Arsene Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 The ONLY reason why your oil and your diamonds and your gold is worth something is because of the west. Also if Africa is too dumb and too weak to protect their resources, so be it. If white people and asian people didn't exist, if the only people on earth were africans, than they STILL would've been living in tribes with spears and thongs and huts.______________________Stephan Molyneux, as a historian, can you make a video about the history/truth of Africa? How did their civilization look like throughout history? It's independant cultural achievements.. How it evolved... How it was before the whites "colonized" africa... How it was before whites took slaves from america. Before "the whites ruined their civilization", had they cities, or were they living in thongs & huts with spears? How did their contact with white people change their civilization? If no other humans beside negroids exicted, would barack obama currently be running around in a thong chasing kudu's? etc...
neeeel Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 . Also if Africa is too dumb and too weak to protect their resources, so be it. So does this apply to you as well? Ie, if someone stronger or smarter than you comes and takes your stuff, thats ok? 2
Arsene Posted January 18, 2016 Author Posted January 18, 2016 So does this apply to you as well? Ie, if someone stronger or smarter than you comes and takes your stuff, thats ok? lol just lol no but in all seriousness, life is a competition man. But besides that, africans didn't even obtain those resources, whites did, only in their habitat. If you are on vacation to China, just walking through a natural cave, but than you suddenly see a huge diamond embedded in the rocks & you chisel it out, will you keep that diamond and sell it, or donate it to the Chinese government?
Crallask Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 I take it thats a "no" then But he did say no
Donnadogsoth Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 lol just lol no but in all seriousness, life is a competition man. But besides that, africans didn't even obtain those resources, whites did, only in their habitat. If you are on vacation to China, just walking through a natural cave, but than you suddenly see a huge diamond embedded in the rocks & you chisel it out, will you keep that diamond and sell it, or donate it to the Chinese government? Spice it up: If you're an Ancap, do you take the diamond?
adamNJ Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 If no other humans beside negroids exicted, would barack obama currently be running around in a thong chasing kudu's? etc... I want to participate in a calm and rational discussion on this topic, but your approach is so negative that it has ruined any chance for real discussion. I am out. 1
fezjones Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 thats a lot of platitudes for this young lady, she should be a politician.
AccuTron Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Any rock to donate to the Chinese gummint, they can chisel out themselves, probably have better chisels anyway. To chisel it out, and get out of the country with it, not murdered, would be a big challenge. So I'd skip the pretty rock. The video could put a baby to sleep; nice drone, couldn't finish it. Not sure the purpose. Some of the best civilization to date occurred in parts of Africa, maybe a thousand years ago or more. Fuzzy on details, but it rocked for awhile. Slaves -- black on black -- being standard fare long before whites, per se. Obama would be dressed the same, 'cause he's embarrassed by some belly tattoos he got while young and drunk.
Walter E. Strong Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 "So does this apply to you as well? Ie, if someone stronger or smarter than you comes and takes your stuff, thats ok?" Speaking for myself, if somebody attempts to steal my resources they run a very high likelihood of being shot.
LovePrevails Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Here's me from back in my lefty days. There is a grain of truth to the idea that Western Governments are partially responsible for Africa being slow to develop as you can see the intervention of statist and multi-statist organisations in the region have been detrimental. But luckily the situation is improving there now.
LovePrevails Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 New essay by yours truly Misanthropic myths about 3rd World Poverty debunked One of the most persistent myths about 3rd World Poverty is the idea that if underdeveloped countries are allowed to progress in their economy it will be some kind of unmitigated environmental disaster. There are a few important facts to take into consideration in order to respond to these claims. Firstly, wealthy countries can afford to clean up their water after fouling it and treat their sewage properly, they can replant their forests, and put recycling infrastructure into place. Countries without wealth can’t do any of those things. In places like Bangladesh people will scramble to make a living with no long-term consideration to their surrounding environment, and they have no means of repairing it afterwards Starving Brazilians can’t really choose not to cut down the rainforest – they can’t afford it. However, what would help is if the governments in those countries who are logging the world’s rainforest would allow private ownership so that the logging industry would be personally invested in taking care of the longevity of their property and leave parts to grow back while other areas are logged as happens in the forests in developed countries. Western charities could then also go in and buy up vast tracts of rainforest to stop them being logged – at present that is really impossible as those property claims would currently just be ignored by the loggers and the corrupt governments in those countries. The next critical point to understand is that the 1 billion richest people are responsible for 50% of the world’s consumption of resources and the 2nd billion richest people for the next 25%, and so forth. Once this is understood, it is easy to see that the 2 billion poorest people in the world could easily be lifted into the standard of living of the 3rd poorest (or even the 4th poorest) with a comparatively small environmental impact. As to overpopulation, the industrial revolution created population booms across the whole planet – but in every single country where a reasonable standard of living was achieved population growth receded; there is no reason to believe that will be any different with the developing world. Education has and will also be able to play a bigger role. (Note: at current trends the world’s population is set to level off at 11 billion and then may even start decreasing according to current projections.) It’s not economic progress, but our irresponsible economic systems which are responsible for the environmental damage we have seen over the last 200 years or so. Governments externalise the costs of environmental damage and redistribute it to the taxpayer, rather than allowing producers and consumers to pay the cost of their own consumption. We can create sustainable economies by holding individuals personally responsible for paying to repair the damage caused by their consumption, in proportion to their consumption. In order to do that you would essentially have to privatise garbage collection, anything that was recyclable, biodegradable or repairable would likely be collected for free by anyone who could use it or sell it on. Non-biodegradable waste (which would become less and less common as the economy as consumers and producers adjusted to the new incentives by dodging items which were over-packaged or would be costly to dispose of) would be charged in proportion to how difficult it would be to dispose of. Antony Sammeroff 27-01-16 3
Arsene Posted January 30, 2016 Author Posted January 30, 2016 I want to participate in a calm and rational discussion on this topic, but your approach is so negative that it has ruined any chance for real discussion. I am out. It's only you who perceive it as "so negative", I intended it humorously. Sorry I am Dutch we lack nuance. I take it thats a "no" then Yes this also counts for me, yes people can steal my resources, but than they should also expect me to give them a punch in the face, getting jailed or being ostracized from the tribe Im from (which is my protection). This is very normal, if one tribe has the chance to steal resources from another tribe, being 100% sure that NO negative consequences will follow, than yes every tribe would steal the resources. If can't protect your resources, than you simply can't protect your resources and natural selection will get rid of you. 1
Bel Rick Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Can we end the myth that just because you are born within a geographical location that resources in the same region are somehow magically yours?So primitive and so stupid.None of the vast resources of Africa belonged to the Africans because not only did they lack the MEANS to collect those resources but the WILL to. 1
Donnadogsoth Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Can we end the myth that just because you are born within a geographical location that resources in the same region are somehow magically yours? So primitive and so stupid. None of the vast resources of Africa belonged to the Africans because not only did they lack the MEANS to collect those resources but the WILL to. They also lacked the KNOWLEDGE that said resources even existed. 1
things make sense Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Can we end the myth that just because you are born within a geographical location that resources in the same region are somehow magically yours? So primitive and so stupid. None of the vast resources of Africa belonged to the Africans because not only did they lack the MEANS to collect those resources but the WILL to. If they put labor in a certain geographical location, the product of the labor is theirs. The lady made a valid point (that I sympathize with) that 5000 units of African currency is worth one USD. "So primitive and so stupid" is not a counter-argument.
Mister Mister Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 If they put labor in a certain geographical location, the product of the labor is theirs. The lady made a valid point (that I sympathize with) that 5000 units of African currency is worth one USD. "So primitive and so stupid" is not a counter-argument. A hundred pennies are worth one USD. 3600 seconds are equivalent to one hour. Units of currency are arbitrary. I don't even know what it means to sympathize with a fact of this nature. I sympathize that a mile is longer than a kilometer...??? Who said "so primitive and so stupid"? Are you denying that this is true? That culturally and genetically there is no difference between Africans and anyone else? 1
things make sense Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 A hundred pennies are worth one USD. 3600 seconds are equivalent to one hour. Units of currency are arbitrary. I don't even know what it means to sympathize with a fact of this nature. I sympathize that a mile is longer than a kilometer...??? Who said "so primitive and so stupid"? Are you denying that this is true? That culturally and genetically there is no difference between Africans and anyone else? Why are you being sarcastic and quoting me out of context? did you even watch the video or do you need me to explain the valid point I was talking about? The previous poster said the myth is "so primitive and so stupid". And I responded with that's not an argument.
tasmlab Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 I think I've posted this before, but it's an interesting take on Africa from 150 years ago by a famous racist: Since the dawn of history the Black Man has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.” — Charles Darwin 1
Recommended Posts