Post: #101

(12-02-2018 09:33 PM)speculator Wrote:  Europeans "rule" because they were the perfect host for parasites. The host has served its role and soon it will be discarded.

We already have a jew thread so I don't want to go down that rabbit hole here. But suffice to say Jews have been attached to the hip of Western civilization (and intermarrying with us) so long they're not exactly middle eastern semites anymore.

Also while a capable people no doubt, their accomplishments are an infinitesimally small percentage of what Europeans have accomplished. And really Jews didn't make headway into the upper echelons of government and finance until the last century or so. The colonial expansion would have happened without them.

Post: #102

(12-03-2018 05:33 AM)Fortis Wrote:  Unfortunate that such a thread always draws the usual suspects. Then again, whenever you have such a loaded thread title, they're bound to show up.

I'd say it's better to get such overly sensitive types out in the open and speaking freely, wouldn't you?

Post: #103

(12-03-2018 02:28 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  Europeans just get hated on for our land grabs because we did it so damn well. And yes - I am rather proud of it (a long with a multitude of other accomplishments). If we were to think of history as a football match, my team won.

That's not even remotely true, unless you believe the match began in 1492 and the final whistle was blown a few decades ago. There's a long history before the era of European world domination, in which groups from all areas of the world subjugated vast territories. And history certainly isn't over yet.

Post: #104

(12-03-2018 05:46 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:33 PM)speculator Wrote:  Europeans "rule" because they were the perfect host for parasites. The host has served its role and soon it will be discarded.

We already have a jew thread so I don't want to go down that rabbit hole here. But suffice to say Jews have been attached to the hip of Western civilization (and intermarrying with us) so long they're not exactly middle eastern semites anymore.

Also while a capable people no doubt, their accomplishments are an infinitesimally small percentage of what Europeans have accomplished. And really Jews didn't make headway into the upper echelons of government and finance until the last century or so. The colonial expansion would have happened without them.

Jews financed the expansion. I doubt it would have happen with the same reach.

Post: #105

I'm not sure what's so difficult to grasp for either side here.

Europeans created the modern world and they're rather pretty benevolent about it when you look at the grand scheme of things. If some other group had won, I suspect that the earth would have far fewer of every group except for that hypothetical winning group.

You can't really dispute that unless you have some sort of weird agenda.

That said, Europeans have only been the undisputed power for a rather small amount of time in the grand scheme of things. That could very likely change just as it could just stay the same.

Wondering why Europeans rose to such heights is a healthy pursuit.

Why does this question bother some people so much?

On the flipside, all the chest-thumping is a bit silly. Chill Euro-bro, you won.

The neanderthal stuff does sound pretty damn autistic, though. Just sayin'

Post: #106

(12-03-2018 05:45 AM)Pride male Wrote:  ^Where is Simeon Strangelight?

Eaten by Neanderthals

Post: #107

(12-03-2018 07:23 AM)Fortis Wrote:  That said, Europeans have only been the undisputed power for a rather small amount of time in the grand scheme of things. That could very likely change just as it could just stay the same.

Wondering why Europeans rose to such heights is a healthy pursuit.

Why does this question bother some people so much?

On the flipside, all the chest-thumping is a bit silly. Chill Euro-bro, you won.

Not if it's reduced to deusNeanderthal-ex-machina cultism.

I firmly believe that there is more to Western civilization than "someone might have fucked a Neanderthal at some point so here we are".

Post: #108

(12-03-2018 07:23 AM)Fortis Wrote:  I'm not sure what's so difficult to grasp for either side here.

Europeans created the modern world and they're rather pretty benevolent about it when you look at the grand scheme of things.

Not really. The modern world is built out of the inventions of the entire world. Take writing, for example, it was not invented by Europeans, it was invented in Sumeria, and then possibly independently, or possibly not, in Egypt and China. And also definitely independently, but later, in Mesoamerica. So even if the rest of the world had dropped the ball, the Mesoamericans would have been a failsafe.

Without writing, Europeans are stuck in the stone age. And Europeans did not invent writing. I mean, that's a big one, it's the foundation of knowledge transfer and storage. It's been a team effort, always has and always will be.

(12-03-2018 07:23 AM)Fortis Wrote:  If some other group had won, I suspect that the earth would have far fewer of every group except for that hypothetical winning group.

You can't really dispute that unless you have some sort of weird agenda.

Or if you're Native American. Of which there are now far fewer than otherwise.

Or Aboriginal. Of which there are now far fewer than otherwise.

Or Jewish. Of which there are now far fewer than otherwise.

That said, actually, other groups have won, as in, have gotten way ahead of everyone else, at times. One example is the Chinese, they had the capability to explore and wipe out other people. They sent some ships around the coasts, saw that the folks they met were not as advanced as the Chinese, and instead of colonizing them, decided to go back home.

That's benevolent. What the Europeans did is the opposite, even though much of it, admittedly, was due to disease. But not all.

That said, there's no innocents here, because those Chinese that sent ships out to explore, how did they become Chinese in the first place? Well, the Chinese colonized all of China. It was just done so long ago that it's mostly forgotten. I found this online, regarding the matter:

Quote:"The unified ethnic Chinese drove out non-ethnic Chinese peoples living in China, and eradicated non-ethnic Chinese culture, which they regarded as “barbaric.” For instance, many early Chinese emperors burned books in non-Chinese languages, making the culture of the newly united China increasingly monolithic."

The Europeans were, and still are, fractured culturally. No European nation was able to do what the Chinese were able to do, absorb every culture around them and unify everyone. Many tried, none succeeded the way the Chinese did. None.

The Europeans did pull it off away from Europe, fighting people vastly technologically inferior to them. The Chinese, on the other hand, pulled it off, against their immediate neighbors, despite not having as vast a technological advantage against their adversaries as the Europeans did.

In any case, it's a complex topic, but yeah, in regards to contributions, it's been a team effort and always will be, and in regards to what would now be considered atrocities/genocide, Europeans are by no means the only ones that got in on that action, not by a long shot.

Post: #109

(12-03-2018 08:22 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 07:23 AM)Fortis Wrote:  I'm not sure what's so difficult to grasp for either side here.

Europeans created the modern world and they're rather pretty benevolent about it when you look at the grand scheme of things.

So even if the rest of the world had dropped the ball, the Mesoamericans would have been a failsafe.

Post: #110

(12-03-2018 02:28 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  The lack of growing room theory might explain the impetus for expansion, but not the ability to. And also, you're wrong. Japan, Vietnam, South Korea,etc..have greater pop densities than most European countries.

In the year 1500 (rough start of european imperialism and time period in question), Japan, South Korea and Vietnam did not have a higher population density than Europe. Dumb statement.

Quote:And what's more, you entirely ignored the Neanderthal part of the discussion. I'll admit that's just a hypothesis, but it's an interesting one. You're just triggered by the reality of European geopolitical and cultural domination. We can argue about that or the morality of it another time. But frankly, it's a red herring and you're derailing the thread.

I ignored it because that premise is patently false. Which is the basis of your whole argument. Asians have more neanderthal DNA and this is known to anyone with access to a simple Google search.

And yet now you want to talk about "european domination" in a world that europeans are quickly demographically and technologically losing to Asia? This isn't the year 1890.

And I'm not derailing your silly thread. I promise.

Quote:Irony of a presumably black guy lecturing europeans on rape. Have you seen the stats in sub saharan africa?

Outside of South Africa I haven't seen the data on rape rates, but it doesn't in any way discount my argument. I have no control over what others do with their dicks, just mine. Silly deflection tactic.

Quote:I'm able to look at history objectively without casting any moral judgement. The fact is invasion and wars over land, resources, etc. was a norm throughout human history. It was a messy business, but nobody at the time would have feigned any sort of moral outrage over it.

Europeans just get hated on for our land grabs because we did it so damn well. And yes - I am rather proud of it (a long with a multitude of other accomplishments). If we were to think of history as a football match, my team won.

Hardly anything to be "proud" of. Be proud of knowledge or wealth sure, but to be proud of the actions of the lowest primitive cave savage is juvenile delinquency.

Can I just roll up on Europe, take their woman and land and genocide the men real quick? Would I be justified and glorified by you?

Had it happened to Europe instead would you be so proud? Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Post: #111

My butt hurts

Post: #112

This might be going off on a tangent a little, but forgive me as there has been much talk on the thread about the impact of agricultural changes on the advancement of Sapiens (over Neanderthals). Again, this reminds me of much of the thrust of the book Sapiens (still fresh in my memory, hence all the quotes).

Harari takes the position that Sapiens did not domesticate wheat, but rather it was wheat that domesticated us!

Quote:"Scholars once proclaimed that the agricultural revolution was a great leap forward for humanity. They told a tale of progress fuelled by human brain power. Evolution gradually produced ever more intelligent people. Eventually, people were so smart that they were able to decipher nature’s secrets, enabling them to tame sheep and cultivate wheat. As soon as this happened, they cheerfully abandoned the grueling, dangerous, and often spartan life of hunter-gatherers, settling down to enjoy the pleasant, satiated life of farmers.

"That tale is a fantasy. There is no evidence that people became more intelligent with time. Foragers knew the secrets of nature long before the Agricultural Revolution, since their survival depended on an intimate knowledge of the animals they hunted and the plants they gathered. Rather than heralding a new era of easy living, the Agricultural Revolution left farmers with lives generally more difficult and less satisfying than those of foragers. Hunter-gatherers spent their time in more stimulating and varied ways, and were less in danger of starvation and disease. The Agricultural Revolution certainly enlarged the sum total of food at the disposal of humankind, but the extra food did not translate into a better diet or more leisure. Rather, it translated into population explosions and pampered elites. The average farmer worked harder than the average forager, and got a worse diet in return. The Agricultural Revolution was history’s biggest fraud.

"Who was responsible? Neither kings, nor priests, nor merchants. The culprits were a handful of plant species, including wheat, rice and potatoes. These plants domesticated Homo sapiens, rather than vice versa.

"Think for a moment about the Agricultural Revolution from the viewpoint of wheat. Ten thousand years ago wheat was just a wild grass, one of many, confined to a small range in the Middle East. Suddenly, within just a few short millennia, it was growing all over the world. According to the basic evolutionary criteria of survival and reproduction, wheat has become one of the most successful plants in the history of the earth. In areas such as the Great Plains of North America, where not a single wheat stalk grew 10,000 years ago, you can today walk for hundreds upon hundreds of kilometers without encountering any other plant. Worldwide, wheat covers about 2.25 million square kilometers of the globe’s surface, almost ten times the size of Britain. How did this grass turn from insignificant to ubiquitous?

"Wheat did it by manipulating Homo sapiens to its advantage. This ape had been living a fairly comfortable life hunting and gathering until about 10,000 years ago, but then began to invest more and more effort in cultivating wheat. Within a couple of millennia, humans in many parts of the world were doing little from dawn to dusk other than taking care of wheat plants. It wasn’t easy. Wheat demanded a lot of them. Wheat didn’t like rocks and pebbles, so Sapiens broke their backs clearing fields. Wheat didn’t like sharing its space, water, and nutrients with other plants, so men and women labored long days weeding under the scorching sun. Wheat got sick, so Sapiens had to keep a watch out for worms and blight. Wheat was defenseless against other organisms that liked to eat it, from rabbits to locust swarms, so the farmers had to guard and protect it. Wheat was thirsty, so humans lugged water from springs and streams to water it. Its hunger even impelled Sapiens to collect animal feces to nourish the ground in which wheat grew.

"The body of Homo sapiens had not evolved for such tasks. It was adapted to climbing apple trees and running after gazelles, not to clearing rocks and carrying water buckets. Human spines, knees, necks, and arches paid the price. Studies of ancient skeletons indicate that the transition to agriculture brought about a plethora of ailments, such as slipped disks, arthritis, and hernias. Moreover, the new agricultural tasks demanded so much time that people were forced to settle permanently next to their wheat fields. This completely changed their way of life. We did not domesticate wheat. It domesticated us. The word “domesticate” comes from the Latin domus, which means “house.” Who’s the one living in a house? Not the wheat. It’s the Sapiens.

Post: #113

(12-03-2018 02:28 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  Europeans just get hated on for our land grabs because we did it so damn well. And yes - I am rather proud of it (a long with a multitude of other accomplishments). If we were to think of history as a football match, my team won.

Do you keep your participation trophy in a case?

Oh wait...that requires participation.

Post: #114

(12-03-2018 07:23 AM)Fortis Wrote:  Chill Euro-bro, you won.

Doesn't feel like it though.

Every cheap apartment in Europe is populated by arabs and africans. They were built by previous generations with the hope and goal that ordinary European working and lower middle class people should have nice, affordable homes. Now they've become the ghettos of every European capital.

I also think Obama did untold damage to the image of white bros abroad. It was so much better to be a white dude abroad pre-Obama. After Obama, we're just not in demand as much. Even white girls are into Korean dudes now!

Thanks for nothing Obama!

Post: #115

I have yet to see a study regarding this, but I see jews and some middle easterners as having more neanderthal features.

Look that these recreations of neanderthal faces. Notice the longer mid face, larger eye sockets, sloping forehead, the mouth, and heavy lower jaw.







Now see Jewish skulls sharing similar features

Post: #116

What a twist!


Jews being Neanderthals explains everything.

Post: #117

The people I've noticed this trait most are of European Spanish ancestry.....Southern Spain was the last place Neanderthals survived during the ice ages....

Post: #118

The most important question. WYB?



If that was a homo sapien woman I'd have to say no. But I'd be tempted with this one just to get my neanderthal flag. A quick wash at the local stream and a few passes of a mammoth bone comb and I reckon we could work something out.

And they're a bit droopy now, but imagine what those neanderthal titties were like in their prime.

Post: #119

It's not called "melonheads" for nothing.

The first arab in that photo has a flat back head, a "short skull", while neanderthals have the occipital bun, the "long skull".



Here's another example of a stupid sapien with a short skull:

Post: #120

Here's a BBC video where they try to recreate what a neanderthal's voice sounded like based on physiology. I couldn't stop laughing.

Post: #121

Sorry Roosh, but your likely Wrong on how smart Neandertals were.

You were correct the first time, they were MORONS.

Their larger brains were actually ''proof'' that they were MORONS!

Their occipital bun was LARGER, because the VISUAL element of their MORONIC brains was LARGER, to help them hunt at NIGHT,

BECAUSE, they DID NOT THROW THEIR SPEARS, THEY WENT RIGHT UP TO THE F*ING ANIMAL TO STAB IT WITH THEIR SPEARS,
so NIGHT HUNTING was ''safer'', or more likely, they could sneak up on them easier than in the day because they had to surround them, and stab them from 5 feet away.MORONS!

Homo-Sapiens used SPEAR THROWERS to throw the spears from a distance.

The huge problem with this topic is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. The Anthro community says they ''were the same'' as Homo-Sapiens, which is a blatent, outright, PC LIE! And they (should) know it!

Neanerthals were MORONS! They had lower levels of speech capacity, and smaller FRONTAL CORTEX, just look at THEIR HEADS!

My $.02

Post: #122

(12-03-2018 11:04 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 07:23 AM)Fortis Wrote:  Chill Euro-bro, you won.

Doesn't feel like it though.

Every cheap apartment in Europe is populated by arabs and africans. They were built by previous generations with the hope and goal that ordinary European working and lower middle class people should have nice, affordable homes. Now they've become the ghettos of every European capital.

I also think Obama did untold damage to the image of white bros abroad. It was so much better to be a white dude abroad pre-Obama. After Obama, we're just not in demand as much. Even white girls are into Korean dudes now!

Thanks for nothing Obama!

Yea, I talked to a guy who goes to Germany,and he says the LARGE cities have GRAFFITI all over the place. So where are the UTUBES on all of this garbage going on? Oh, yea, its illegal to be mean to the newcomers.But there should be underground people showing this crap and standing up, but its pretty non-existent.

Post: #123

(11-30-2018 06:48 PM)Philosopher Wrote:  

Quote:Carthaginians were as "African" as Boers. Carthage was an entirely Phoenician colony and the Phoenicians were Semites through and through. Their alphabet was almost identical to Hebrew.

Got me thinking how long does it take for a civilization/ethnic to become "native" to their new continent. For example, The Magyars of Hungary are an Asian Steppe tribe yet they have been in Europe for so long, it is hard not to count them as Europeans. L...

Counting some groups - or not - isn't always logical. In 1987 Morocco applied for EC membership but they were denied without too much trouble. Similarly, the Dutch get surprised at comparisons to Boers, even though they're pretty close linguistically and genetically.

As a side note, I've never really understood the whole approach of the OoA theory either. There is no way to suggest OoA without running headlong into the idea that some peoples evolved, while others did not. This seems out of step compared to the equalist theories typically promoted by the liberal social cognoscenti.

Post: #124

I have seen the truth. The neaderthals are Jews. Wheat originated in the middle East.

Same place as where?

That's right. The Jews! They knew it's power and spread throughout the world so agriculture became the norm. At a certain point wheat was no longer enough. They needed something new. Something stronger. Something more powerful.

Here comes paying off Christopher Columbus to sail the new world based off stories about this magical plant called corn. Now there is a new plan and a new plant and it's been pushed hard by those damn neanderthals.



Healthy fats my ass!!!!!!

Post: #125

Short skulls, which jews are mostly, can't be neanderthals.