Serious Sub Saharan Africa is not interesting nor impressive, spent 30+ hours researching

[Transcended Trucel]

Due to liberal coworkers, @C&UNIX , and soycucks influence I decided to read about sub Saharan Africa cultures and watched videos on em.

I read 125/800 pages of this book as @C&UNIX recommended
Amazon product ASIN 1412936365View: https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-African-Religion-Molefi-Asante/dp/1412936365


Literally the only really interesting parts were mostly about anciet Egyptian culture. Very little interesting stuff about anywhere else in Africa. Very pathetic. I watched videos, used Google maps to see places in the books, even then most(99%+) of subsaharan is a worthless shithole. Nothing of value, nothing of interest, an absolute waste of all those natural resources and beautiful scenery.

Many soycucks seethe over comments like these but after doing my research, I have to agree. Subsaharan Africa should be colonized imo, the people their sterilized, literally nothing of significance ever comes from sub Saharan Africa. Hundreds of millions of low IQ subhumans. I spent fucking hours upon hours just trying to see that just maybe something that shows that sub Saharan africans deserve respect. I found 0.

@Uggo Mongo @racoon4 @bummerdrummer and other SFcels are in the correct. People can't tell me I didn't do my research, I went far further than many libtards, average people in reading up on this. Yet found 0 things of significance.

Sub Saharan Africa is a waste under its current governments and People. Trillions of dollars of land all wasted due to incompetent subhuman garbage inhabitants.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

Literally borderline 0 interesting buildings from there. The same shitty statues without variation. Very primitive religions, no deep spiritual traditions with anything remotely interesting.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

@based_meme @Schery6

 

[racoon4]

 

[racoon4]

you can't have a culture if you're low iq

 

[Transcended Trucel]

View attachment 596468

probably explains why they are that shit

 

[Uggo Mongo]

Due to liberal coworkers, @C&UNIX , and soycucks influence I decided to read about sub Saharan Africa cultures and watched videos on em.

I read 125/800 pages of this book as @C&UNIX recommended
Amazon product ASIN 1412936365View: https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-African-Religion-Molefi-Asante/dp/1412936365


Literally the only really interesting parts were mostly about anciet Egyptian culture. Very little interesting stuff about anywhere else in Africa. Very pathetic. I watched videos, used Google maps to see places in the books, even then most(99%+) of subsaharan is a worthless shithole. Nothing of value, nothing of interest, an absolute waste of all those natural resources and beautiful scenery.


View attachment 596436
Many soycucks seethe over comments like these but after doing my research, I have to agree. Subsaharan Africa should be colonized imo, the people their sterilized, literally nothing of significance ever comes from sub Saharan Africa. Hundreds of millions of low IQ subhumans. I spent fucking hours upon hours just trying to see that just maybe something that shows that sub Saharan africans deserve respect. I found 0.

@Uggo Mongo @racoon4 @bummerdrummer and other SFcels are in the correct. People can't tell me I didn't do my research, I went far further than many libtards, average people in reading up on this. Yet found 0 things of significance.

Sub Saharan Africa is a waste under its current governments and People. Trillions of dollars of land all wasted due to incompetent subhuman garbage inhabitants.

Watch the documentary "Empire of Dust" where the chinks learn about nigger laziness, incompetence and thievery. Literally everything of any value they've ever been a part of was only in relation to their partnerships with semites and whites, and now, chinks.

 

[Opus132]

The problem with trying to understand traditional cultures is that most of the people involved in championing or curating said cultures aren't actually qualified to truly understand them and then there's the fact most traditional cultures have been corrupted and degraded by modern influence a long time ago, and this was particularly damaging to cultures that did not leave any significant hard record of themselves and were mostly spread by imitation and oral teaching, such as those of Africa.

The other problem is that familiarity due to constant exposure makes one unable to appreciate the uniqueness of certain cultural manifestations.

People are so used to African music now for instance that they do not see how truly original it was:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN6SBNFZ3-M


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzD3Jekp50E


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AStNNJMerAg


African music is such a substantial element in all modern music that people no longer remember there was a time, as little as 100+ years ago, where those African elements did not exist in music, so it is hard to appreciate their value in their original context, but whenever modern musicians attempt to be complex, they rely on African music:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YecBv-5JXmQ


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH3phKBbVLs

 

[Transcended Trucel]

The problem with trying to understand traditional cultures is that most of the people involved in championing or curating said cultures aren't actually qualified to truly understand them and then there's the fact most traditional cultures have been corrupted and degraded by modern influence a long time ago, and this was particularly damaging to cultures that did not leave any significant hard record of themselves and were mostly spread by imitation and oral teaching, such as those of Africa.

The other problem is that familiarity due to constant exposure makes one unable to appreciate the uniqueness of certain cultural manifestations.

People are so used to African music now for instance that they do not see how truly original it was:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN6SBNFZ3-M


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzD3Jekp50E


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AStNNJMerAg


African music is such a substantial element in all modern music that people no longer remember there was a time, as little as 100+ years ago, where those African elements did not exist in music, so it is hard to appreciate their value in their original context.

sure they have good drum music and beats. But all things considered it is very lacking compared to everyone else ignoring native Americans.

 

[METALMILITA88]

In other news: Water

 

[ethniccel1]

African music is such a substantial element in all modern music that people no longer remember there was a time, as little as 100+ years ago, where those African elements did not exist in music, so it is hard to appreciate their value in their original context, but whenever modern musicians attempt to be complex, they rely on African music:

then post music from those 100+ years ago to prove your claims.

 

[Opus132]

sure they have good drum music and beats. But all things considered it is very lacking compared to everyone else ignoring native Americans.

Well, you have to keep in mind that ancient civilizations, and that includes European civilizations as well, did not have a concept of "art for art's sake" or culture for culture's sake.

That conception only arose in Europe during the Renaissance.

Before that time and in most cultures of the world, art and other things of that kind were produced purely in terms of their immediate practical need, which in all cases meant their role in sustaining a given religious form.

Christian iconography is an example, which was not an "art" as we understand it. Those icons were religious and spiritual artifacts. Painters were subject to specific rules. The subjects, forms and styles was "fixed" and could not be altered, and the end result was intended to impart a specific spiritual experience, ambiance if not direct knowledge of concrete theological or metaphysical ideas pertaining to a given religion.

What this means is that artistic forms that were not needed for a particular sacred climate were never pursued. We are taught that the development of perspective in European art was the result of "progress" where as it merely indicated a change in outlook. Perspective was not only not needed to produce sacred icons but was actively discouraged.

So in all ancient cultures, artistic developments were directed to what was needed and no more. If a particular spiritual climate did not call for a specific technical or artistic development, it was never pursued. In some cases, certain developments were actually forbidden (like pictorial art in Islam).

The result is that it is impossible to assess the "value" of a given traditional culture if one applies the same standard to all of them, but especially a modern European one. All you can do is assess if the elements that DID get develop are capable of expressing some form of genius or deep spirituality, which i think is the case of African music, as well as some sporadic development in the plastic arts, such as the Yoruda heads, which as far as i'm concerned are an high art in all effects.

BTW, this modern western prejudice also affects the people who are trying to elevate those cultures, which is why so many them are so obsessed in crediting black Africans for the civilization of Egypt (it goes without saying that black Africans had nothing to do with Egypt). No other African civilization fits their definition of what constitutes an "advanced" culture, so Africans absolutely must be credited with this particular civilization or else they are deemed to have been incapable of producing any "true" culture. Of course, none of them would dare say stone age civilizations like those of the American Indians were not really a true culture (not the least because we know quite a bit about their religion and how complex it actually was), which shows an inherent contradiciton here which is easily overcome because nobody actually cares about American Indians or even remembers that they exist.

 

[Opus132]

then post music from those 100+ years ago to prove your claims.

You think you have a point here, but let me ask you something, how many people you think actually understand classical music?

The truth is that even those who claim to enjoy it don't really understand it, and the reason they don't understand it is that the influence of African music (with its emphasis on rythmn) made them unable to understand something that was purely harmonic like classical music.

 

[ethniccel1]

You think you have a point here, but let me ask you something, how many people you think actually understand classical music?

The truth is that even those who claim to enjoy it don't really understand it, and the reason they don't understand it is that the influence of African music (with its emphasis on rythmn) made them unable to understand something that was purely harmonic like classical music.

nigger

i just asked for evidence but you write some nonsence here.

this leads me to conclude that there is no evidence

 

[ilieknothing]

I found the story of Mansa Musa very interesting, the richest man in history. He is only just sub Saharan Africa though

 

[ethniccel1]

 

[Opus132]

nigger

i just asked for evidence but you write some nonsence here.

this leads me to conclude that there is no evidence

I'm not surprised i didn't entirely get my point across because my perspective is relatively unique but let's put it this way.

I am Italian and i listen to classical music, and may times the question of why German composers appear to be superior to Italian ones came into my mind.

It would be easy for someone to claim that Germans are superior as a race, at least when it comes to this particular artistic expression, but then one would have to ask why was England bereft of any significant composer for so many centuries despite the fact the English are basically the same race as the Germans, or why there weren't any major German composers in the middle ages.

This nature vs nurture debade the right and the left appear to be locked in seems to have polarized either side in taking an absolute stance even though the reality seems to indicate culture and race both seem to play a factor.

Many in the alt-right claim that the technological progress of the west is the result of the superior intelligence of the white race. The problem with that argument is that same technological progress appeared out of nowhere after centuries of western cultures that were pretty much stuck on the same level of "development". Conversely, there are some other races that adopted to modern technology quickly, like the Japanese, which implies they had the capacity but that then begs the question why they had to wait for Europeans to come up with those advanced technologies despite the fact they had the necessary "intelligence" to develop them on their own.

The truth is that this "progressive" argument the alt-right seems to have adopted here (ironically given that progressivism is a left-wing ideology) is actually based on a false premise, that of "progress" itself, especially material progress, which far from being the main goal of "civilization" is basically an after effect of a particular ideology which rose in Europe in the 15th century but which didn't actually exist before. The Romans could have easily developed modern technology. There is no difference in the level of "development" between Rome at the time of Ceasar and Europe at the threshold of modernity, around the 13th or 14th centuries. In fact, Rome was actually more "advanced" than Europe was right as the "scientific" revolution was about to come into play. So why didn't the Romans veer towards something like modern civilization, which they could have done at any point?

The answer is that they didn't want to and they didn't need to. Material progress only matters to a materialistic culture. Ancient civilizations had a different standard of "development" than modern civilization, and would have probably considered modern civilization to have been "sick" and obessed with this world while ignoring any reality above and beyond this one.

Now, i'm not denying there aren't cetain differences between the races, or that those differences don't play a role, but pretending the outcome of a culture are determined purely by race and that cultural differences don't matter is insane. Before contact with the Romans Northern Europeans had a culture that wasn't that FAR off from either the American Indians or Africa. This is something leftists bring up many times to try to prove that it is culture, and not race, that is absolute. Of course, just looking at the art of Northern Europeans, this art having been subsequently merged with Christian art to produce what we now refer to as Medieval art, i wouldn't dare to call ancient Northern European culture "primitive", despite the fact their highest technological products were wooden shacks and iron swords.

 

[ethniccel1]

I'm not surprised i didn't entirely get my point across because my perspective is relatively unique but let's put it this way.

I am Italian and i listen to classical music, and may times the question of why German composers appear to be superior to Italian ones came into my mind.

It would be easy for someone to claim that Germans are superior as a race, at least when it comes to this particular artistic expression, but then one would have to ask why was England bereft of any significant composer for so many centuries despite the fact the English are basically the same race as the Germans, or why there weren't any major German composers in the middle ages.

This nature vs nurture debade the right and the left appear to be locked in seems to have polarized either side in taking an absolute stance even though the reality seems to indicate culture and race both seem to play a factor.

Many in the alt-right claim that the technological progress of the west is the result of the superior intelligence of the white race. The problem with that argument is that same technological progress appeared out of nowhere after centuries of western cultures that were pretty much stuck on the same level of "development". Conversely, there are some other races that adopted to modern technology quickly, like the Japanese, which implies they had the capacity but that then begs the question why they had to wait for Europeans to come up with those advanced technologies despite the fact they had the necessary "intelligence" to develop them on their own.

The truth is that this "progressive" argument the alt-right seems to have adopted here (ironically given that progressivism is a left-wing ideology) is actually based on a false premise, that of "progress" itself, especially material progress, which far from being the main goal of "civilization" is basically an after effect of a particular ideology which rose in Europe in the 15th century but which didn't actually exist before. The Romans could have easily developed modern technology. There is no difference in the level of "development" between Rome at the time of Ceasar and Europe at the threshold of modernity, around the 13th or 14th centuries. In fact, Rome was actually more "advanced" than Europe was right as the "scientific" revolution was about to come into play. So why didn't the Romans veer towards something like modern civilization, which they could have done at any point?

The answer is that they didn't want to and they didn't need to. Material progress only matters to a materialistic culture. Ancient civilizations had a different standard of "development" than modern civilization, and would have probably considered modern civilization to have been "sick" and obessed with this world while ignoring any reality above and beyond this one.

Now, i'm not denying there aren't cetain differences between the races, or that those differences don't play a role, but pretending the outcome of a culture are determined purely by race and that cultural differences don't matter is insane. Before contact with the Romans Northern Europeans had a culture that wasn't that FAR off from either the American Indians or Africa. This is something leftists bring up many times to try to prove that it is culture, and not race, that is absolute. Of course, just looking at the art of Northern Europeans, this art having been subsequently merged with Christian art to produce what we now refer to as Medieval art, i wouldn't dare to call ancient Northern European culture "primitive", despite the fact their highest technological products were wooden shacks and iron swords.

Just bring the evidence

 

[ethniccel1]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjx_yaQ62fE&ab_channel=van1976

 

[based_meme]

@based_meme @Schery6

I have no useful input here, but it's interesting that you did a ton of research on this, tbhngldedsrs.

 

[Opus132]

Just bring the evidence

It's not a question of evidence it's a question of the standards you are chosing to determine "worth", which is the standard of modern western civilization, a standard which recognizes greatness only in terms of material and technological "advancement". So the Romans were great because they build impossibly large granite temples or sprawling stone cities. From my point of view, this does not constitute a greatness but an actual degeneration, and i would consider the European middle ages to have been "superior" to late Rome despite being less "advanced" on a techical or material level.

An even more pertinent case is modern civilization itself, which is THE most advanced civilization in the entire history of humanity in terms of its technical and material sophistication, but for me it is the also the lowest civilization that has ever existed.

I also think you don't really need "evidence" if the argument is that blacks are intellectually less capable than other races, since to me that seems something that one can only determine by means of self-observation and as i pointed out relying on "cultural" achievement to make that case just opens yourself to contradiction, because as i explained cultural achievement is entirely voluntary and leftists always like to point out that Europeans were at some point very "primitive" compared to neighboring civilizations (like the ubiquitous "golden age" of Islam). Relying on that kind of "evidence" opens yourself for a perfect rebuttal since there does appear to be something relative about cultural achievement, so that it is difficult to argue that an advanced culture is invariably the product of superior racial talents when the same racial group was at one point very primitive.

Lastly, i need to point out what my point of view is, which is that true intelligence is the ability to grasp invisible realities, and has nothing to do with something external and measurable like IQ. I do not necessarely have to deny there is a difference in IQ between certain racial groups to claim that the races are actually equal in an higher, more transcedent sense, because IQ only grants a superiority in the kind of knowledge that "putteth up" and has no bearing on the kind of knowledge acquired by what the Greeks referred to as the "nous", and again modern civilization is the best and most complete "proof" of this, if visible evidence is what you want.

For me, the question with blacks is not "are they capable of advanced science", or anything like that, but whether are they capable of true intellectuality and nous, the answer to the latter being that yes, they can in fact express that kind of inward intelligence, the kind of intelligence that pertains not to breath but to depth.

Never forget that all of the high IQ intellectuals of modern civilization became convinced that this is actually music:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFKFiXSx4


In case you need evidence of the relative limits of IQ. Without nous, without true intelligence, an high IQ can only lead to a sophisticated form of idiocy. In fact, the best way to describe modern thinking is that of referring to it as the most intelligent way to be as stupid as you possibly can.

 

[ethniccel1]

It's not a question of evidence it's a question of the standards you are chosing to determine "worth", which is the standard of modern western civilization, a standard which recognizes greatness only in terms of material and technological "advancement". So the Romans were great because they build impossibly large granite temples or sprawling stone cities. From my point of view, this does not constitute a greatness but an actual degeneration, and i would consider the European middle ages to have been "superior" to late Rome despite being less "advanced" on a techical or material level.

An even more pertinent case is modern civilization itself, which is THE most advanced civilization in the entire history of humanity in terms of its technical and material sophistication, but for me it is the also the lowest civilization that has ever existed.

I also think you don't really need "evidence" if the argument is that blacks are intellectually less capable than other races, since to me that seems something that one can only determine by means of self-observation and as i pointed out relying on "cultural" achievement to make that case just opens yourself to contradiction, because as i explained cultural achievement is entirely voluntary and leftists always like to point out that Europeans were at some point very "primitive" compared to neighboring civilizations (like the ubiquitous "golden age" of Islam). Relying on that kind of "evidence" opens yourself for a perfect rebuttal since there does appear to be something relative about cultural achievement, so that it is difficult to argue that an advanced culture is invariably the product of superior racial talents when the same racial group was at one point very primitive.

Lastly, i need to point out what my point of view is, which is that true intelligence is the ability to grasp invisible realities, and has nothing to do with something external and measurable like IQ. I do not necessarely have to deny there is a difference in IQ between certain racial groups to claim that the races are actually equal in an higher, more transcedent sense, because IQ only grants a superiority in the kind of knowledge that "putteth up" and has no bearing on the kind of knowledge acquired by what the Greeks referred to as the "nous", and again modern civilization is the best and most complete "proof" of this, if visible evidence is what you want.

For me, the question with blacks is not "are they capable of advanced science", or anything like that, but whether are they capable of true intellectuality and nous, the answer to the latter being that yes, they can in fact express that kind of inward intelligence, the kind of intelligence that pertains not to breath but to depth.

Never forget that all of the high IQ intellectuals of modern civilization became convinced that this is actually music:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFKFiXSx4


In case you need evidence of the relative limits of IQ. Without nous, without true intelligence, an high IQ can only lead to a sophisticated form of idiocy. In fact, the best way to describe modern thinking is that of referring to it as the most intelligent way to be as stupid as you possibly can.

seriouslz I did not even read your paragraphs. No evidence

 

[Ika-Sama]

Good for you, even if Africa is worthless.

 

[Dassadeinmush]

Due to liberal coworkers, @C&UNIX , and soycucks influence I decided to read about sub Saharan Africa cultures and watched videos on em.

I read 125/800 pages of this book as @C&UNIX recommended
Amazon product ASIN 1412936365View: https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-African-Religion-Molefi-Asante/dp/1412936365


Literally the only really interesting parts were mostly about anciet Egyptian culture. Very little interesting stuff about anywhere else in Africa. Very pathetic. I watched videos, used Google maps to see places in the books, even then most(99%+) of subsaharan is a worthless shithole. Nothing of value, nothing of interest, an absolute waste of all those natural resources and beautiful scenery.


View attachment 596436
Many soycucks seethe over comments like these but after doing my research, I have to agree. Subsaharan Africa should be colonized imo, the people their sterilized, literally nothing of significance ever comes from sub Saharan Africa. Hundreds of millions of low IQ subhumans. I spent fucking hours upon hours just trying to see that just maybe something that shows that sub Saharan africans deserve respect. I found 0.

@Uggo Mongo @racoon4 @bummerdrummer and other SFcels are in the correct. People can't tell me I didn't do my research, I went far further than many libtards, average people in reading up on this. Yet found 0 things of significance.

Sub Saharan Africa is a waste under its current governments and People. Trillions of dollars of land all wasted due to incompetent subhuman garbage inhabitants.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a waste because the biological adaptions to those tropical environments make it incapable of civilization and agriculture without mass deforestation. This is the same reason why many tribals still live in Brazil's Amazon and some scheduled tribals live like hunter gatherer monkeys in forested areas in India

 

[Opus132]

seriouslz I did not even read your paragraphs. No evidence

Brutal ignore posting.