substantial building was ever built in any part of Africa until after Jew, Arab, or European set foot in that part.”
Corrected for accuracy –> Cities and substantial buildings were constructed throughout Africa by Africans, specifically non-whites.
Hey, we only recently became human. That the best of us is still mostly chimp is not ridiculous.
This is what Oliver Cromwell stated—“There is no other archaeological evidence of any major building in Africa before the arrival of Europeans.”
Clearly, he is dead-wrong.
Available building materials, Jim, does not negate the intricacy of their work before being destroyed by whites.
“Plus, where we have records, Timbucktu’s more impressive buildings were built by Arabs.”
No, not quite, Jim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankore_Madrasah
Hey, how are those sources coming along regarding the modern pervasiveness of that African diet known as cannibalism? You know, the claim that you made that they daily eat people?
“Yes, qualifies as a city, but only barely.”
No, not barely. Caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you had to reluctantly admit you are historically ignorant.
Yes barely, and built by dark brown people under the guidance of light brown people. Not built by black people.
Clearly he is dead right – assuming, as seems reasonable, the guys who invaded Egypt six thousand or so years ago can plausibly be counted as Europeans.
Wherever we see major building in Africa, we also see evidence of white conquest – sometimes exceedingly ancient white conquests.
Then you look at those chocolate colored people and call them black. But back when the those ancient buildings were being built the builders were not yet mixed to a uniform chocolate color.
“Yes barely, and built by dark brown people under the guidance of light brown people. Not built by black people.”
Stop lying.
The Mali Empire consisted modern-day Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, and Chad, Mali was one of the largest empires in the world. The people here are able to trace their Mandinka, i.e. Mandigo, ancestors to Mali.
BLACK people.
Moreover, the link I provided clearly demonstrated that this major structure was built before Europeans, contrary to Jack’s claim.
MAJOR fail on your part.
“Wherever we see major building in Africa, we also see evidence of white conquest – sometimes exceedingly ancient white conquests.”
You realize this statement contradicts Jack’s claim, right? Europeans destroyed existing black buildings, no surprise given their DNA to rape and murder.
Bullshit
Europeans have been conquering and reconquering parts of Africa for ten thousand years, and wherever we see cities, or non trivial buildings, in Africa, we see their footprints. Thus, for example, the “blacks” that built the great Zimbabwe have substantial Jewish blood.
Which existing “black” buildings have Europeans destroyed?
Even Cathedral sources think Corvininius is full of shit.
Origins of Timbuktu from Wikipedia:
“When Abd al-Sadi wrote his chronicle Tarikh al-Sudan, based on oral tradition, in the 17th century, he dates the foundation at ‘the end of the fifth century of the hijra’ or around 1100 AD.[17] Al-Sadi saw Maghsharan Tuareg as the founders, as their summer encampment grew from temporary settlement to depot to travellers’ meeting place.”
Google Images for Tuareg:
http://c.top4top.net/i_31561a24891.jpg
http://i-cias.com/e.o/slides/tuareg01.jpg
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/560/media/images/65658000/jpg/_65658489_tuareg_man_304afp.jpg
Black people inherited some ancient buildings constructed by the most marginal possible whites and managed to just about maintain, but not reproduce or improve on, them in almost a thousand years. And even then probably only with the help of said whites, under the rule of them and their mixed descendants.
By Wikipedia’s count, Timbuktu was founded in 1100 and ruled by Black kings for only about 200 years since then, rule that is described as basically tributary rather than executive, a layer on top of the Tuareg local government:
“Timbuktu was peacefully annexed by King Musa I when returning from his pilgrimage in 1324 to Mecca.”
“the rising Songhai Empire expanded, absorbing Timbuktu in 1468 or 1469. … With Gao the capital of the empire, Timbuktu enjoyed a relatively autonomous position. Merchants from Ghadames, Awjilah, and numerous other cities of North Africa gathered there to buy gold and slaves in exchange for the Saharan salt of Taghaza and for North African cloth and horses.”
The French conquered Timbuktu from the Tuareg in 1893 and gave it to the Black state of Mali in 1960. This incompetent anti-colonial Black state of over ten million people then failed to hold Timbuktu against Tuareg tribesmen with a tenth their numbers, losing the city in 2012:
“Following increasing frustration within the armed forces over the Malian government’s ineffective strategies to suppress a Tuareg rebellion in northern Mali, a military coup on 21 March 2012 overthrew President Amadou Toumani Touré and overturned the 1992 constitution.[64] The Tuareg rebels of the MNLA and Ansar Dine took advantage of the confusion to make swift gains, and on 1 April 2012, Timbuktu was captured from the Malian military.[65]”
The French then invaded Timbuktu, conquered it from the descendants of its founders, and returned it to the Black government:
“On 28 January 2013, French and Malian soldiers reclaimed Timbuktu with little or no resistance and reinstalled Malian governmental authorities.[70] Five days later, French President François Hollande accompanied by his Malian counterpart Dioncounda Traoré visited the city before heading to Bamako and were welcomed by an ecstatic population.[71]”
Never mind the past, the current ownership of Timbuktu by Blacks is an artificial imposition of White armies commanded by the Cathedral. Remove Cathedral support from Mali and the Tuareg will be back in charge tomorrow.
USaid, “Timbuktu reclaims its culture”:
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/success_story/1-15-2104%20Timbuktu%20Youth%20Perform.jpg
UN troops in Timbuktu:
https://news-images.vice.com/images/articles/meta/2016/02/05/militants-overrun-un-base-in-timbuktu-in-latest-attack-in-mali-1454689412.jpg?crop=1xw:0.8450292397660819xh;0xw,0.15497076023391812xh&resize=700:*&output-format=image/jpeg&output-quality=75
“NBC News’ Richard Engel and his Tuareg hosts outside of Timbukto, Mali.”:
http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/101007-engel-timbuktu1.grid-6×2.jpg
Timbuktu is a Black city in the same way that Detroit is a Black city.
pdimov…
“Which existing “black” buildings have Europeans destroyed?”
You’re really not that stupid, right? Google it.
Jim..
“Europeans have been conquering and reconquering parts of Africa for ten thousand years, and wherever we see cities, or non trivial buildings, in Africa, we see their footprints.”
Footprints is different than handiwork.
“Thus, for example, the “blacks” that built the great Zimbabwe have substantial Jewish blood.”
Nice try, Jim.
“But, the majority of scholars generally agree that Great Zimbabwe was built by the Shona people as part of the 13th-century kingdom of Zimbabwe. It was successor to the earlier Kingdom of Mapungubwe, also known for its complex stone ruins.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba_people
Oliver Cromwell..
“Timbuktu is a mud city built by Arabised Berbers.”
Corrected for accuracy –> Timbuktu was a city constructed by the Tuareg people and eventually expanded upon by the Songhai and Mali Empires.
“Does it not strike you as odd that all other old buildings in Africa are 1. religious sites of Semitic religions 2. about as far as possible away from Great Zimbabwe as it is possible to get, but as close to areas of white settlement as it is is possible to get? Do you completely lack any capability for critical thought?”
No shit, Sherlock. It’s location was at the meeting point of desert and water, making it an ideal trading center.
“Don’t. See. Your. Point.”
I should know better, you’re not that bright.
>assuming, as seems reasonable, the guys who invaded Egypt six thousand or so years ago can plausibly be counted as Europeans
They obviously weren’t. They were non-white Caucasoids.
>Europeans have been conquering and reconquering parts of Africa for ten thousand years, and wherever we see cities, or non trivial buildings, in Africa, we see their footprints.
This is true
>Thus, for example, the “blacks” that built the great Zimbabwe have substantial Jewish blood.
They’ve a genetic link to the Jews and it is shown that they’re about ~25 percent Jewish.
>Yes barely, and built by dark brown people under the guidance of light brown people. Not built by black people.
African Americans are basically a dark brown people, with many light brown individuals among them. Do you not consider them black?
They were red heads. That is as white as you can get.
By the way Jim, I’m still waiting for the evidence for your claim that the churches of Lalibela was built by Christian refugees from Jerusalem. I know that there is no evidence, of course, but I’m still interested in seeing how you justify that belief.
The churches were modeled after the Churches of Jerusalem shortly after the Christians fled Jerusalem. Supposing that black people did this all by themselves, how did they get the example to model?
>> Which existing “black” buildings have Europeans destroyed?
> Google it.
That will not give me the answer I seek. The question I’m interested in is “which black buildings have Europeans destroyed according to Corvinus”, and Google will very likely be of little help.
Oliver Cromwell…
“There is no other archaeological evidence of any major building in Africa before the arrival of Europeans.”
The mere fact that Timbuktu existed in Africa before the arrival of Europeans, as you have admitted regarding its origins, automatically qualifies your statement as being utterly false.
Moreover, would one not think that archaeologists would be repeatedly touting this fact in textbooks and on television shows like Nature and National Geographic? Oh, that’s right, they’re part of the “Cathedral”.
Praytell, what makes you a superior white, a person who, compared to other whites, realizes the “truth”. Because you certainly come across as a know-it-all.
“Black people inherited some ancient buildings constructed by the most marginal possible whites and managed to just about maintain, but not reproduce or improve on, them in almost a thousand years.”
First, there is no such thing as “marginal whites”, just “whites”. In fact, that pronouncement is decidedly “anti-white”.
Second, you are admitting that black people resided in Timbuktu in major buildings. Since Europeans were arriving at the same time in Africa while Timbuktu was under black control, your statement is further falsified.
Third, under the direction of Mansa Musa, Timbuktu witnessed tremendous expansion, with mosques, libraries, a palace, and a university.
Everything else you stated was merely a distraction from the topic at hand, a classic Alinsky tactic on your part.
“By Wikipedia’s count, Timbuktu was founded in 1100 and ruled by Black kings for only about 200 years since then, rule that is described as basically tributary rather than executive, a layer on top of the Tuareg local government.”
No, there was no “layer”. Educate yourself on the Mali Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire
Irving…
“By the way Jim, I’m still waiting for the evidence for your claim that the churches of Lalibela was built by Christian refugees from Jerusalem. I know that there is no evidence, of course, but I’m still interested in seeing how you justify that belief.”
Get in line. There’s all sorts of things that Jim has to get back to with evidence.
“Supposing that black people did this all by themselves, how did they get the example to model?”
It’s called using one’s brain. You do realize that people from throughout the world at the same time without any direct contact with one another were able to generate solutions to their problems. For example, pottery was found at different locations by different groups of people at different points in time, indicating that people there were able to think about how to use their environment to suit their needs.
pdimov…
“The question I’m interested in is “which black buildings have Europeans destroyed according to Corvinus””
And I told you, refer to Google. There a ton of resources out there that indicates Europeans destroyed black buildings. Do you need psychological help?
White people from Europe have been invading and conquering parts of Africa for several thousand years. Wherever we see signs of civilization, we see the footprints of white conquerors.
“The mere fact that Timbuktu existed in Africa before the arrival of Europeans, as you have admitted regarding its origins, automatically qualifies your statement as being utterly false. ”
The maximum concession you can get here is that Timbuktu was built by whites who are not from Europe. As this does not change anything, I don’t care to dispute it.
“Moreover, would one not think that archaeologists would be repeatedly touting this fact in textbooks and on television shows like Nature and National Geographic? Oh, that’s right, they’re part of the “Cathedral”.
“Praytell, what makes you a superior white, a person who, compared to other whites, realizes the “truth”. Because you certainly come across as a know-it-all. ”
Cathedral sources admit that the Tuareg founded Timbuktu, as they really have no choice, and simply piously avoid 1. drawing attention to this fact and 2. drawing attention to the fact that the Tuareg are white. You are responding to two posts in which I have only used Cathedral sources. I have taken your information sources and simply interpreted them better than you.
“” Second, you are admitting that black people resided in Timbuktu in major buildings. Since Europeans were arriving at the same time in Africa while Timbuktu was under black control, your statement is further falsified.”
Black people reside in Detroit in major buildings.
“Third, under the direction of Mansa Musa, Timbuktu witnessed tremendous expansion, with mosques, libraries, a palace, and a university.
“Everything else you stated was merely a distraction from the topic at hand, a classic Alinsky tactic on your part.”
Mansa Musa was an Arabised Black who travelled to Mecca, and brought back with him Arabs bearing Arab culture, which flourished in his Tuareg tributary of Timbuktu, and notably not in his actual capital of Gao.
“No, there was no “layer”. Educate yourself on the Mali Empire.
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire”
From your link:
“The Mali Empire was the largest in West Africa and profoundly influenced the culture of the region through the spread of its language, laws and customs along lands adjacent to the Niger River, as well as other areas [b]consisting of numerous vassal kingdoms and provinces.[/b]”
Now I do not claim to be an expert on the Mali Empire, but given your evidence is a wikipedia link without quotes, somewhat doubt you are either.
Wikipedia article for Timbuktu says it was peacefully annexed, something not very likely if the native elite would be killed or completely displaced, and says that the same Tuareg seamlessly resumed control when Mali receded.
So let’s recap: Timbuktu is a city founded by whites and ruled by them as late the French conquest, in which Black slaves were shipped North and Arab Muslim scholars and books were shipped South. This city, on the very fringe of White expansion, contains some short, squat, mud brick buildings. It was for brief periods in its history ruled, or at least in some sort of vassalage, to distant Black kings. Thus proving that the Great Zimbabwe, an enormous stone fortress complex 4,000km away is nothing out of the ordinary. Or something.
“There a ton of resources out there that indicates Europeans destroyed black buildings.”
Of that I am sure.
What I’d like to know however is, if you had to pick THE signature black building (or place) destroyed by Europeans, which one would it be?
>The maximum concession you can get here is that Timbuktu was built by whites who are not from Europe.
You consider Berbers white?
I don’t have strong opinions on Berbers.
But from before, “NBC News’ Richard Engel and his Tuareg hosts outside of Timbukto, Mali.”:
http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/101007-engel-timbuktu1.grid-6×2.jpg
Which one is Richard Engel? I think I know, but I’d also guess that the woman on the right is part of the film crew, and she seems to be wearing a sword. Maybe that is standard issue for dangerous environments.
The NBC article this is from, to which I no longer have a link, actually describes the Tuareg as White.
I’ve always been accustomed to thinking of non european Caucasoids as non whites. Seems to me that if white basically means Caucasoid, you’d have to embrace some pretty odd positions, e.g. I’m familiar with ethnographic maps drawn up in the colonial era that include Horn of Africans as Caucasoids.
I do not see that as inherently unreasonable. Anyway, I am not a White nationalist, so do not consider the question tremendously interesting. These lines must be drawn somewhere, they are somewhat fuzzy at the edge, but the Sahara seems to be a hard barrier, and you can see that Tuareg and other Berber are on the Mediterranean side of it, more from skull shape than from skin and eye colour, though also from skin and eye colour.
“I’ve always been accustomed to thinking of non european Caucasoids as non whites.”
How do you know that Berbers are non-European though? Blue eyes are an European trait.
>How do you know that Berbers are non-European though? Blue eyes are an European trait.
It’s pretty clear that Berbers are not from Europe. It’s true that some have blue eyes, but even some Arabs and Horn of Africans have blue eyes too.
Blue eyes originated in Norther Europe about ten thousand years ago. Other characteristically white eye colors originated in Northern Europe far more recently.
To get to North Africa, had to be by invasion and conquest.
“It’s pretty clear that Berbers are not from Europe.”
How is that clear?
It is clear because Berbers have been in North Africa for over 10,000 years.
One can argue however that north africa is a part of Europe. Many people have. The french colonialist did, and so did halford mackinder
“It is clear because Berbers have been in North Africa for over 10,000 years.”
Even if we assume that they have, where did they come from? How do we know they didn’t come from Europe?
“One can argue however that north africa is a part of Europe.”
North Africa is part of the Mediterranean, as is Southern Europe, and in the past there was probably not much difference between the people inhabiting the two.
The two options are basically blue eyed people evolved in the Middle East or blue eyed people evolved in Europe, and I don’t think we can tell at the moment with certainty which of those is true, although my money is on Europe.
Note by the way that apes evolved in Europe, not Africa.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-africas-apes-come-from-europe-113890377/?no-ist
>Even if we assume that they have, where did they come from? How do we know they didn’t come from Europe?
From what I’ve read, it seems unlikely that they’re from Europe, but I guess we don’t know enough to discount that possibility completely. What makes me skeptical, though, is that the other back-to-Africa migrations, which involve Egypt and the Horn of Africa, were from the East, and it seems unlikely that things would be different with the Berbers.
>North Africa is part of the Mediterranean, as is Southern Europe, and in the past there was probably not much difference between the people inhabiting the two.
The main difference is that the North Africans have picked up a lot of Arab genes, but it seems that this is the case for many southern Europeans, especially Sicilians and those from southern Spain, France and Italy, too.
Oliver Cromwell…
“The maximum concession you can get here is that Timbuktu was built by whites who are not from Europe. As this does not change anything, I don’t care to dispute it.”
That would require you to acknowledge you were dead wrong in making a wild generalization. I know better than to expect capitulation here.
“Cathedral sources…”
No, sources. You’re not going to get anywhere with this reference.
“Black people reside in Detroit in major buildings.”
A palace, a university, and a library are also major buildings, which were inhabited by blacks in Timbuktu.
“Mansa Musa was an Arabised Black…”
Black, nonetheless. Who, under his direction, expanded Timbuktu.
“which flourished in his Tuareg tributary of Timbuktu…”
No, which flourished directly under his leadership and authority.
“So let’s recap…”
Indeed, accurately. Timbuktu is a city founded by Arabs and later expanded upon by black Muslims. This city, on the cusp of major trade routes involving a wide range of people, had contained several large buildings consisting of available materials and was the hub of learning and trade in the region. Tumbuktu was under the rule of several rulers of the Mali and Songhai Empires.
“I do not see that as inherently unreasonable. Anyway, I am not a White nationalist, so do not consider the question tremendously interesting.”
Except you do find the racial background of the Tuaregs as somewhat relevant toward your “argument”.
Irving…
“One can argue however that north africa is a part of Europe. Many people have.”
No, North Africa is part of Africa, not part of Europe. A different continent.
pdimov…
“Of that I am sure.”
Exactly. Was it that hard to admit there were buildings destroyed by Europeans? Jesus Christ.
And you do realize that the Smithsonian source you linked to is part of the “Cathedral”, right?
Timbuktu is no more a black city than Detroit.
And the Berbers have been around for a lot less than ten thousand years.
Corfupidus:
“That would require you to acknowledge you were dead wrong in making a wild generalization. I know better than to expect capitulation here.”
Given that to the extent Tuareg are not from Europe (which seems to be in dispute, but I don’t know if they are or not, nor much care), I have already conceded, so I do not know what more you want, or I could give you.
It makes no substantive difference either way, as being from Europe or not, Tuareg are not Sub-Saharan Africans, and are the founders of Timbuktu. And thus Timbuktu is not an example of native Sub-Saharan development of architecture, having been founded by Tuareg – a people not visually distinguishable from Whites – and later expanded after contact firmly established between Arabia and Mali, by Arab builders, perhaps but not certainly by Arab builders hired by a Black king. Timbuktu is a White trading outpost established on a new trade route, and later occupied by Blacks, just like the Portuguese trading fort in Zimbabwe, which was also of much higher architectural quality than the natives could reproduce.
So if you goal here is simply to score a personal point from me – someone whose real name you will never know let alone meet – by proving that I am wrong on the most minor of technicalities, you are welcome to it. I hope it keeps you warm at night.
>They were red heads. That is as white as you can get.
The ancient Egyptians were clearly Caucasoids, but they certainly did not have white skin.
>The churches were modeled after the Churches of Jerusalem shortly after the Christians fled Jerusalem. Supposing that black people did this all by themselves, how did they get the example to model?
There are about 200 rock cut churches in Ethiopia besides the 11 at Lalibela, many of which predate the creation of the Lalibela churches. That in itself is proof that an influx of migrants from Jerusalem were not necessary in order to facilitate the construction of the Lalibela churches.
Besides this, Ethiopian priests and monks have had a continuous presence in Jerusalem from the beginning of Christianity, and they’ve always traveled back and forth. So Ethiopia did not need these migrants from Jerusalem in order to know what the churches of Jerusalem were like.
Also, there are no examples of rock cut architecture in Jerusalem, except for a few minor Jewish ones. The only other place where rock cut architecture was done on as vast a scale as in Ethiopia was in India. So refugees were not needed in order to bring this architectural model into Ethiopia.
Finally, there’s absolutely no corroborating evidence to prove that a nontrivial number of migrants fled to Ethiopia following Saladin’s conquest of Jerusalem, and much evidence to suggest that very few, if any, migrants were to Ethiopia at all.
Bunkum.
From the beginning of christianity, people with European and Jewish ancestry evangelized Ethiopia. Which makes them European and Semitic priests and monks.
“The ancient Egyptians were clearly Caucasoids, but they certainly did not have white skin.”
The people who have white skin _when in Egypt_ tend to die of melanoma.
that’s funny, because the first time I’d ever heard of rock cut architecture was some places in the Levant. I’m sure that was done by Ethiopians, though, coming on pilgrimage, and not because there’s soft sandstone as bedrock
**“It makes no substantive difference either way, as being from Europe or not, Tuareg are not Sub-Saharan Africans, and are the founders of Timbuktu.”**
There is a substantive difference because you are insisting the Tuareg are white when there is evidence to the contrary. Some studies have linked the Tuareg to early ancient Egyptian civilization, which would make the Tuareg native of Africa. The Berber language is also specifically linked to North Africa.
At the very most, you can definitively state that the Tuareg are the founders of Timbuktu. Including the caveat that the Tuareg were white, and thus more adept at construction compared to blacks, is odious.
Now, assuming the Tuareg are actually native to (North) Africa, your initial claim “There is no other archaeological evidence of any major building in Africa before the arrival of Europeans”, is blatantly false.
“Timbuktu was built by whites who are not from Europe.”
That was your revision, and then you subsequently backtracked yet again with **. Intriguing.
Regardless, blacks built from scratch new buildings, ones that were considered to be elaborate and detailed for the area.
“And thus Timbuktu is not an example of native Sub-Saharan development of architecture, having been founded by Tuareg – a people not visually distinguishable from Whites – and later expanded after contact firmly established between Arabia and Mali, by Arab builders, perhaps but not certainly by Arab builders hired by a Black king.”
Correctled for accuracy—Timbuktu is an example of the expansion of a city by black kings, most notably Mansa Musa, which represented distinct Sub-Saharan influence.
“So if you goal here is simply to score a personal point from me – someone whose real name you will never know let alone meet – by proving that I am wrong on the most minor of technicalities, you are welcome to it. I hope it keeps you warm at night.”
No, you are assuredly wrong in the most major of facts.
Supposing this to be true, this would make their ancestors as white and European as I am, for Egyptian civilization was created by red headed conquerors, and redheads originated in Northern Europe.
>because the first time I’d ever heard of rock cut architecture was some places in the Levant.
Of course, this is not a question that is to be answered with reference to what you, peppermint, heard of first.
In any case, I’ve already said that there are examples of rock cut architecture in the Levant, but pretty much all of them are tombs. Incidentally, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher contains within it the tomb of Jesus, which is rock cut, but the rest of the Church is not.
» Tuareg to early ancient Egyptian civilization, which would make the Tuareg native of Africa
neato. If only Rhodesia could have been linked to South African civilization, Rhodesians would have been native to Africa, and it would have been the evil type of genocide to drive them all out
“**“It makes no substantive difference either way, as being from Europe or not, Tuareg are not Sub-Saharan Africans, and are the founders of Timbuktu.”**
“There is a substantive difference because you are insisting the Tuareg are white when there is evidence to the contrary. Some studies have linked the Tuareg to early ancient Egyptian civilization, which would make the Tuareg native of Africa. The Berber language is also specifically linked to North Africa.”
By that
“At the very most, you can definitively state that the Tuareg are the founders of Timbuktu. Including the caveat that the Tuareg were white, and thus more adept at construction compared to blacks, is odious.”
I can say that the Tuareg founded it, are historically attested to have continued ruling it, were found to still be ruling it when the French arrived in 1893, would be ruling it today had the French not arrived with an army to slaughter them.
You express little recognition, and less interest, that everywhere in Africa there is architecture, even of the crudest type, there are whites; that where a city is founded by White desert tribesmen, it becomes the glittering jewel of a succession of black empires. That where a trading post is established by a band of Semitic traders, it becomes the jewel of Bantu civilisation for thousands of kilometers around. As for what you consider odious, this is not a place where the Left can win arguments with sneers. I consider deceit odious.
“Regardless, blacks built from scratch new buildings, ones that were considered to be elaborate and detailed for the area.”
Name such a building, noting that “built” is not the same as “paid for”.
*By that logic the entire debate is meaningless, as Europeans also have an African origin.
you know, this isn’t just some academic debate that after we finish you go back to clicking on Salon and Slate.
Theres this person I know, the child of a White single mom, who believed all this niggas wuz kangs crap and said she was a rastafarian for a long time after the guy who knocked her up left her while she was pregnant.
I’m not going to say more than that for fear of doxing, but people have been hurt by niggas wuz kangs over the 30+ years that scientists at universities have been teaching it.
If it was true, those university scientists would have been able to come up with better evidence.
This is going to end with them, and you, in a concentration camp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpnGRqA3D4g
>you know, this isn’t just some academic debate
Your argument, as far as I understand it, is that blacks are either not human or subhuman, and that they are not capable of building and maintaining civilization. The former assertion can be challenged on scientific grounds and the latter on historical grounds, and, in so far as scientific and historical disputes can be called academic, this is an academic debate.
>I’m not going to say more than that for fear of doxing, but people have been hurt by niggas wuz kangs over the 30+ years that scientists at universities have been teaching it.
My argument has little to do with those made by the proponents of the “niggaz wuz kangs” historiography. That said, however, I do think the Afrocentrist historians are quite right to complain about the hypocritical way in which the races are usually classified by whites. It is justifiable that they’d be upset, for example, at the fact that while whites, especially white racialists, when in general they refer to blacks, include blacks with little or substantial non-black racial admixture, all of a sudden want to insist on the non-black racial admixture of those blacks when they manage to do something civilized. Witness the contradiction involved in how the mixed race African Americans are on the one hand understood to be black in a more or less unqualified sense, whereas the mixed race racial background of West Indian blacks (who are usually relatively civilized and economically prosperous, both in their native countries or in the West) and Ethiopians are almost always insisted upon, and the latter are often denied by whites to be black altogether.
If it was true, those university scientists would have been able to come up with better evidence.
This is going to end with them, and you, in a concentration camp.
As has already been explained, the definition given for species is a red herring from a more mechanistic age where scientists were also rejecting the spooky action at a distance of classical field theory. More recent genetic evidence proves conclusively that niggers are not human.
As has already been explained, the fact that the best niggas wuz kangs can do is mention Zimbabwe, Timbuktu, and Lalibela, only the last of which was even arguably partially built by part-Blacks, after decades of university scientific research following the spontaneous student protests in the 60’s that demanded African studies programs to manufacture such evidence, proves that niggas wuz not kangs.
A short time ago, it was discovered that there was some huge battle in Germany a long time ago. Every riverbed in Europe is filled with Viking coins and Kek swastikas. That’s the kind of evidence that was expected to be found or manufactured and does not exist in Africa.
Please consider that those White women who were set up with niggers, and had one biracial kid to raise alone or maybe with a white dude, have White siblings, nieblings, and maybe other White children. They are the ones who had to deal with the fallout of your insane ideology and they are the ones who are going to kill you.
>As has already been explained, the definition given for species is a red herring from a more mechanistic age where scientists were also rejecting the spooky action at a distance of classical field theory.
What does “from a more mechanistic age” even mean? Species as a classificatory concept goes back to the ancient Greeks, and possibly even before then.
>More recent genetic evidence proves conclusively that niggers are not human.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You can’t say that there is no such thing as a human species while on the other hand maintaining that niggers are not human (unless, of course, you are willing to say that the other races are not human either, because there is no such thing, properly speaking, as a human species, because there is no such thing as a species). Quit bullshitting and get your arguments in order because you aren’t making sense.
>As has already been explained, the fact that the best niggas wuz kangs can do is mention Zimbabwe, Timbuktu, and Lalibela,
The point was to show that blacks are capable of independently creating and maintaining civilization. Black civilizations may not be very aesthetically satisfying, to say the least, but they are civilizations none the less, assuming that the term civilization is in this context to be understood in the standard, dictionary sense.
>only the last of which was even arguably partially built by part-Blacks
What is so intensely annoying about this claim is that there is literally zero evidence to back it up. It isn’t just that the claim has insufficient support, it is that it is so utterly and unimpeachably unfounded that no historian has ever propounded or defended it, period. That you keep making it, in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary, and that you continue to fail to make all of the common sense inferences that anyone with half a brain must inevitably make on the basis of that evidence, makes you sound like an SJW liberal, who despite all of the evidence which confirms the biological basis of race, continues to pretend to be skeptical that race exists, or that it has any meaningful sociological impact, etc..
>A short time ago, it was discovered that there was some huge battle in Germany a long time ago. Every riverbed in Europe is filled with Viking coins and Kek swastikas. That’s the kind of evidence that was expected to be found or manufactured and does not exist in Africa.
Evidence for what? There’s ample evidence that there were battles in Africa.
>Please consider that those White women who were set up with niggers, and had one biracial kid to raise alone or maybe with a white dude, have White siblings, nieblings, and maybe other White children. They are the ones who had to deal with the fallout of your insane ideology and they are the ones who are going to kill you.
All of the evidence suggests that blacks raised in white households experience no meaningful gains in IQ.
But none of these were independently created. The Great Zimbabwe was built by Jewish gold miners whose genes and religion remain in the vicinity, mingled with blacks. Timbuktu was built and maintained by Arabs who from time to time paid taxes to black Kings. Lalibela was built for a black King by Christian missionaries and refugees from Jerusalem, and the scale of that migration was such that the locals now tend to be chocolate colored, rather than completely black.
I was initially surprised with the anger with which the extended family of one such woman told me about the nigger’s attempt to contact the adult child after having disappeared before the child was born. But, of course, they were forced to live with a niglet, being constantly confused about the obvious differences that they’re not allowed to express, and thus forced into a bizarre pastiche of normal White family life and what niggers need, a niglet who they couldn’t be angry with for existing because it is after all their family, so they had to direct their rage elsewhere.
You are making yourself an easy target. Intellectual university scientists don’t usually mention Lalibela, but you’re pencil-necked enough to, and Lalibela feeds into the Rastafarian delusion.
This story will end with all the university STEM professors getting flogged for lending their credibility to the other professors.
Faggot, the word species comes from classical roots, but the definition that a species is the biggest population of X and Z where X and Z can have viable offspring with Y comes from that mechanistic age. This is at variance with ancient usage, paleontologial usage where that determination is impossible, and common habit, except as applied to our genus. The fact that you appear not to know this implies that you never took a biology class in college in between your grueling course work in we wuz kangs.
>Faggot, the word species comes from classical roots, but the definition that a species is the biggest population of X and Z where X and Z can have viable offspring with Y comes from that mechanistic age.
This definition of species which you claim is derived from the “mechanistic age” is nevertheless suspiciously similar, though not the same, to the way that Aristotle defines species.
Put another way, both the ‘mechanistic’ definition of species and the Aristotelian one subsume all of the races under the category of ‘human species’,
>This is at variance with ancient usage, paleontologial usage where that determination is impossible, and common habit, except as applied to our genus.
This sentence is pretty incoherent.
——
The point here is that even if you get rid of or radically alter the modern definition of species, you’re still going to inevitably have to give an account for the massive and undeniable anatomical, psychological and genetic similarities between the races.
The “modern definition of species” is not internally consistent. Lions and tigers can interbreed. Asian big cats are very similar to the equivalent African big cats, yet are classed as different species even though in many cases only an expert can tell the difference. Birds tend to get classified as a new species every time they learn a new song.
Nor, as Darwin argued, can it be internally consistent. A large race difference is the same kind of thing as a small species difference. It is like trying to distinguish between a large hill and a small mountain.
Darwin tells us that when he chose to classify blacks as a race, rather than a species, this was a choice, which he chose because he did not want to draw a line across the Sahara.
That we are the same species as blacks is not a fact about blacks, but a fact about scientific terminology.
(1) Ethiopians may or may not have built stone buildings with or without outside help
(2) Ethiopians are like Black or maybe mixed
(3) niggers in the US are like Black or maybe mixed
(4) therefore White women shouldn’t abort niglets when the father leaves before the baby is even born because mixed race people are Halle Sellassie and can maintain and extend Western civilization
(5) in fact, those White women are bringing forth on this continent a new race dedicated to the principles of justice for all
This is the argument that you are supporting and that I personally know two families that staked their futures on.
Read that sentence again and again until you understand it. No one knows which dinosaurs were capable of mating with which dinosaurs. No one thinks tigers and lions, buffalo and cows, coyote and wolves are the same species, despite the fact that reproduction is has been demonstrated. No one does experiments in cross-racial breeding in races other than the races of our genus to determine species boundaries. The species definition was chosen in a mechanistic age with much less ability to study ecology and ethology.
>(1) Ethiopians may or may not have built stone buildings with or without outside help
There’s no “may or may not”. They absolutely did.
>(4) therefore White women shouldn’t abort niglets when the father leaves before the baby is even born because mixed race people are Halle Sellassie and can maintain and extend Western civilization
I said nothing about blacks maintaining and extending Western civilization. At any rate, it isn’t even clear that whites can maintain and extend Western civilization, given that they are currently taking a leading role in destroying it.
>This is the argument that you are supporting and that I personally know two families that staked their futures on.
My argument had nothing to do with whites. I was dealing only with blacks.
>The species definition was chosen in a mechanistic age with much less ability to study ecology and ethology.
OK, but the point here is that standard, pre-mechanistic age definitions of species also recognized the existence of a human species.
Moreover, you’ve yet to give a reason for why the currently accepted definition of species, which you say is anachronistic because derived from the mechanistic age, is wrong. It isn’t as if there’s been any new findings to undermine it. You say that there have genetic findings, but curiously you refuse to cite any of them.
Then why do we only see such buildings where we see the footprints of Europeans?
“My argument has little to do with those made by the proponents of the “niggaz wuz kangs” historiography. That said, however, I do think the Afrocentrist historians are quite right to complain about the hypocritical way in which the races are usually classified by whites. It is justifiable that they’d be upset, for example, at the fact that while whites, especially white racialists, when in general they refer to blacks, include blacks with little or substantial non-black racial admixture, all of a sudden want to insist on the non-black racial admixture of those blacks when they manage to do something civilized. Witness the contradiction involved in how the mixed race African Americans are on the one hand understood to be black in a more or less unqualified sense, whereas the mixed race racial background of West Indian blacks (who are usually relatively civilized and economically prosperous, both in their native countries or in the West) and Ethiopians are almost always insisted upon, and the latter are often denied by whites to be black altogether.”
Again, not a WN. As far as I am concerned superior genes for intelligence, creativity and cooperation are just as good coming in any colour of box. You however are missing the point. WNs are merely pointing out that when black boxes happen to contain few of these genes, white boxes happen to contain many of them, then brown boxes that contain many of them probably got them because white-ish, rather than black-ish.
Faggot, definitions can’t be wrong by definition, unless internally inconsistent, but I’ve already explained why this one is stupid and never called it wrong, just stupid. Niggers are not human because the human races evolved outside of Africa after picking up some genes from the race of neanderthals.
Whether or not yon acknowledge it, this whole niggaz wuz kangs historiography was developed with the intention of convincing Whites to give stuff to niggaz and have and support mixed-race children. Since it is composed of lies layered on misrepresentations, the source of these ideas does matter.
>Faggot, definitions can’t be wrong by definition, unless internally inconsistent, but I’ve already explained why this one is stupid and never called it wrong, just stupid.
OK, so why is it stupid? In fact, how can it be stupid if you have nothing to compare it against, given that all of the definitions of species hitherto conceived have subsume all of the races as a part of the same species?
>Niggers are not human because the human races evolved outside of Africa after picking up some genes from the race of neanderthals.
So now you want to say that whites are human while blacks aren’t because whites are proportionately less genetically human. Wow.
>this whole niggaz wuz kangs historiography was developed with the intention of convincing Whites to give stuff to niggaz and have and support mixed-race children.
Blacks–that is to say, Western and Central Africans–created this ‘niggaz wuz kangs’ historiography because they felt bad about being the only race that is basically absent from the historical record. It has nothing to do with getting free stuff or interracial sex.
>WNs are merely pointing out that when black boxes happen to contain few of these genes, white boxes happen to contain many of them, then brown boxes that contain many of them probably got them because white-ish, rather than black-ish.
These observations are true in themselves and I never meant to contradict them.
“Blacks–that is to say, Western and Central Africans–created this ‘niggaz wuz kangs’ historiography…”
Are you sure of that? It looks to me like it was, like Kwanzaa, created by American liberal professors so that Stupid Studies had something to teach.
Did any “kangz” historiography exist before 1964?
“… because they felt bad about being the only race that is basically absent from the historical record.”
The historical record is not something that falls from the sky. To have a historical record, you have to have historians who record things. Kangz have unfortunately neglected to employ such.
— whites are proportionately less genetically human
How did you come to this breathtakingly stupid statement? Because H. Neanderthalensis differs from the “human species” according to the paleontological definition of species. According to the definition you’re defending, H. Neanderthalensis was a race, and thus equally “human”.
The fact that this kind of confusion is possible is the reason the 19th century definition of species should be dropped.
Thanks for proving my point for me, faggot. Now go back to buttsex with GRID niggers or whatever it is you do in your spare time.
>Are you sure of that? It looks to me like it was, like Kwanzaa, created by American liberal professors so that Stupid Studies had something to teach.
Obviously there was plenty of contribution from Jews. Given that Kwanzaa was created by an FBI asset, there may have even been contribution from people at the very top of the food chain.
None the less, what I meant is that what made “we wuz kangs” historiography possible is the acute inferiority complex that Western and Central Africans have in relation to other races.
>Did any “kangz” historiography exist before 1964?
Kind of. I’d say that W.E.B Du Bois was a kind of proto-“we wuz kangs” historian.
>To have a historical record, you have to have historians who record things. Kangz have unfortunately neglected to employ such.
That’s was the point that I was making. Western and Central Africans don’t have much of a recorded history, largely because they haven’t had historians to record their history.
» acute inferiority complex that Western and Central Africans have in relation to other races.
I don’t even think that’s true, it’s obviously Whites projecting how Whites would feel on them. Blacks are more practical minded, and only really care about whether or not you show them respect as individuals. They’re not interested in doing the White thing where Whites get in a room with other Whites, figure out what the taboos are, and start policing each other on observing them, or going on long rants explaining things that don’t really matter to their personal lives, and don’t appreciate it when you try to involve them in these kinds of things.
>I don’t even think that’s true, it’s obviously Whites projecting how Whites would feel on them.
“obviously”?
Whatever, you might be right, but to be clear, I’ve read some of the writings of these Afrocentrist historians in the past, and the impression that I got is that the reason why they are so willing to lie so shamelessly about the past is because they are eager to carve out a space for their own race in the historical record, because of the shame that they feel at the glaring absence of their race from the historical record.
>for Egyptian civilization was created by red headed conquerors, and redheads originated in Northern Europe.
The ancient Egyptians believed that they were from the East.
Yet how do you know that they had red hair?
Red headed and blond haired mummies.
Egypt was regularly invaded by white people who traveled by sea. They may well have sailed east along the Southern coast of the Mediterranean to invade Egypt, they may well have spent a lot of time on the Southern coast, but obviously white Mediterranean sea people are likely to be in whole or substantial part originally from the Northern coast of the Mediterranean.
Now if Egypt had been invaded overland from the East you would have a point.
>Bunkum.
>From the beginning of christianity, people with European and Jewish ancestry evangelized Ethiopia. Which makes them European and Semitic priests and monks.
Frumentius, a Levantine, was the one who first brought Christianity to Ethiopia in the fourth century, but in fact he only managed to convert the Aksumite court. Shortly after him, nine Levantine monks, who later would be canonized, arrived and established the first monestaries, converted pagan temples to churches, etc., and really brought Christianity to the masses.
Since then, however, the priests and monks have all been Ethiopian, although many (but by no means all) of the bishops were Copts, as all of the bishops were appointed by the Coptic Pope in Egypt. Just check the accounts of non-Ethiopian interactions with Ethiopians in the ancient and medieval periods. For instance, Ethiopians were always mistaken for south Indians because of their dark skin; there was a long established community of Ethiopian monks in Rome, going back to about the 12th Century, and they were always described as having dark skin; look, also, at medieval Ethiopian art, some of which was produced in Jerusalem, where Ethiopians are always depicted as having light or dark brown skin (basically the skin color of the Amhara and the Tigray) etc.
>Lalibela was built for a black King by Christian missionaries and refugees from Jerusalem, and the scale of that migration was such that the locals now tend to be chocolate colored, rather than completely black.
Caucasoids came, conquered and mixed with black Ethiopians a long, long time ago, with some geneticists saying that modern Ethiopians became as they are today in the pre-agricultural period. The most recent date that I’ve seen was 3,000 B.C.. There’s been additional intermixing with Caucasoids since then, but all of it has been rather trivial in comparison.
I’m going to stop addressing this issue given how exasperating it is for me to have to continuously respond to an assertion which has never been made by any historian at any point in time, and which has literally no supporting evidence to back it up, especially coming from someone who knows basically nothing about Ethiopia and its people, and who has never in his life even made an attempt to inform himself about these subjects.
So according to all respectable historians, Ethiopians regularly and routinely visited the shores of the Mediteranean, but Europeans almost never visited Ethiopia.
It does not matter what all respectable historians say, because Geography says that for the past several thousand years, everything in coastal Ethiopia has been subject to substantial direct European influence.
Ethiopia is where black Africa meets Europe by sea, just as Egypt is where black Africa meets Europe by sea and river boat.
“I can say that the Tuareg founded it, are historically attested to have continued ruling it, were found to still be ruling it when the French arrived in 1893, would be ruling it today had the French not arrived with an army to slaughter them.”
The Tuareg did not continuously rule it.
“You express little recognition, and less interest, that everywhere in Africa there is architecture, even of the crudest type, there are whites”
and blacks.
“that where a city is founded by White desert tribesmen, it becomes the glittering jewel of a succession of black empires.”
Especially when black empires uniquely expanded upon it of their own accord.
“That where a trading post is established by a band of Semitic traders, it becomes the jewel of Bantu civilisation for thousands of kilometers around.”
Again, especially when black empires uniquely expanded upon it of their own accord.
“As for what you consider odious, this is not a place where the Left can win arguments with sneers. I consider deceit odious.”
Look carefully in the mirror.
“Name such a building, noting that “built” is not the same as “paid for”.”
Mansu Musa built a palace, which was called madugu, meaning “the place of the sultan”.
According to https://learnodo-newtonic.com/mansa-musa-facts “He brought architects from Spain and Cairo”
So, the accomplishments of the empire of Mali merely prove that black rulers who get rich by selling natural resources to Europeans can then hire Europeans to build buildings and cities
You mean he hired white Europeans from Spain to supervise black workers and build a palace.
Irving, you did impress upon me that Ethiopians exist and have their own history and aren’t Blacks, Whites, or Arabs. I’ve never met an Ethiopian, they seem to be pretty insular people which is fine, and it’s not their fault that ‘we wuz kangs’ theorists decided to worship them in the latter half of the 20th century.
Corvinus:
» Mansu Musa built a palace, which was called madugu, meaning “the place of the sultan”.
The sultan had a palace built, which is proof that Blacks can build palaces without inspiration or assistance from Arabs. kek.
>So according to all respectable historians, Ethiopians regularly and routinely visited the shores of the Mediteranean, but Europeans almost never visited Ethiopia.
The first accounts that we have of white Europeans visiting Ethiopia are in the 14th Century or thereabouts, with the arrival of Catholic missionaries. There was always comparatively extensive contact with Armenians, Copts, Arabs and Indians, however.
>It does not matter what all respectable historians say, because Geography says that for the past several thousand years, everything in coastal Ethiopia has been subject to substantial direct European influence.
European or Caucasoid?
At any rate, Ethiopians are a Semitic people with a Semitic language and culture, and Europeans are not Semitic. European influence only began to be exerted on Ethiopia with the arrival of the Catholic missionaries in the 14th Century. After that, there was extensive contact in the 16th Century, when the Portuguese came and saved the Ethiopians from a Somali-Arab-Ottoman takeover.
>Then why do we only see such buildings where we see the footprints of Europeans?
So, are you saying that the Amhara and the Tigray are Europeans, because all of the buildings were built by them?
>Now if Egypt had been invaded overland from the East you would have a point
Ancient Egyptian lore has it that the Egyptian race came to Egypt from south Arabia, and that they came from south Arabia from further East.
In any case, I’m not sure that we should draw conclusions on the race of the ancient Egyptians based on the supposed hair color of the mummies.
If Ethiopians showed up in what is now Spain and Greece, people from Spain and Greece showed up in Ethiopia
If they are semites, they are not black. But for your argument, they need to be not only non European, but black.
They have a semitic language the way English have a Norman language – it reflects domination of the black majority by waves of refugees from Jerusalem. Which account makes them black, but still sinks your argument.
The Amhara plausibly claim descent from King Solomon – reflecting Jewish conquests in Black Africa during the first temple period. Hebrews are descended from Europeans who entered Egypt overland – for example the tribe of Dan founded Sparta and fought at Troy.
The Amhara are the descendents of a Jewish ruling minority ruling over a black majority, thus their ancient cities are no more black than Detroit or Harare. No one doubts that Jews can build cities.
The Amhara built under the direction and command of people descended from Europeans. That is their version of history until the black power people stole their history and blackened it.
All whites and whitish people in North Africa and the middle east reflect European and Caucasian invasions starting in the early Bronze age. All ancient Ethiopian works reflect European and European descended migrations and conquest.
>If Ethiopians showed up in what is now Spain and Greece, people from Spain and Greece showed up in Ethiopia
Why?
>If they are semites, they are not black. But for your argument, they need to be not only non European, but black.
>They have a semitic language the way English have a Norman language – it reflects domination of the black majority by waves of refugees from Jerusalem. Which account makes them black, but still sinks your argument.
First of all, what do you mean by “refugees from Jerusalem”? There were no refugees from Jerusalem. There were only conquerors from the Levant, and those conquerors came and conquered thousands of years ago, with some of the genetic evidence indicating that all of this occurred as far back as 10,000 years ago.
But, my argument, to reiterate, is this: though I don’t exactly consider Ethiopians black, and despite the fact that Ethiopians are actually quite racist against blacks and do not consider themselves black, I know that whites, and especially white racialists, consider Ethiopians black, and so, in debates such as we’re having now, I think it is appropriate that the example of Ethiopians is cited by way of proving that blacks are capable of independently creating and maintaining civilization. I don’t see how you’ve sunk my argument.
>The Amhara plausibly claim descent from King Solomon – reflecting Jewish conquests in Black Africa during the first temple period.
>Hebrews are descended from Europeans who entered Egypt overland – for example the tribe of Dan founded Sparta and fought at Troy.
The Hebrews were not from Europe. They were from Ur (Mesopotamia), as Abraham was from Ur. Even if the Spartans were of the tribe of Dan, which is doubtful, that wouldn’t prove that the Hebrews were European.
>The Amhara are the descendents of a Jewish ruling minority ruling over a black majority, thus their ancient cities are no more black than Detroit or Harare. No one doubts that Jews can build cities.
I can already tell that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The Amhara and the Tigray are essentially the same people, the difference between them is linguistic and not ethnic.
Also, Harar was not built by either the Amhara or the Tigray. Harar was a part of the Adal Sultanate, which was basically a trading outpost populated and run by Arabs and Somalis, but mostly Somalis. Over time, the population there has become extremely mixed, and are for the most part ethnically distinct from other Horner ethnicities.
>The Amhara built under the direction and command of people descended from Europeans. That is their version of history until the black power people stole their history and blackened it.
That is not “their version of history”. You know nothing about their history.
The history of the tribe of Dan shows substantial bronze age movement of peoples between the Northern, Southern, and Eastern shores of the Mediterranean.
The existence of red hair on the southern shore of the Mediterranean indicates late neolithic and early bronze age invasion southwards.
But, supposing that Mesopotamians evolved in place, no one doubts Jews can build cities. And no one doubts that Jews, and many others, invaded and conquered parts of Africa thousands of years ago. The question at issue is whether blacks can build cities.
And, in the unlikely event that Mesopotamians evolved in place, and in the unlikely event that Ethiopians built cities without outside assistance, the city builders in question reasonably believed themselves the descendents of King Solomon, identifying with the conquerors not with the conquered, which likely was true enough in the paternal lineage. Hence not evidence that regular subsaharan blacks can build cities.
If we amend the claim from “No cities or substantial buildings in any part of Africa until the European set foot”
to “No cities in or substantial buildings in any part of Africa until Jews, Arabs, or Europeans set foot in that part” would you be happy?
» There were no refugees from Jerusalem.
this is ridiculous.
And King Lalibela wanted a new Jerusalem to look like the old Jerusalem; you expect us to believe he didn’t accept refugees and knew how to build the new Jerusalem without having anyone who knew what the old Jerusalem looked like.
» But, my argument, to reiterate, is this: though I don’t exactly consider Ethiopians black, and despite the fact that Ethiopians are actually quite racist against blacks and do not consider themselves black, I know that whites, and especially white racialists, consider Ethiopians black,
Most White racialists don’t know anything about Ethiopians and casually assume, as Kangs theorists assert, that Ethiopians are Black. Ethiopia is a small, irrelevant country, in the desert, with sandstone bedrock that can be carved and has at some point in the past thousands of years, by unknown hands, possibly Ethiopian hands, possibly without too much outside assistance. No one will ever know for sure.
» and so, in debates such as we’re having now, I think it is appropriate that the example of Ethiopians is cited by way of proving that blacks are capable of independently creating and maintaining civilization.
Kangs theorists have had since the ’60s to prove that niggaz wuz kangs. Lalibela isn’t even usually mentioned by Kangs theorists because there are enough problems with assigning it to Blacks that up until now assigning Zimbabwe and Timbuktu was a better gambit. Now that we know that Timbuktu was built by Tuaregs who are visually indistinguishable from Whites and Zimbabwe was built by Jews, you’re stuck with Lalibela.
This debate is no longer theoretical. Several US cities, which had the world’s best infrastructure, are occupied by dindus that are incapable of maintaining them, while Lagos has ten million niggers and no sewer system. I will laugh when it falls to Ebola. Furthermore, the dindu children of those White women who expected Halle Sellassie are at best focused entirely on their service sector careers and entirely apolitical because they know in their bones what a horrible mistake they were, and at worst, you hear about criminal halfcaste children of single White mothers all the time.
Since you seem to know something about Ethiopia, stick to talking about Ethiopia. Kangs theory was developed by Jews and mulattoes for reasons that if you squint at enough you can say was because those mulattoes were sad that they didn’t have any history on their father’s side.
“Kangs theory was developed by Jews and mulattoes for reasons that if you squint at enough you can say was because those mulattoes were sad that they didn’t have any history on their father’s side.”
I will speculate, without looking, that Kwanzaa/Kangz was developed in order to create a synthetic black identity.
We’re ironically now witnessing the creation of the corresponding synthetic white identity.
Both of there are American-centric.
>>Europeans
Ambiguous. This could refer to a population genetically similar to today’s Europeans, or it could refer to people who were originally from Europe. This is not the same thing because Corded Ware.
Each of the seven days of Kwanzaa is dedicated to one of the following principles, as follows:[8]
Umoja (Unity): To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.
Kujichagulia (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility): To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers’ and sisters’ problems our problems and to solve them together.
Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics): To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.
Nia (Purpose): To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.
Kuumba (Creativity): To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
Imani (Faith): To believe with all our hearts in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.
This is Naziism translated into Swahili.
>in the unlikely event that Ethiopians built cities without outside assistance
Not unlikely but absolutely undeniable
>the city builders in question reasonably believed themselves the descendents of King Solomon, identifying with the conquerors not with the conquered, which likely was true enough in the paternal lineage. Hence not evidence that regular subsaharan blacks can build cities.
So is the argument now that Ethiopians are not subsaharan blacks?
>If we amend the claim from “No cities or substantial buildings in any part of Africa until the European set foot”
>to “No cities in or substantial buildings in any part of Africa until Jews, Arabs, or Europeans set foot in that part” would you be happy?
No.
My entire point has been to argue against the idea that blacks, because they are subhuman or not human, are not capable of building and maintaining civilization. I meant to counter this idea with the example of the Ethiopians. To repeat, I don’t consider Ethiopians black, largely because I understand black as being synonymous with negroid, and negroid–at least in the way it is commonly used–essentially means bantu, and Ethiopians, according to geneticists, have genetically zero percent bantu racial ancestry.
Nevertheless, it is known that the non-Caucasoid part of the racial ancestry of the Ethiopians is derived from these guys:
https://www.google.com/search?q=omo+people&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilxNqluuLMAhVizoMKHTn9AJQQ_AUIBigB
Again, technically speaking, these are not blacks, but I know that you consider them to be black, and in actual fact, they probably have less civilizational ability than negroids. So, although Ethiopians are typically anywhere from 50 to 65 percent Caucasoid, the very fact that the rest is derived from the people in the pictures that I’ve linked to above means that the relative advantage that Ethiopians may have over negroids due to their Caucasoid ancestry is largely, though maybe not entirely, balanced out.
Hence, I think that the example of the Ethiopians proves that blacks are capable of creating civilization, of building cities, etc..
Take a look at the emperors. They are about three quarters Jewish, one quarter negro. Big Jewish noses, European facial hair. Ethiopians have not mixed to a uniform dark brown.
Which implies a decent number of Jewish advisers hanging around the palace – just as in the days of King Solomon.
Geography:
The emperor of Mali could and did hire someone from Spain to build his palace. It is a lot less distance from Ethiopia to Jerusalem.
It is just not very far to Jerusalem. There is no logistic obstacle to hiring some Jews, and has not been for several thousand years, no reason why they should refrain from hiring Jewish experts when they want to build something.
The Ethiopian emperors look to be about three quarter Jewish, one quarter black. Which is black by the one drop rule, but not an indication that 100% blacks can operate or maintain civilization
>Take a look at the emperors. They are about three quarters Jewish, one quarter negro. Big Jewish noses, European facial hair.
I’m sure that if you did a genetic test, you’d discover that the Ethiopian ruling elite, whether in the past or today, is Caucasoid than the average Ethiopian.
Nevertheless, take a look at the photos of the emperors for whom we have photographs — they don’t look very different, or much more lighter skinned, than the average Ethiopian. Here’s a picture of Haile Selassie’s son, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Emperors_of_Ethiopia#/media/File:Crown_Prince_Asfaw_Wossen.jpg
>Ethiopians have not mixed to a uniform dark brown.
Every population with a mixed racial ancestry, whether they be Ethiopians, or Indian, or Hispanics, or whatever, is going to have lots of individual variation
>Which implies a decent number of Jewish advisers hanging around the palace – just as in the days of King Solomon.
No it doesn’t
>It is just not very far to Jerusalem. There is no logistic obstacle to hiring some Jews,
Doesn’t mean that it happened
>and has not been for several thousand years, no reason why they should refrain from hiring Jewish experts when they want to build something.
I didn’t say they refrained. for what it is worth, there’s evidence that there were Indian and Persian architects hanging around the court in the 1600s or so, and those architects assisted in the building of the castles of Gondar and, despite the fact that they were Muslims, a few churches.
The rock-cut churches, though, are completely indigenous. There’s no example of that kind of architecture anywhere in the world, and their existence in Ethiopia goes back to at least the year 600. The only reason to think that foreigners came and built them, given the fact that there is absolutely no supporting evidence for this claim whatsoever, is if one were to start from the premise that blacks are subhuman, etc., and that Ethiopians are black, and therefore they couldn’t have built them, which of course I cannot accept.
>The Ethiopian emperors look to be about three quarter Jewish, one quarter black.
No they don’t, see above.
Well, it does mean it happened, because obviously Jewish experts are better than Ethiopian experts.
Cappadocian rock cut churches.
Ethiopian rock cut churches are only interesting because supposedly done by blacks. Cappadocian rock cut churches are interesting because done well.
Cappadocians are described in the New Testament as “God fearing Jews”, so chances are that these churches were built for the Ethiopian King by a Cappadocian advisor.
Jews and Ethiopians are geographically close enough that they cannot help influencing each other, they obviously have influenced each other – the Ethiopians speak the language of their Jewish conquerors – and obviously influence is more likely to flow from Cappadocia to Ethiopia than from Ethiopia to Cappadocia. Ethiopians speak a Jewish descended language. Jews do not speak an African descended language.
>Well, it does mean it happened, because obviously Jewish experts are better than Ethiopian experts.
Jewish experts were and are obviously better than Ethiopian experts, but this doesn’t mean that Jewish expertise was needed to build what the Ethiopians have built.
>Cappadocian rock cut churches.
These are cave churches, and are therefore different from the rock cut churches in Ethiopia.
>Ethiopian rock cut churches are only interesting because supposedly done by blacks.
Not supposedly, undeniably.
>Cappadocian rock cut churches are interesting because done well.
They are done well, but they aren’t relevant here.
>Jews and Ethiopians are geographically close enough
What does “geographically close” mean in this context? Remember, there were no planes or cars in the ancient and medieval world.
That Ethiopians built this stuff is a speculation. That Jewish contractors built this stuff is also a speculation.
What is an undeniable fact is that nowhere in Africa were cities or non trivial buildings built until after Europeans, Arabs, or Jews set foot in that part of Africa.
You are making shit up off the top of your head.
Halle Sellassie is not Black. Ethiopians are not Black. Ethiopia is a desert country with surface standstone which at some point was carved by unknown hands in a manner similar to the rock cut cities in the Levant. Perhaps that sandstone was carved by Ethiopians without too much inspiration from elsewhere. It was certainly not carved by Blacks.
Quit lying.
>That Ethiopians built this stuff is a speculation.
That the Romans built the Colosseum is speculation. That the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids is speculation. That the ancient Persians built Persepolis is speculation. Etc.
>That Jewish contractors built this stuff is also a speculation.
There’s no more evidence for this assertion than there is for the one made by Afrocentrist historians who claim that blacks built the pyramids.
>What is an undeniable fact is that nowhere in Africa were cities or non trivial buildings built until after Europeans, Arabs, or Jews set foot in that part of Africa.
This statement doesn’t prove much in so far as the one drop rule is true.
>Halle Sellassie is not Black. Ethiopians are not Black.
Perhaps
There was no one else around and nearby who were markedly more competent at building than Romans. There were lots of people around and nearby that were markedly more competent at building than Ethiopians. Plus the Romans were sufficiently literate to record themselves building the coliseum. The Ethiopians were not sufficiently literate to record themselves building anything.
And regardless of whether or not the rock cut churches were built by Ethiopians, the fact remains that nothing significant was built in any part of Africa until after Jew, Arab, or European set foot in that part.
— That the Romans built the Colosseum is speculation. That the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids is speculation.
We know exactly who ordered these constructions, when, and who built them. Idiot.
Halle Sellassie is not Black. If I didn’t know he was Ethiopian, I would assume Arab.
>You are making shit up off the top of your head.
Do you not make a distinction between a cave and a building? The Cappadocian churches are caves. The churches of Lalibela are buildings.
>There was no one else around and nearby who were markedly more competent at building than Romans.
If the Jews were “geographically close” to the Ethiopians, than the Persians were geographically close to the Romans, and, of course, the Persians have always been extraordinary builders, second to none.
>There were lots of people around and nearby that were markedly more competent at building than Ethiopians.
This is completely irrelevant. My argument isn’t that there aren’t other groups that are more competent builders than Ethiopians, it is that Ethiopians are competent enough builders.
>Plus the Romans were sufficiently literate to record themselves building the coliseum. The Ethiopians were not sufficiently literate to record themselves building anything.
There’s a substantial literature written in Ge’ez by the Ethiopians dating from the ancient and medieval periods, so you’re wrong again.
>And regardless of whether or not the rock cut churches were built by Ethiopians, the fact remains that nothing significant was built in any part of Africa until after Jew, Arab, or European set foot in that part.
Like I said before, if the one drop rule is true, than this statement is irrelevant. So what if the Jews may have come to Ethiopia? That wouldn’t change the fact that Ethiopians are still black, according to the one drop rule.
Here is a photo of the ruins of a building type church carved out of solid rock in Cappadocia
Not a cave because the outside rock has been carved away to provide light, as in Ethiopia, so the building has walls, rather than vast amounts of rock.
Obviously the Ethiopians imported a Cappadocian architect.
The one drop of black rule is not like the one drop of sewage rule. There are plenty of competent engineers with some black blood. There are no great scientists or great mathematicians with some black blood.
To disprove the one drop rule, you need to produce Ethiopians, or Portuguese, doing something as great as pure whites, as great as Portuguese did before they mixed with a small number of blacks.
That mixed blood blacks, such as Ethiopians, can do something better than pure blacks, but still second rate compared to their white neighbors, does not prove what you want to prove.
Ashkenazim have some black blood, inasmuch as they are female Slav and male Semite, which Semite is a mixture of White, Black/African, and Asian.
Jim…
“You are making shit up off the top of your head.”
No, that’s YOUR exclusive domain.
“The Ethiopian emperors look to be about three quarter Jewish, one quarter black.”
LOOK to be. Now PROVE it.
“Which implies a decent number of Jewish advisers hanging around the palace – just as in the days of King Solomon.”
IMPLIES is not the same as “THIS PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT”.
“…to “No cities in or substantial buildings in any part of Africa until Jews, Arabs, or Europeans set foot in that part” would you be happy?”
No, because you would still be lying. At least you admit that Oliver Cromwell was dead wrong with his initial statement.
“You mean he hired white Europeans from Spain to supervise black workers and build a palace.”
Prove this statement. Do you have source material? That’s the standard you set yourself. Are you going to follow your own advice?
I gave the link. Follow it.
>Ethiopians are competent enough builders
People have trouble believing that, knowing that the average IQ in Ethiopia is 63 – which makes the average Ethiopian clinically retarded. That said, Ethiopians are better behaved than West Africans, for whatever reason.
If blacks can only create stuff when non-black genes are involved, can’t create stuff on their own, then they aren’t any more human than human-shaped extra-terrestrials. Because it’s not their black genes which account for the (very relative) civilizational competence, it’s their non-black genes.
Similarly, the only Jews who make decent art have substantial White genetic admixture. They’re still Jewish, but the talent stems from the non-Jewish genes. Which is why the statement “Jews can’t do art” isn’t falsified by their existence.
If non-Jewish genes are required for a Jew to be a decent artist, then Jews can’t do art. And if non-black genes are required for a black to be able to build shit, then blacks can’t build shit. Q.E.D
>knowing that the average IQ in Ethiopia is 63 – which makes the average Ethiopian clinically retarded.
Know also that the average Ethiopian isn’t actually Ethiopian. Only about half the country are actually Ethiopians.
As well, I don’t think we actually have any solid evidence for average IQs in Ethiopia.
>Not a cave because the outside rock has been carved away to provide light, as in Ethiopia, so the building has walls, rather than vast amounts of rock.
This church is a cave. You are the only one saying that it isn’t.
>Know also that the average Ethiopian isn’t actually Ethiopian. Only about half the country are actually Ethiopians.
If that is the case, and the average IQ of actual Ethiopians is really closer to 70 or 75, then this other “half the country” has to be catastrophically dumb – drooling, incontinent, cannibalistic, oogah-boogah-boogah dumb. If it’s not really closer to 70 or 75, then my point fully applies.
>As well, I don’t think we actually have any solid evidence for average IQs in Ethiopia.
And why is that?
>Praytell, what makes you a superior white, a person who, compared to other whites, realizes the “truth”. Because you certainly come across as a know-it-all.
What Cuckvinus really intended to convey when asking this question is that eaters of Pepe (frog) and eaters of mother-in-law are equal, because IQ tests are racist. Furthermore, kangz.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rock+cut+city&tbm=isch
Most of these are not Lalibela, and are cultures that had contact with Ethiopia over the years that Ethiopia has had some rock-cut structures.
I’m guessing Irving interprets this as conclusive evidence that Bantus went from Ethiopia elsewhere and taught others to do this kind of thing.
And then defends it by saying that, since a nazi would not want to have sex with someone with one drop of negroid blood, it implies that anyone with one drop of negroid blood is considered to be a full blooded negroid, and thus any accomplishments by anyone with one drop of negroid blood are accomplishments of the negroid race, falsifying the claim that negroids are incapable of really doing much of anything.
Where accomplishments include being a minor player in literature or music, or maybe inventing some uses for peanut butter.
This is tiresome.
>If that is the case, and the average IQ of actual Ethiopians is really closer to 70 or 75, then this other “half the country” has to be catastrophically dumb
The population groups of Ethiopia that haven’t got anything to do with Ethiopian identity as historically understood are made up of Nilotic farmers, Negroes, nomadic Arabs, and other disparate groups. And among those who are actually Ethiopia, a huge chunk are Somalis and Oromo (who are basically semi-assimilated Somalis–Haile Selassie, for instance, was half-Oromo).
The point here is that there’s lots of racial/ethnic diversity in Ethiopia, such that an average national IQ of that country wouldn’t really tell us that much.
>As well, I don’t think we actually have any solid evidence for average IQs in Ethiopia.
>And why is that?
I’m sure that the average IQ in Ethiopia, whatever it is, is not high.
But, the studies that I have seen do not usually note the ethnicity of the Ethiopians being studied, which is a major problem. Also, quite a few of them seem to have been conducted in orphanages, and the problem with this is self-evident. This is not to mention the fact that Ethiopia has some of the highest rates of malnutrition in the world.
“This church is a cave.”
Oh for God’s sake. Google image search “Cappadocian rock cut churches”. First hit:
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-one-of-the-most-beautiful-rock-cut-churches-a-real-trademark-of-cappadocia-33970164.html
>To disprove the one drop rule, you need to produce Ethiopians, or Portuguese, doing something as great as pure whites, as great as Portuguese did before they mixed with a small number of blacks.
I’m not trying to disprove the one drop rule, or that Ethiopians are “as great as pure whites”, I’m trying to prove, using the example of the Ethiopians, that blacks are capable of producing and maintaining civilization.
>That mixed blood blacks, such as Ethiopians, can do something better than pure blacks, but still second rate compared to their white neighbors, does not prove what you want to prove.
I don’t think there’s any reason to say that Ethiopians are inferior to, or have achieved less than, Arabs (in this case, I mean real Arabs, Arabs from the Arabian peninsular, from modern Saudi Arabia and Yemen, not the crypto-Arabs of the Levant, North Africa, Iraq and much of the Persian Gulf). Ethiopians have a longer history and, at least in my view, have achieved much more, culturally and otherwise, than have the Arabs.
Also, despite Ethiopia’s poverty, they’ve successfully defeated the Arabs, Ottomans and Italians in war in the modern period. These are no small achievements, and in fact many white or in any case non-black groups haven’t a military history anywhere near as prestigious as the Ethiopians. And, of course, there’s no more definitive a place for a people to prove their worth than on the battlefield.
Assuming that Ethiopians are maintaining their civilization without the assistance of numerous white consultants and contractors, Ethiopians are part black and part Jewish, thus by the poster girl rule, your example disproves what you are trying to prove.
(Poster girl rule: If the poster girl for X is invalid, X has never happened in all the world and all of history, because if X actually happened sometimes, they would have a better poster girl.)
By the way, the Portuguese miscegenated with blacks, berbers and arabs long before the 16th Century, when they were in their prime as a people.
>I’m trying to prove, using the example of the Ethiopians, that blacks are capable of producing and maintaining civilization.
Talmudic. If the only blacks who can do that are black according to the “one drop rule”, aren’t actually purely black, then that proves the exact opposite.
If the only X that can do Y isn’t entirely X — is a little Z — while pure X can’t do Y, then logically… X can’t really do Y.
Jim…
See, this is why you are disingenuous. Mansa Musa brought in a Muslim architect from Andalusia, which is a region of Spain yet to have been under Christian monarchial control.
http://ibnbattuta.berkeley.edu/12westafrica.html
“The main palace was built by a Muslim architect from Andalusia (Muslim Spain) and was covered with plaster painted with colorful patterns, a “most elegant” building. Surrounding the palaces and mosques were the residences of the citizens: mud-walled houses roofed with domes of timber and reed.”
Jack…
“What Cuckvinus really intended to convey when asking this question is that eaters of Pepe (frog) and eaters of mother-in-law are equal, because IQ tests are racist. Furthermore, kangz.”
I will admit, you are learning well from Jim how to fling shit at a wall.
“If the only X that can do Y isn’t entirely X — is a little Z — while pure X can’t do Y, then logically… X can’t really do Y.”
On the surface, it makes sense, but there is a shit ton of assumptions on your part here.
WHO determines this “while pure X can’t do Y”, for example?
“If blacks can only create stuff when non-black genes are involved, can’t create stuff on their own…”
ASSUMING blacks can’t create things on their own.
Sergio Domian, an Italian scholar of art and architecture, wrote of Mansa Musa: “Thus was laid the foundation of an urban civilization. At the height of its power, Mali had at least 400 cities, and the interior of the Niger Delta was very densely populated.”
I know, I know, Sergio is totally anti-white when made that statement. /sarcasm
“Similarly, the only Jews who make decent art have substantial White genetic admixture…”
Define “decent art”. Moreover, what makes YOU the genetic expert here in this particular case?
Using your own logic, I could state your reasoning skills are substandard unless you have substantial English blood from royalty,
“That said, Ethiopians are better behaved than West Africans, for whatever reason.”
What standards are you employing here? What makes YOU the authority regarding behavioral differences between Ethiopians and West Africans?
No one ever suggested that Muslims cannot build cities. Still a case of importing civilization from Europe to Africa.
The fact is that no city or substantial building was ever built in any part of Africa until after Jew, Arab, or European set foot in that part.
Proving that blacks cannot create things on their own.
You want more evidence that blacks cannot create things on their own? Detroit. Haiti.
Which brings us to the one drop standard. Portuguese became contaminated with black blood, just a tiny bit. Obviously they can still create things on their own, Portugal is not Detroit, but ever since, their things have been second rate.
“Dark brown people can build crude, simple, primitive cities, with a bit of light brown supervision and advice.”
Corrected for accuracy –> Non-whites, including black, dark brown, and light brown, are able to build civilizations, including cities.
“No one ever suggested that Muslims cannot build cities. Still a case of importing civilization from Europe to Africa.”
Mansa Musa had the vision. He hired people to carry it out.
“The fact is that no city or substantial building was ever built in any part of Africa until after Jew, Arab, or European set foot in that part.”
Corrected for accuracy –> Cities and substantial buildings were constructed throughout Africa by Africans, specifically non-whites.
Interestingly,
https://books.google.bg/books?id=luE_vLXSkRcC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=chimpanzee+menarche&source=bl&ots=Cn-WGIhZ1L&sig=ILgGOf9KllPwjanEar8Cuw–RcA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=chimpanzee%20menarche&f=false
says that
“In the laboratory, chimpanzee females reach menarche around 8.5 years and first give birth at age 10-11, whereas wild chimpanzees reach menarche at 11-13 and first birth is at 13-15 years.”
>No
Your stern moralizing finger-wags aren’t going to impress anyone around. The really funny part is that to anyone they actually would impress, you’re already as bad as Hitler:
>of course some humans may have more chimp-like qualities than others
I can’t even. Wow, just wow. Way to dehumanize an entire race, you shitlord douchecanoe.
Seriously though, you’d profit from re-reading Jim on “no enemies to the left, no friends to the right.” All your ideological friends see you as an enemy, and they will treat you as an enemy, and no amount of Nazi-bashing is going to change that.
>Your stern moralizing finger-wags aren’t going to impress anyone around.
I’m not moralizing, and I’m not trying to impress anyone.
>Seriously though, you’d profit from re-reading Jim on “no enemies to the left, no friends to the right.” All your ideological friends see you as an enemy, and they will treat you as an enemy, and no amount of Nazi-bashing is going to change that.
I’m not interested in making friends or appeasing my enemies. I’m solely interested in getting at the truth of things. As far as Nazi-bashing goes, I have no time for it.
>I’m not moralizing, and I’m not trying to impress anyone.
>I’m not interested in making friends or appeasing my enemies. I’m solely interested in getting at the truth of things. As far as Nazi-bashing goes, I have no time for it.
No
Did you disagree with something that I wrote?
I’ve written a post on leptin and its role in the advanced sexual maturity of black female adolescents.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/04/02/the-role-of-leptin-and-sexual-maturity-in-black-girls/
Basically, when fat mass increases so does leptin. When leptin levels increase, puberty happens earlier. Both mice and humans who were deficient in leptin failed to reach puberty, unless leptin was administered.
This is due to evolutionary factors, as well as environmental of course. Mainly the demonization of fat for the past 60 years. Since excess carbohydrate consumption makes one hungry sooner, they eat more and put on more weight. Since leptin is correlated with fst levels in the body, and for puberty to happen leptin levels need to be at the right level, we can see the role that leptin plays in early puberty.
An evolutionary reason is children die earlier in Africa, so to compensate, puberty happened earlier to have more children. This is seen in 2 egg twinning rates of blacks.
One could also make a strong argument for sorting by degree of academic achievement, but that would exclude sorting by age or sexual maturity. We see this problem with child prodigies; they are bored to death in a class with their own age group, but totally at sea in the socio-sexual milieu of older kids.
Where I live, public schools cater to “special needs” children. All the smart kids are in private schools or home-schooled, which means that tomorrow’s decision-makers are not getting their required dose of Cathedral propaganda.
Such was the fate of the Soviet Union — as the Politburo died off, they couldn’t find younger men dumb enough to parrot communist bunkum yet smart enough to run a country.
Sort by puberty stage and ability.
At the start of puberty test everyone. Smartest and most diligent third goes off to special school, where everyone is at the same stage of puberty, regardless of chronological age, and everyone is smart, regardless of chronological age.
That is also part of my program of radical degree deflation, where we sort people without making them spend years at college and without making them pay large amounts of money.
>Such was the fate of the Soviet Union — as the Politburo died off, they couldn’t find younger men dumb enough to parrot communist bunkum yet smart enough to run a country.
That’s a very interesting theory! Destroying the Cathedral through homeschooling.
private schools are even worse for agitprop and any liberal parent homeschooling is going to pass it on.Now if laws were changed to decouple education from govt and private schools went viral that would be a game changer but they are careful that doesnt happen
If you home-school your one precious late-life IVF baby with liberal values, that’s your loss, not mine. Hillary Clinton just had her second grandchild; Ann Romney already has twenty-two.
Most liberal births are fatherless welfare babies who will become dog food within days of the collapse. Heck, they’re massacring each other already while shouting that their lives matter.
I spent middle school in a 75% black school in a 90% black country. Your observations fit my experiences. The male/female stuff also seems to have merit, though less clear since my experience is that older females are still dumber than many younger males, maturity/puberty/development notwithstanding.