Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later[^][v]#1,426,151
Well, I have found some of the ideas racists have to be quite enlightening. For example, social darwinists say some people are too dumb to do certain jobs and that if someone is dumb it is because of genetics so there’s nothing you can do to fix them. That is completely true. You see, racists know quite a bit about stupid people. You can learn a lot from a racist. They have first hand experience. They are simply wrong about who the stupid people are.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,426,152
They also seem to be obsessed with the idea that some people are 10 or 100 times smarter than other people. Now if that doesn’t make sense to you, that’s because you’re not 10 to 100 times dumber than the average person so you’ve never observed this.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 48 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,426,168
@op
I tried that statement before. It doesn’t work. Nobody thinks racism is stupid/low IQ. You can try to frame it like it’s something that people should be ashamed of but someone will provide a detailed explanation using history and data to justify it. Everyone will agree and no counter argument is strong enough to beat it.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 27 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,426,171
@previous (D)
Racism is pretty low IQ. Racist governments tend to collapse. Why do we talk about Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia, and the Confederacy all in past tense? It has a worse track record than authoritarian communism.
Anonymous E double-posted this 2 months ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,426,173
Especially South Africa. We talk about, "what if the Nazis or the Japanese got to the bomb first?" In South Africa, the white supremacists did build nuclear weapons, and they still lost. So why do people think that white supremacy is ever going to work? The problem is that white people aren’t actually superior so whatever gains they've tried to make in the short term they’ve always lost in the long term. It doesn’t matter what empire you’re talking about in what time period, it happens every time, but they don’t learn from their mistakes.
Anonymous E triple-posted this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,426,174
Now in the modern age it’s even more ridiculous because the west is so deluded we base our superiority off of being richer than other countries, except there is a very strong correlation between more wealth and lower birth rates, and we have fiat currency backed by nothing. So essentially what the west is doing is having fewer children than the rest of the world to make numbers on computers bigger so people can look at a website and be like, "My country has a bigger number than that country, wow we must be so smart." Meanwhile, European countries have surprisingly small standing armies and have aging populations.
Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 2 months ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,175
Like, the biggest country in Europe is Russia. Nobody thinks anything of Nigeria, but if you look at Nigeria’s population size and compare it to Russia, and you look at their median age and compare it to Russia, you have to wonder if hypothetically at some point European countries were to fight African countries, who would have the advantage. Because the last time Europe took over Africa, Europe had more than twice as many people as Africa. Now that’s the other way around and on average Europeans are twice as old as Africans, so you have to wonder who has more 18 year old boys. Now that doesn’t matter as long as Europe never tries to take over Africa again, but if they did try, and it went the opposite of the way it went last time because the demographic imbalance is the opposite of what it was 200 years ago, that would be interesting. Even during World War Two, Africa was still smaller than Europe. It would be a different thing if it was tried today. God forbid Europe tries it 20 or 30 years from now.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,177
@previous (F)
No. They’re completely different. Charles Darwin didn’t invent the idea of evolution, he just discovered the mechanism of natural selection. The comment you replied to had nothing to do with natural selection or evolution.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,181
@1,426,171 (E)
The powers might have died but the ideas dont. In time they’ll come back from whatever roach hole they come from with a new skin and a new meta and its back to the same thing.
As long theres a minority they’ll be a majority will not care about the other because you’re not “them”. That system is ingrained in collective unconscious. Notice how everyone draws the line at paedophilla but not racism? A racist and a non-racist can agree that pedos deserve death yet the pubic doesnt think to hold racism to that same regard.
> Like, the biggest country in Europe is Russia. Nobody thinks anything of Nigeria, but if you look at Nigeria’s population size and compare it to Russia, and you look at their median age and compare it to Russia, you have to wonder if hypothetically at some point European countries were to fight African countries, who would have the advantage. Because the last time Europe took over Africa, Europe had more than twice as many people as Africa. Now that’s the other way around and on average Europeans are twice as old as Africans, so you have to wonder who has more 18 year old boys. Now that doesn’t matter as long as Europe never tries to take over Africa again, but if they did try, and it went the opposite of the way it went last time because the demographic imbalance is the opposite of what it was 200 years ago, that would be interesting. Even during World War Two, Africa was still smaller than Europe. It would be a different thing if it was tried today. God forbid Europe tries it 20 or 30 years from now.
The average sub-Saharan African military is a paltry security force that doesn’t provide so much as glasses to troops, inducts soldiers with HIV, fires five training rounds a year, and receives minimal training. Even South Africa’s has gone to rot. SA’s Air Force has 300 planes. Six are operational, and only two of those are Gripem fighters.
Rwanda is the exception and mostly because Paul Kagame is one of the great leaders of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,183
If anything the history you provided with those countries are good examples of that. Whenever one of them falls another will rise up. It’s why we still have far-right conservatives and far left liberals. They won’t let those ideas because racism is a tool. People with power and high IQ will use racism as a means to an end.
Today you’ll vote for someone based on whether they look like you and believe in some type of seclusion from another group or just for the lulz or because they’re “based”.
Anonymous H double-posted this 2 months ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,186
But anyway, the point about population wasn’t related to technology. The point is, regardless of how competent or well equipped African militaries are, you don’t need a military that’s well equipped or well trained if all you’re doing is resisting a successful occupation. Like Afghanistan or Vietnam for example. Vietnam and Afghanistan didn’t have billion dollar stealth fighters or aircraft carriers or whatever, they just had the advantage of having guns and fighting on their home territory. The higher the population is in a particular place, the harder it gets for a foreign country to hold territory without mass mobilization of troops and western society has gotten to a point where nobody wants to do a mass mobilization, so given that, nothing other than drone strikes will be done in Africa and only against terrorist organizations, not against governments.
Anonymous H triple-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,187
A bunch of Europeans walking into Africa with guns when Africans didn’t have guns and there were twice as many people would be a lot easier than a bunch of middle aged Europeans wandering into Africa with guns now when Africans also have guns and there are twice as many Africans as Europeans and the average age of an African is about 19.
Anonymous H quadruple-posted this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,188
The whole situation is hypothetical, but the point is the white supremacist fantasy of recolonizing Africa will never happen because the situation is fundamentally different. If Europeans tried it, it would seem to have quick success at first when they’re just bombing targets from the air, but after they realize that you can’t control territory from the air, and they actually have to send in ground troops into the jungle in the second largest continent, they’ll waste trillions of dollars, spend decades doing it, probably have to resort to a draft if they’re serious, and then leave with nothing accomplished. Like Vietnam, but worse.
Anonymous H sextuple-posted this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,190
In 1960, Vietnam had about 30 million people. Recolonizing Africa would be like that but 1.5 billion people. It’s just not something that anybody with an IQ over 70 will think about doing.