Buck Breaking (2021) - We was ass raped and shiet! Featuring "Beefsteak Pete" the black troon!

I'm howling. You deserve a medal for your contributions!


Aren't these the talking points popularized in Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel"; that these civilizations were doomed from the very beginning by virtue of their geographic location and purported lack of resources? A view of the history of civilizations that has been widely debunked by contemporary anthropologists, many of whom largely revile Diamond's lack of scientific basis for his claims, of which he is criticized to set out to answer through circular reasoning?

I remember that his book had an upsurge in popularity some years ago, and true to Current Year™, Diamond's detractors were branded as being anti-scientific racists for pointing out the poor scientific standing for many of his claims, his cherry picking of facts and his downright falsification/misunderstanding of historical facts. I don't believe that anyone has ever denied the importance of geography and natural resources for human civilizations, but this narrowminded view of "geographic determinism" is, unsurprisingly, deemed as being not very accurate. The history of human societies is rather complex, after all.
I don’t think you get how big a barrier the Sahara is. It blocks off access from most of west Africa, simply because of where it is on the coast - until the 1500’s, there wasn’t more than the occasional ship going around Africa from the west, as ships needed to stop for supplies along the coast - and the coastal desert blocked off quite a bit of it. Without any large permanent settlements on that coast, there wasn’t a reason or a way to go there, thus isolating much of west Africa. The river systems of the Niger were developed further inland and at the delta, leaving large areas where you simply didn’t have access to the rest of the world outside of traders from across the desert. The river system here also wasn’t extremely navigable by larger vessels.

The Congo river system is also sort of in a similar situation

East Africa by contrast is reachable easily, with the weather patterns of the Indian Ocean encouraging trade up and down the coast. It was far more connected to the global trade network, and thus picked up more from and had more overall contact with the rest of the world.

Geographical determinism isn’t the answer and never will be. but geography dictates a lot of what is and isn’t possible. You’re not growing large amounts of crops in a desert without rivers that regularly flood, you’re not traveling river systems that have fuckloads of rapids, and you’re not crossing large deserts with massive caravans regularly. The difficulties in traveling to sub Saharan Africa limited the amount of ideas and people and trade it got, meaning concepts and technology that got adopted elsewhere didn’t make it there until later and wasn’t always picked up as “needed”.

No, you see African animals are impossible to tame because niggers couldn't tame them, much like the word "ask" cannot be pronounced by the human tongue just because no East St. Louis hood rat can say it.
Zebras are unruly fucking little shits and are skittish of people in the extreme since we evolved alongside them. The effort to maintain a zebra herd was simply not worth it. I’m not even going to pretend you could realistically domesticate the hippo or Cape Buffalo.

Africa has a fuckload of hyper predators that won’t hesitate to eat humans. Having herds there attracts them to you. Going through the effort of domesticating an animal that can not only kill you, but also attracts predators towards you is just not worth the risk, even when the benefits are visible. Herding did catch on with some savanna peoples, but certain tropical diseases kill off large livestock pretty fast so it didn’t spread across everyone.
 
This video sounds like a laugh riot. It sounds like a black Alex Jones chugged a pint or two of frog water and just wrote whatever came to mind into a movie script.

Wouldn't doubt the possibility that he coomed a few times during production as well.
 
kvPyzJJY9w.png

Dem crackas can't keep gettin away wif dis
 
This video sounds like a laugh riot. It sounds like a black Alex Jones chugged a pint or two of frog water and just wrote whatever came to mind into a movie script.

Wouldn't doubt the possibility that he coomed a few times during production as well.
It's a hodge-podge because you had a selection of every single kind of Negroid craziness from Nubians to Kaaaaangz to Nation of Islam to Tariq Nasheed's own blatant homosexuality.
 
Diamondposting aside, I've always been fascinated by the Koppen-Geiger climate map.
tl;dr version: you want the green bits, not the red bits.

View attachment 2258392

And so this is at least partially a shitpost:

You can't spell "colonizer" without "colon".
Man, no wonder homo sapiens got out of Africa the moment they were able to.
 
Much of what Judge Joe Brown says in this movie is actually pretty based. That is a weird thing you will note. The "documentary" veers from absolutely batshit insanity which is so crazy you'll laugh until your eyes pop out of your skull, to actually based, true shit, sometimes even from the very same person
The average black you'll find on the street is basically a /pol/tard with the colors swapped. They'd actually be friends if you sat them both down and had them talk jews.
 
I'm howling. You deserve a medal for your contributions!


Aren't these the talking points popularized in Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel"; that these civilizations were doomed from the very beginning by virtue of their geographic location and purported lack of resources? A view of the history of civilizations that has been widely debunked by contemporary anthropologists, many of whom largely revile Diamond's lack of scientific basis for his claims, of which he is criticized to set out to answer through circular reasoning?

I remember that his book had an upsurge in popularity some years ago, and true to Current Year™, Diamond's detractors were branded as being anti-scientific racists for pointing out the poor scientific standing for many of his claims, his cherry picking of facts and his downright falsification/misunderstanding of historical facts. I don't believe that anyone has ever denied the importance of geography and natural resources for human civilizations, but this narrowminded view of "geographic determinism" is, unsurprisingly, deemed as being not very accurate. The history of human societies is rather complex, after all.
Geographical determinism isn't great, but it's better than Macdonald-style IQ fetishism where we're supposed to assume that high-IQ populations made more civilization (even though the relative development of civilizations has waned and waxed over the years while their dominant ethnic groups have largely stayed the same) and snow makes muh Aryan master race strong even though civilizations mainly developed in warm areas.

I do have some issues with Diamond, though, in that I don't really see why the New World crop mix is supposed to be that bad. Corn, beans, and potatoes are extremely strong crops, so much so that Europeans in the New World mostly just adopted the existing agricultural systems without that much change. I personally suspect that the laggards in the Americas were caused by arriving late to the scene (longer migration, less time to settle and develop) and lack of integration with each other to diffuse technology (which goes back to geography).
 
Geographical determinism isn't great, but it's better than Macdonald-style IQ fetishism where we're supposed to assume that high-IQ populations made more civilization (even though the relative development of civilizations has waned and waxed over the years while their dominant ethnic groups have largely stayed the same) and snow makes muh Aryan master race strong even though civilizations mainly developed in warm areas.

I do have some issues with Diamond, though, in that I don't really see why the New World crop mix is supposed to be that bad. Corn, beans, and potatoes are extremely strong crops, so much so that Europeans in the New World mostly just adopted the existing agricultural systems without that much change. I personally suspect that the laggards in the Americas were caused by arriving late to the scene (longer migration, less time to settle and develop) and lack of integration with each other to diffuse technology (which goes back to geography).
While I'm mostly alright with the idea of geography accounting yo differences, there's the angle of culture that can account to where IQ and geography fails.

You can be of normal iq, have vast resources yet stay in a complete cultural stagnation because your culture doesn't allow for education besides the very basic of what your job needs to be. In regards to black you can see that the number one reason their society is absolutely fucked up is their culture. africans coming to the USA are far more likely to have a decent life than they are.

Though it raises the interesting question of whether Christianity and its related branches are just the optimized set of morals to have a functioning society that progresses in technology, considering it's a religion that survived for two millenia and is behind almost all the technology in the last centuries.
 
I don’t think you get how big a barrier the Sahara is. It blocks off access from most of west Africa, simply because of where it is on the coast - until the 1500’s, there wasn’t more than the occasional ship going around Africa from the west, as ships needed to stop for supplies along the coast - and the coastal desert blocked off quite a bit of it. Without any large permanent settlements on that coast, there wasn’t a reason or a way to go there, thus isolating much of west Africa. The river systems of the Niger were developed further inland and at the delta, leaving large areas where you simply didn’t have access to the rest of the world outside of traders from across the desert. The river system here also wasn’t extremely navigable by larger vessels.

The Congo river system is also sort of in a similar situation

East Africa by contrast is reachable easily, with the weather patterns of the Indian Ocean encouraging trade up and down the coast. It was far more connected to the global trade network, and thus picked up more from and had more overall contact with the rest of the world.

Geographical determinism isn’t the answer and never will be. but geography dictates a lot of what is and isn’t possible. You’re not growing large amounts of crops in a desert without rivers that regularly flood, you’re not traveling river systems that have fuckloads of rapids, and you’re not crossing large deserts with massive caravans regularly. The difficulties in traveling to sub Saharan Africa limited the amount of ideas and people and trade it got, meaning concepts and technology that got adopted elsewhere didn’t make it there until later and wasn’t always picked up as “needed”.


Zebras are unruly fucking little shits and are skittish of people in the extreme since we evolved alongside them. The effort to maintain a zebra herd was simply not worth it. I’m not even going to pretend you could realistically domesticate the hippo or Cape Buffalo.

Africa has a fuckload of hyper predators that won’t hesitate to eat humans. Having herds there attracts them to you. Going through the effort of domesticating an animal that can not only kill you, but also attracts predators towards you is just not worth the risk, even when the benefits are visible. Herding did catch on with some savanna peoples, but certain tropical diseases kill off large livestock pretty fast so it didn’t spread across everyone.
TO THE SHED WITH YOU!
 
Geographical determinism isn't great, but it's better than Macdonald-style IQ fetishism where we're supposed to assume that high-IQ populations made more civilization (even though the relative development of civilizations has waned and waxed over the years while their dominant ethnic groups have largely stayed the same) and snow makes muh Aryan master race strong even though civilizations mainly developed in warm areas.

I'm not arguing with you or shitting on your point here, but there's a difference between "IQ fetishism" and acknowledging the data that does exist on average IQ variance by race. The fact that people mostly refuse to discuss this variable honestly and seriously, even anonymously on the internet, is a big reason why there are so many insane people with weird, extreme ideologies built around it instead of well-developed, evidence-based, rational stances. Nobody is there to debate the true believers in this stuff because the genuine conversations are so rare.

IQ is not everything and wouldn't explain all differences in group outcomes. But it's a big factor, and it's hard to take people seriously who avoid the topic by exclusively focusing on culture (a huge factor as well), geography, etc.
 
I'm not arguing with you or shitting on your point here, but there's a difference between "IQ fetishism" and acknowledging the data that does exist on average IQ variance by race. The fact that people mostly refuse to discuss this variable honestly and seriously, even anonymously on the internet, is a big reason why there are so many insane people with weird, extreme ideologies built around it instead of well-developed, evidence-based, rational stances. Nobody is there to debate the true believers in this stuff because the genuine conversations are so rare.

IQ is not everything and wouldn't explain all differences in group outcomes. But it's a big factor, and it's hard to take people seriously who avoid the topic by exclusively focusing on culture (a huge factor as well), geography, etc.
IQ is a statistic that can have some really wonky variances, especially with children or those without mathematical education, but that’s another topic. IQ gets wayyyy too much focus from racial supremicists who like to pretend it justifies their world views.
 
Back