Africans are the most docile race

[dreamcake2mo]

Every race has been subject to slavery at some point but no race has been subect to constant slavery as much as the black african race.

Typically, if someone wants to regulate you as a slave, you are typically too pleasant to be around.

Good things in this world are emperically coveted, sold, and used as a commodity.

Now lets observe some cold truths about history and genetics.

When it comes to wars, who has dominated?

Black americans have European dna for the most part which is why they are the pretty violent blacks.

Likewise, arab-biracial blacks from north africa are the most violent blacks, and are typically used for proxy group formation to buffer the african race.

Pure blooddd Africans in Africa are way more doctile as a group, as they would rather beg and submit to magical thinking instead of die or go to war for oppression.

Native Nigerian people for example, even despite their trash leaders have still not responded with assassinations, explosions etc.

Do you think this would be possible to happen in europe? Or Arabia?

The biggest sin of the african race is kindness. Its being docile, and it is a cosmic irony.

The likely answer of african societal disfunction could very well just be proxy groups using a incredible minority to cause disfunction so the solutions can present themselves in the country the proxy came for (comes with long term contracts for minerals etc)

This information will soon be important

 

[Centurion_Hunter]

Every race has been subject to slavery at some point but no race has been subect to constant slavery as much as the black african race.

Typically, if someone wants to regulate you as a slave, you are typically too pleasant to be around.

Good things in this world are emperically coveted, sold, and used as a commodity.

Now lets observe some cold truths about history and genetics.

When it comes to wars, who has dominated?

Black americans have European dna for the most part which is why they are the pretty violent blacks.

Likewise, arab-biracial blacks from north africa are the most violent blacks, and are typically used for proxy group formation to buffer the african race.

Pure blooddd Africans in Africa are way more doctile as a group, as they would rather beg and submit to magical thinking instead of die or go to war for oppression.

Native Nigerian people for example, even despite their trash leaders have still not responded with assassinations, explosions etc.

Do you think this would be possible to happen in europe? Or Arabia?

The biggest sin of the african race is kindness. Its being docile, and it is a cosmic irony.

The likely answer of african societal disfunction could very well just be proxy groups using a incredible minority to cause disfunction so the solutions can present themselves in the country the proxy came for (comes with long term contracts for minerals etc)

This information will soon be important

Centrla Asian blacks got literally enslaved by other blacks such as Ethiopians
Blacks in USA have around 40% european paternal dna for a reason and only 5% matrineal euro dna

 

[Centurion_Hunter]

Every race has been subject to slavery at some point but no race has been subect to constant slavery as much as the black african race.

Typically, if someone wants to regulate you as a slave, you are typically too pleasant to be around.

Good things in this world are emperically coveted, sold, and used as a commodity.

Now lets observe some cold truths about history and genetics.

When it comes to wars, who has dominated?

Black americans have European dna for the most part which is why they are the pretty violent blacks.

Likewise, arab-biracial blacks from north africa are the most violent blacks, and are typically used for proxy group formation to buffer the african race.

Pure blooddd Africans in Africa are way more doctile as a group, as they would rather beg and submit to magical thinking instead of die or go to war for oppression.

Native Nigerian people for example, even despite their trash leaders have still not responded with assassinations, explosions etc.

Do you think this would be possible to happen in europe? Or Arabia?

The biggest sin of the african race is kindness. Its being docile, and it is a cosmic irony.

The likely answer of african societal disfunction could very well just be proxy groups using a incredible minority to cause disfunction so the solutions can present themselves in the country the proxy came for (comes with long term contracts for minerals etc)

This information will soon be important

Africans in europe being violent id prob due to them literally having a vitamin d defficiency outside of them being doomed to inceldom by their height

 

[dreamcake2mo]

Centrla Asian blacks got literally enslaved by other blacks such as Ethiopians
Blacks in USA have around 40% european paternal dna for a reason and only 5% matrineal euro dna

Ethiopians are arab biracial blacks. Most north black groups are arab-eurasian mixed

The real black africans are e1b1 typically. They look quite different.

Some tribes are more violent than others because they are less homogenous

Hitler approved tbh. Ive never met a violent Pure blood african.

Somalis for example are barely black africans. Arab raceplay babies. Hair type is key also.

 

[_MVP_]

they are too low iq to do anything

 

[dreamcake2mo]

Africans in europe being violent id prob due to them literally having a vitamin d defficiency outside of them being doomed to inceldom by their height

I think most European africans that are violent are muslim africans

Muslim africans are almost always arab mixed or old eurasian black. Because most of the north has been conquered.

These are the same lineage of people who u see eat cow piss. Tend to be very dark skinned with 4b hair type or paternal differences from e1b1

 

[dreamcake2mo]

they are too low iq to do anything

I think its a matter of self awareness.

They seem pretty intelligent iq wise, but docile

E1b1 Africans have too high of a self awareness to commit acts of violence.

This is terrible for the world we live in, and yea could be seen as a low iq play.

In a shark eats shark world, one should play by the rules.

 

[Centurion_Hunter]

Ethiopians are arab biracial blacks. Most north black groups are arab-eurasian mixed

The real black africans are e1b1 typically. They look quite different.

Some tribes are more violent than others because they are less homogenous

Hitler approved tbh. Ive never met a violent Pure blood african.

Somalis for example are barely black africans. Arab raceplay babies. Hair type is key also.

True

 

[aristocraticfool]

Typically, if someone wants to regulate you as a slave, you are typically too pleasant to be around.

Slavers targeted whoever was easiest to capture and cheapest to transport, not 'pleasant' people, Africans were cheap because Africans were already selling them in established markets.

Good things in this world are emperically coveted, sold, and used as a commodity.

Labor is a factor of production, not an intrinsic civilizational achievement. Pre-colonial sub-Saharan societies lacked the wheel in most regions, indigenous written scripts (beyond limited Ethiopian influence), or advanced metallurgy beyond basic ironworking. Europeans needed muscle for their New World colonies after the depopulation of the indigenous populations; they did not import Africans for their culture. The civilizations that were most “coveted” were in Eurasia.

Now lets observe some cold truths about history and genetics.

When it comes to wars, who has dominated?

Black americans have European dna for the most part which is why they are the pretty violent blacks.

Likewise, arab-biracial blacks from north africa are the most violent blacks, and are typically used for proxy group formation to buffer the african race.

Pure blooddd Africans in Africa are way more doctile as a group, as they would rather beg and submit to magical thinking instead of die or go to war for oppression.

Historical dominance in organized warfare tracks average cognitive ability, technological innovation, and institutional cohesion, domains in which European and East Asian populations have consistently excelled. Black Americans barely have any European ancestry; they average roughly 75-80 % sub-Saharan ancestry. civilizations historically most “coveted” developed in Eurasia

Pure blooddd Africans in Africa are way more doctile as a group, as they would rather beg and submit to magical thinking instead of die or go to war for oppression.

“Pure” sub-Saharan Africans are hardly docile. The Zulu mfecane killed an estimated 1-2 million through deliberate African-on-African conquest.

Native Nigerian people for example, even despite their trash leaders have still not responded with assassinations, explosions etc.


The likely answer of african societal disfunction could very well just be proxy groups using a incredible minority to cause disfunction so the solutions can present themselves in the country the proxy came for (comes with long term contracts for minerals etc)

So wrong, Boko Haram has killed tens of thousands since 2009 through massacres. Fulani militias conduct annual raids displacing millions and banditry remains endemic. Nigeria’s homicide and terrorism indices exceed those of Western nations.

The likely answer of african societal disfunction could very well just be proxy groups using a incredible minority to cause disfunction so the solutions can present themselves in the country the proxy came for (comes with long term contracts for minerals etc)

Every polity with a predominantly sub-Saharan population underperforms identically, regardless of external actors. Resource wealth becomes a curse precisely because governance capacity is absent. Decades of aid transfers exceeding trillions have resulted in no convergence; really sounds like the doing of proxy groups.

 

[Luquier]

Every race has been subject to slavery at some point but no race has been subect to constant slavery as much as the black african race.

Typically, if someone wants to regulate you as a slave, you are typically too pleasant to be around.

Good things in this world are emperically coveted, sold, and used as a commodity.

Now lets observe some cold truths about history and genetics.

When it comes to wars, who has dominated?

Black americans have European dna for the most part which is why they are the pretty violent blacks.

Likewise, arab-biracial blacks from north africa are the most violent blacks, and are typically used for proxy group formation to buffer the african race.

Pure blooddd Africans in Africa are way more doctile as a group, as they would rather beg and submit to magical thinking instead of die or go to war for oppression.

Native Nigerian people for example, even despite their trash leaders have still not responded with assassinations, explosions etc.

Do you think this would be possible to happen in europe? Or Arabia?

The biggest sin of the african race is kindness. Its being docile, and it is a cosmic irony.

The likely answer of african societal disfunction could very well just be proxy groups using a incredible minority to cause disfunction so the solutions can present themselves in the country the proxy came for (comes with long term contracts for minerals etc)

This information will soon be important

I actually agree ngl

 

[Luquier]

Ethiopians are arab biracial blacks. Most north black groups are arab-eurasian mixed

The real black africans are e1b1 typically. They look quite different.

Some tribes are more violent than others because they are less homogenous

Hitler approved tbh. Ive never met a violent Pure blood african.

Somalis for example are barely black africans. Arab raceplay babies. Hair type is key also.

Ancient Natufian DNA, not Arab

 

[dreamcake2mo]

Slavers targeted whoever was easiest to capture and cheapest to transport, not 'pleasant' people, Africans were cheap because Africans were already selling them in established markets.

Labor is a factor of production, not an intrinsic civilizational achievement. Pre-colonial sub-Saharan societies lacked the wheel in most regions, indigenous written scripts (beyond limited Ethiopian influence), or advanced metallurgy beyond basic ironworking. Europeans needed muscle for their New World colonies after the depopulation of the indigenous populations; they did not import Africans for their culture. The civilizations that were most “coveted” were in Eurasia.

Historical dominance in organized warfare tracks average cognitive ability, technological innovation, and institutional cohesion, domains in which European and East Asian populations have consistently excelled. Black Americans barely have any European ancestry; they average roughly 75-80 % sub-Saharan ancestry. civilizations historically most “coveted” developed in Eurasia

“Pure” sub-Saharan Africans are hardly docile. The Zulu mfecane killed an estimated 1-2 million through deliberate African-on-African conquest.

So wrong, Boko Haram has killed tens of thousands since 2009 through massacres. Fulani militias conduct annual raids displacing millions and banditry remains endemic. Nigeria’s homicide and terrorism indices exceed those of Western nations.

Every polity with a predominantly sub-Saharan population underperforms identically, regardless of external actors. Resource wealth becomes a curse precisely because governance capacity is absent. Decades of aid transfers exceeding trillions have resulted in no convergence; really sounds like the doing of proxy groups.

Africans were not selling slaves, arabs were and africans got involved in the business. Arabs are european admixture eurasians. The same as indians.

And why did they sell those
Slaves? African men mog and are physically fit. Documented emperically to have more muscle groups than other races.

The market creates itself based on supply and DEMAND. You missing basic principles here. The reason africans were slaves is because their was demand for them in perticular. This is due to behavior, physical traits and such. Women were sold as sex slaves for similar reasons.

Once again, basic principles.

Also, fulani are not african. They are north african arab admixture people. They are muslim biracials

if you ever been to africa the natives will tell you the same thing. Fulani are known as cow herders coming from the arab nation.

And boku haram is a us proxy. Its documented that the nigerian goverment has purposely targeted the native e1b1 tribe (biafra) while leaving the terrorists. For what reason? Because intervention from the host country comes with a cost, those costs being access to material, bases, and democracies.

Historical dominance is lead by desire. Africans have no desire to conquer or control so they never created a WMD. WMDs are what determine a countries stability.

Even if the argument that they didnt have the mind for development as much as the european world were true, it doesn’t dismiss my point. They didnt care for control, or for colonialism.

This means they are the least violent group. You cant say xyz is the smartest most dominant group and then also say xyz is not the most violent group

We simply dont live in a world where you can be both. Dominance comes at a cost. Entrophy disagrees with you

 

[dreamcake2mo]

One point to take away from this is that everything is balanced

Hedgemony comes at a cost. A man gains the whole world yet loses his soul. Likewise, a man gains his soul but loses the world.

Africans are dumb because they never developed war strategy, wmds to protect themselves from invaders, or out violences the violent disfunction? Yes they are dumb. But being dumb (apathetic) in this world of conflict (laws of physics) means also being the least violent.

This is my point. Only someone who covets the inheritances of being dumb in a world like this would say otherwise. Love yourself.

 

[aristocraticfool]

Africans were not selling slaves, arabs were and africans got involved in the business. Arabs are european admixture eurasians. The same as indians.

Kingdoms like Dahomey and Ashanti actively raided neighbors for the sole purpose of capturing slaves to sell to Europeans.

Arabs are Semitic with ancient Eurasian backflow and some Neanderthal DNA, but they cluster separately from Europeans, the same applies for Indians.

The market creates itself based on supply and DEMAND. You missing basic principles here. The reason africans were slaves is because their was demand for them in perticular. This is due to behavior, physical traits and such. Women were sold as sex slaves for similar reasons.

I already covered this in my previous post, Demand existed because of availability; African kings sold black slaves for dirt cheap. The same economics apply to we’d slaves, African women were usually purchased as sex slaves because they didn’t cost a pretty penny like their European counterparts, not them looking pleasant.

Also, fulani are not african. They are north african arab admixture people. They are muslim biracials

if you ever been to africa the natives will tell you the same thing. Fulani are known as cow herders coming from the arab nation.

Fulanis are West African pastoralists with ~15-25% North African admixture. Natives call them herders because that’s their lifestyle, not because they’re “Arab biracials.”

And boku haram is a us proxy. Its documented that the nigerian goverment has purposely targeted the native e1b1 tribe (biafra) while leaving the terrorists. For what reason? Because intervention from the host country comes with a cost, those costs being access to material, bases, and democracies.

zero evidence of them being a proxy to steal resources provided

Historical dominance is lead by desire. Africans have no desire to conquer or control so they never created a WMD. WMDs are what determine a countries stability

Even if the argument that they didnt have the mind for development as much as the european world were true, it doesn’t dismiss my point. They didnt care for control, or for colonialism.

This means they are the least violent group. You cant say xyz is the smartest most dominant group and then also say xyz is not the most violent group

Sub-Saharan Africa had endless tribal wars & Empire building. Today they have the world’s highest homicide rates. “No desire for control” is cope for the inability to scale complex societies. You can have an Intelligent society & a high trust society (low internal violence) and still conquer via superior systems.

Entropy doesn’t disagree with what i’m saying, complex order requires high g and low impulsivity, which is why Europe built the modern world while Africa stayed tribal.

 

[Nectar]

Yes I even made a thread about this blacks are the most chill, horny and just want sex all the time there’s a reason why black males with European y dna are aggressive but others that are e1b are non-violent:

https://looksmax.org/threads/blacks-have-the-least-dark-traid-traits-and-are-only-used-for-sex.1926091/

 

[Luquier]

Sub-Saharan Africa had endless tribal wars & Empire building. Today they have the world’s highest homicide rates. “No desire for control” is cope for the inability to scale complex societies. You can have an Intelligent society & a high trust society (low internal violence) and still conquer via superior systems.

Entropy doesn’t disagree with what i’m saying, complex order requires high g and low impulsivity, which is why Europe built the modern world while Africa stayed tribal

Blacks just started late that’s all

Heck whites lived in tribal chiefdoms and anarchy for a long ass time. Americans went from civilisation to tribes then back again. Sometimes it’s better to be a nomad as well. Shit isn’t linear

 

[Deleted member 136057]

Why will this infö b ompörtänt soon?

 

[dreamcake2mo]

Kingdoms like Dahomey and Ashanti actively raided neighbors for the sole purpose of capturing slaves to sell to Europeans.

Arabs are Semitic with ancient Eurasian backflow and some Neanderthal DNA, but they cluster separately from Europeans, the same applies for Indians.

I already covered this in my previous post, Demand existed because of availability; African kings sold black slaves for dirt cheap. The same economics apply to we’d slaves, African women were usually purchased as sex slaves because they didn’t cost a pretty penny like their European counterparts, not them looking pleasant.

Fulanis are West African pastoralists with ~15-25% North African admixture. Natives call them herders because that’s their lifestyle, not because they’re “Arab biracials.”

zero evidence of them being a proxy to steal resources provided



Sub-Saharan Africa had endless tribal wars & Empire building. Today they have the world’s highest homicide rates. “No desire for control” is cope for the inability to scale complex societies. You can have an Intelligent society & a high trust society (low internal violence) and still conquer via superior systems.

Entropy doesn’t disagree with what i’m saying, complex order requires high g and low impulsivity, which is why Europe built the modern world while Africa stayed tribal.

1. Demand doesnt come out of nowhere. African/arab dictators created the routes because having bantu slaves was a useful prospect. And arab leaders are the ones who created the routes. The european used existing routes.

Also in class disfunction is different. I am very obviously speakiNg about how africans interact with outsiders. Obviously, back in old times wars within the african nation happened, they were one nation so per capita is smaller than modern genocide which is separated through ethnic lines. One is obviously more savage than the other

Also Availability isnt a driving force, its usefullness.

Slaves are slaves because they are useful. Europeans would have genocided africans if they weren’t useful as slaves. This is common sense. Black american slaves were in the fields because their melanin and body comp reduced chances of malaria.

Your being disingenuous, trying to poke holes in reason.

2. Arabs cluster differently from europeans but they are ultimately closer to Europeans than africans

This is a objective fact btw. Dna cant be misinterpreted with wordplay.

They are west eurasian, similar clustering to south european. This can easily be fact checked with ai or google. No more lies.

3. My point about the fulani stands. They have a completely different Y dna than west africans. Your not the only one who can read haplogroups, u know?

Fulani are biracials from the north. They are almost completely different than e1b. Would be like comparing a chinese to a arab. Similar cluster, but not the black african race im talking about altogether.

4. The evidence of proxy is history. France has documented exploits of nigeria. Once again, historical fact not opinion

5. Once again, history is law. Its time data. U cannot have any of these high trust societies without what already occurred. Europe was brutal in creating such things. It happened, get over it.

If europe was so smart about scaling society without violence, it would never have done the things it did.

Your looking at things as if history never occurred and you could just scale european society with what it learned after the fact.

You cant, time doesn’t work that way.

 

[aristocraticfool]

1. Demand doesnt come out of nowhere. African/arab dictators created the routes because having bantu slaves was a useful prospect. And arab leaders are the ones who created the routes. The european used existing routes.

Also Availability isnt a driving force, its usefulness

If Bantu slaves were such a useful prospect, why weren't they prized in every slave market like fair-skinned Circassians or European galley slaves? Arabs and American slave owners alike categorized slaves of Subsaharan descent as being highly sexed, lazy, and unintelligent. They were the Nisans of the slave world; cheap, got the job done, but were often unreliable. You keep on circling back to this point expecting a different answer, the reason West Africans were primarily slaves was from their availability & price, not them having any unique characteristics.

Also in class disfunction is different. I am very obviously speakiNg about how africans interact with outsiders. Obviously, back in old times wars within the african nation happened, they were one nation so per capita is smaller than modern genocide which is separated through ethnic lines. One is obviously more savage than the other

Sub-Saharan Africa had thousands of distinct ethnic groups, not some unified “African nation.” Tribal warfare and constant raiding were normal. Cultural practices in Subsaharan Africa were far more barbaric than the practices of any early European civilization.

Slaves are slaves because they are useful. Europeans would have genocided africans if they weren’t useful as slaves. This is common sense. Black american slaves were in the fields because their melanin and body comp reduced chances of malaria.

Why would the Europeans genocide free labor?

2. Arabs cluster differently from europeans but they are ultimately closer to Europeans than africans

This is a objective fact btw. Dna cant be misinterpreted with wordplay.

They are west eurasian, similar clustering to south european. This can easily be fact checked with ai or google. No more lies.

3. My point about the fulani stands. They have a completely different Y dna than west africans. Your not the only one who can read haplogroups, u know?

Arabs being West Eurasian is true but irrelevant; they’re still a separate cluster, and it doesn’t change who supplied the West African trade. Fulani having some North African admixture doesn’t magically make them non-African either, they’re still primarily West African pastoralists with core sub-Saharan ancestry.

The evidence of proxy is history. France has documented exploits of nigeria. Once again, historical fact not opinion

France exploiting Nigeria doesn’t mean that they’re funding Boko Haram?

5. Once again, history is law. Its time data. U cannot have any of these high trust societies without what already occurred. Europe was brutal in creating such things. It happened, get over it.

Yes, history is brutal. The difference is Europeans used that violence + superior average intelligence results in better planning ability and cooperation to eventually create high-trust, complex civilizations that dominate the planet. Africans did not. The Africans very much would’ve colonized continents & employe tactics that were far more brutal than whatever the europeans did to the locals if they had the chance to do so, not to mention that Subsaharan Africans were far more tribalistic to outsiders than any European civilization.

Entropy favors those who can build and maintain order. Europe did. Africa largely didn’t.

 

[134applesauce456]

I think you've mistaken weakness for kindness.

 

[dreamcake2mo]

If Bantu slaves were such a useful prospect, why weren't they prized in every slave market like fair-skinned Circassians or European galley slaves? Arabs and American slave owners alike categorized slaves of Subsaharan descent as being highly sexed, lazy, and unintelligent. They were the Nisans of the slave world; cheap, got the job done, but were often unreliable. You keep on circling back to this point expecting a different answer, the reason West Africans were primarily slaves was from their availability & price, not them having any unique characteristics.

Sub-Saharan Africa had thousands of distinct ethnic groups, not some unified “African nation.” Tribal warfare and constant raiding were normal. Cultural practices in Subsaharan Africa were far more barbaric than the practices of any early European civilization.

Why would the Europeans genocide free labor?

Arabs being West Eurasian is true but irrelevant; they’re still a separate cluster, and it doesn’t change who supplied the West African trade. Fulani having some North African admixture doesn’t magically make them non-African either, they’re still primarily West African pastoralists with core sub-Saharan ancestry.

France exploiting Nigeria doesn’t mean that they’re funding Boko Haram?

Yes, history is brutal. The difference is Europeans used that violence + superior average intelligence results in better planning ability and cooperation to eventually create high-trust, complex civilizations that dominate the planet. Africans did not. The Africans very much would’ve colonized continents & employe tactics that were far more brutal than whatever the europeans did to the locals if they had the chance to do so, not to mention that Subsaharan Africans were far more tribalistic to outsiders than any European civilization.

Entropy favors those who can build and maintain order. Europe did. Africa largely didn’t.

Your being dishonest

African slaves were prized simply because of their biology.

Saying they have no unique characteristics when the whole reason they were mass imported to America to pick cotton and be field workers is because their melanin and genetics made them highly resistant to malaria and diseases is high level cope

Also, african slaves were very very expensive. You should learn about the slave trade instead of spouting nonsense.

Afrian slaves were $700-$1500, or about $20000-$180,000+

One of the biggest markets during that time.

Also considering the women werent just sex slaves, they aided childbirth, breastfeeding, cooking, nursing and natal care

Your understanding on slavery is retarded

I wont further this conversation since its clear your on a mental loop trying hard to prove my points wrong without care for being wrong yourself. Fallacious

 

[dreamcake2mo]

I think you've mistaken weakness for kindness.

Kindness is weakness

 

[134applesauce456]

Kindness is weakness

Yes but weakness is not necessarily kindness.

Yes Africans haven't colonized other countries, enslaved people, or started mass world wars

But id argue it's less because they are kind and more because they are weak.

 

[aristocraticfool]

I wont further this conversation since its clear your on a mental loop trying hard to prove my points wrong without care for being wrong yourself. Fallacious

TRANSLATION

I concede to the white devil.​

 

[Troo_]

same regurgitated slop you get from your ashkenazi boolshi textbooks

very bad understanding of african american history...

 

[dreamcake2mo]

Yes I even made a thread about this blacks are the most chill, horny and just want sex all the time there’s a reason why black males with European y dna are aggressive but others that are e1b are non-violent:

https://looksmax.org/threads/blacks-have-the-least-dark-traid-traits-and-are-only-used-for-sex.1926091/

Theres a blackpill to this

Theres a reason europe admixture cannot do the same thing to arab states

Isreal and palastine is a great example

Europeanish admixture jews from the head state tried to land grab and it ended up becoming a humanitarian crisis because arab related admixture groups are simply more violent. You ended up having children, mothers, and the men fight to death for their land

Africans wouldn’t do this at all. They truly dont care for real war

See, other races that have their necks on africa forget how docile africans actually are when they face another group, which is why other races of people eventually end up more accommodated after violent pushbacks.

 

[random subhuman]

Every race has been subject to slavery at some point but no race has been subect to constant slavery as much as the black african race.

Typically, if someone wants to regulate you as a slave, you are typically too pleasant to be around.

Good things in this world are emperically coveted, sold, and used as a commodity.

Now lets observe some cold truths about history and genetics.

When it comes to wars, who has dominated?

Black americans have European dna for the most part which is why they are the pretty violent blacks.

Likewise, arab-biracial blacks from north africa are the most violent blacks, and are typically used for proxy group formation to buffer the african race.

Pure blooddd Africans in Africa are way more doctile as a group, as they would rather beg and submit to magical thinking instead of die or go to war for oppression.

Native Nigerian people for example, even despite their trash leaders have still not responded with assassinations, explosions etc.

Do you think this would be possible to happen in europe? Or Arabia?

The biggest sin of the african race is kindness. Its being docile, and it is a cosmic irony.

The likely answer of african societal disfunction could very well just be proxy groups using a incredible minority to cause disfunction so the solutions can present themselves in the country the proxy came for (comes with long term contracts for minerals etc)

This information will soon be important

And yet still a good thread bhai

 

[Andremln]

They're really servile yes, they also rarely show any signs of competitiveness, they're doomed to be slaves for the humans that decided to take action and explore, if after thousands of years and many generations passed they didn't decide to go out and compete, there's absolutely nothing they can do, either whites or asians own the finish line

 

[6ft4]

Look at these Africans accept these insults like cucks
I've also posted before about how during the run-ins I had with Africans where I displayed aggression they just froze like cucks



Black Americans learned the idea of fighting for honour (eg. getting violent when someone insults you) from Scottish Rednecks in the South.
It just makes them seem retarded in the modern day though because black Americans are the most coddled and pandered to group of people on earth and yet they are giga sensitive when they have nothing honourable about themselves to protect





Blood feuds in pastoral herding societies (like parts of historical Scotland and Ireland) weren’t really about the insult itself—they were about honor, deterrence, and survival in weak-state environments. Once you understand that, it makes sense how something small could spiral into generations of violence.

---

1. Why insults mattered so much​

In pastoral societies (sheep, cattle herding), wealth is:

• Mobile (animals can be stolen easily)
• Visible (everyone knows who has what)
• Hard to police (no strong central authority)

Because of that, reputation becomes your main defense.

If someone insults you and you don’t respond, it signals:

• You’re weak
• You won’t retaliate
• You’re safe to steal from

So even a minor insult is treated like a test of strength.

This dynamic is often called a “culture of honor” (a concept studied in anthropology and sociology).

---

2. How a feud actually escalates​

Here’s the typical chain reaction:

1. Initial insult or slight
   • Could be verbal (mockery, disrespect)
   • Or symbolic (refusing hospitality, questioning masculinity)
2. Retaliation required
   • If you ignore it → loss of status
   • So you respond (threat, fight, or violence)
3. Cycle of revenge
   • The other side now must respond to your response
   • Otherwise they lose honor
4. Group involvement
   • Not just individuals—families, clans, kin networks
   • One person’s insult becomes collective responsibility
5. Long memory
   • These societies often keep track of grievances across generations
   • “Your grandfather killed my uncle” → still relevant
6. Escalation
   • Insult → fight → injury → killing → revenge killing → feud

---

3. Examples from Scotland & Ireland​

In places like the Scottish Highlands or parts of Ireland:

• Clan-based systems (e.g., Clan MacDonald vs Clan Campbell) had long-standing feuds
• Events like the Massacre of Glencoe show how honor, betrayal, and retaliation could intertwine
• Raiding cattle (“reiving”) was common—so projecting toughness was essential

---

4. Why this carried into the American South​

Large numbers of settlers from:

• Northern England
• Scotland
• Ulster (Scots-Irish)

migrated to Appalachia and the American South.

They brought:

• Clan-style kin loyalty
• Honor culture
• Suspicion of centralized authority

In frontier conditions (weak law enforcement), those norms persisted.

 

[IronMike]

Docile indeed

 

[droidmaxxing]

Your being dishonest

African slaves were prized simply because of their biology.

Saying they have no unique characteristics when the whole reason they were mass imported to America to pick cotton and be field workers is because their melanin and genetics made them highly resistant to malaria and diseases is high level cope

Also, african slaves were very very expensive. You should learn about the slave trade instead of spouting nonsense.

Afrian slaves were $700-$1500, or about $20000-$180,000+

One of the biggest markets during that time.

Also considering the women werent just sex slaves, they aided childbirth, breastfeeding, cooking, nursing and natal care

Your understanding on slavery is retarded

I wont further this conversation since its clear your on a mental loop trying hard to prove my points wrong without care for being wrong yourself. Fallacious

You ignored the rest of his points and only responded to one of it

 

[infini]

Look at these Africans accept these insults like cucks
I've also posted before about how during the run-ins I had with Africans where I displayed aggression they just froze like cucks



Black Americans learned the idea of fighting for honour (eg. getting violent when someone insults you) from Scottish Rednecks in the South.
It just makes them seem retarded in the modern day though because black Americans are the most coddled and pandered to group of people on earth and yet they are giga sensitive when they have nothing honourable about themselves to protect





Blood feuds in pastoral herding societies (like parts of historical Scotland and Ireland) weren’t really about the insult itself—they were about honor, deterrence, and survival in weak-state environments. Once you understand that, it makes sense how something small could spiral into generations of violence.

---

1. Why insults mattered so much​

In pastoral societies (sheep, cattle herding), wealth is:

• Mobile (animals can be stolen easily)
• Visible (everyone knows who has what)
• Hard to police (no strong central authority)

Because of that, reputation becomes your main defense.

If someone insults you and you don’t respond, it signals:

• You’re weak
• You won’t retaliate
• You’re safe to steal from

So even a minor insult is treated like a test of strength.

This dynamic is often called a “culture of honor” (a concept studied in anthropology and sociology).

---

2. How a feud actually escalates​

Here’s the typical chain reaction:

1. Initial insult or slight
   • Could be verbal (mockery, disrespect)
   • Or symbolic (refusing hospitality, questioning masculinity)
2. Retaliation required
   • If you ignore it → loss of status
   • So you respond (threat, fight, or violence)
3. Cycle of revenge
   • The other side now must respond to your response
   • Otherwise they lose honor
4. Group involvement
   • Not just individuals—families, clans, kin networks
   • One person’s insult becomes collective responsibility
5. Long memory
   • These societies often keep track of grievances across generations
   • “Your grandfather killed my uncle” → still relevant
6. Escalation
   • Insult → fight → injury → killing → revenge killing → feud

---

3. Examples from Scotland & Ireland​

In places like the Scottish Highlands or parts of Ireland:

• Clan-based systems (e.g., Clan MacDonald vs Clan Campbell) had long-standing feuds
• Events like the Massacre of Glencoe show how honor, betrayal, and retaliation could intertwine
• Raiding cattle (“reiving”) was common—so projecting toughness was essential

---

4. Why this carried into the American South​

Large numbers of settlers from:

• Northern England
• Scotland
• Ulster (Scots-Irish)

migrated to Appalachia and the American South.

They brought:

• Clan-style kin loyalty
• Honor culture
• Suspicion of centralized authority

In frontier conditions (weak law enforcement), those norms persisted.

She’s really cute. My type. Wife and kids material.

 

[stonecold trucel]

agreed