Macron, Much Like Centrism, Is a Vile Piece of Predatory Garbage

They will cuz iPhones and chocolate. Can't argue with the comforts of the first world.

It all becomes pretty clear when you realize they are just dumb. No need for some Rube Goldberg inspired explanation as to why these people living on some of the most fertile land on Earth never managed to get anywhere. You can try but the reasons you mention don't in any way explain away the fact that the nations that did not get colonized do even worse. Neither do they even remotely quantify the effect of France's policies. It is just laid out as a blanket rationalization for indoctrinated minds to lap up.
Ever wonder why France takes the money away? Because otherwise it gets spent on a bunch of crap. It gets spent making palaces for the dictator and all of his family members. It gets blown away year after year. It is the same thing the Peace Corps do where they forcibly maintain funds from local farms to save for fertilizer. Otherwise the people blow it on useless garbage to showboat to friends and family.
Africa will never see the light of a day without hunger and suffering whilst morons pretend that Africans are analogous to Europeans. The Malthusian catastrophe in Africa is coming and the horrors that come with it will be on the hands of people who think like you.

If anything, Africa is a mess because of COMMUNIST meddling…

Nice counterargument, m8.

...

...

Serious question:
If Africans are inherently retarded and never get anywhere because their genetics have bad Autism Level or whatever why don't we have all races fuck each other so that eventually we end up with the mixed, master race?

...

your genetical code is soup of 2 people and all their ancestors
all that will do is bigger bowl of soup
it doesn`t produce geniuses, just ppl with characteristics from both
it isnt progress its just widening the pool

by no means any worse just different

holy shit kys yourself dumb underaged commie

the cuck got triggered!

wouldnt a wider pool create more instances of geniuses?
I mean biological diversity between two groups of animals is good but not for humans for some reason?

...

...

Excuse me?
Industrials invested a lot of money in there, got the raw material back to Europe and sold it for a profit. No money was taken from Africa, and let's not forget all the investment in education and infrastructure needed by the colonial occupant to turn Africa in a land fit for capitalism.

What France now do in Africa is to protect the governments already in place to stay in place, because of reasons.

So, France does not only NOT make coups, they also stop coups, like the one in Ivory coast not so long ago.

And whatever is happening, making an average of 8 kids per women when you live in the desert is a bad idea and it will end horribly. Do you seriously expect Niger to feed 500M people? How do you think it will end?

Source for this colonial debt?

Haiti got one but it was a payment against the recognition of the independence of the country and the forgiving of the ethic cleaning.

Where the fuck do you live? Everywhere else I've seen it's the complete opposite, i.e. "Westerners need to have less children, Africans are fine because they're not consuming half as much as we do"

If Macron really wanted to hurt the Africans, he would tell his guys to come back home and the reign of warlords would really start.

What Africa need right now to fix itself is political stability.

It can be an issue. You just haven't quantified how it is an issue or to what extent the issue can be a cause for blame.
We can and have quantified the nigger. We know that wherever the nigger goes a shithole follows. Trying to rationalize the shithole away in this specific instance with liberal progressive conspiracy theories about how the racism of the imperialist French is to blame is just retarded. Why would you think this particular shithole is the result of these policies when the same shithole exists in other places not affected and even gets created on separate continents?
We know why the French do what they do in Africa. We know why they take the money from the shithole makers. Your whole narrative has no relation to reality and can only exist in a historical, geographical vacuum.

It doesn't matter how much money you throw at Africa, or charity, the corrupt politicians that rule Africa will just pocket the money and never help their citizens. The people will just fart out 10 kids even though they live in a mud hut and live on one dollar a day at best.
If it were up to the left they would keep africa in this frozen state because any actual criticism of the continent is racissss!
If african nations were to prosper it must build better infrastructure, fund education, especially for women, normalize birth control, and reduce their population so there weren't so many starving nig nogs all over the place.
And once that is accomplished you start importing Chinese laborers to take der jerbs.

here's your (You)

You would end up with a mixed mongrel race suffering from outbreeding depression. Mixed offspring generally lose out on all the "edges" of their parents. A mix of a West-African+Chinese would lose out to the offspring of "pure" West-Africans in physical activities and would lose to the "pure" Chinese in mental ones.
It would basically be a massive Brazil/India, just more retarded and prone to genetic ailments.
Believe me, if the white sex deprived underbelly of extreme politics found a rational excuse to have babies with the easily available brown female population they would jump on it. It simply isn't there.

I like how Rwanda spend like 10% of its GDP in the army because "humanitarian" help take care of all the others things.

But how are you going to remove the corrupt elite from power and ensure no other corrupt elite take their place? You send the army and make a coup? You occupy the country for a century or two? This is colonialism.

It's not always true, Euro-Asian girls are the cutest girls in the world, but Afro-Asians are ugly.

You make a good point. We must not forget what social disaster the colonially imposed borders have been for indigenous cultures and societies.

So, having culturally, religiously and ethnically different groups of people in a country lead to instability?

Are you fucking dumb? Most fertile land on earth? Are you retarded? Jesus Christ, check yourself man. The most intensively fertile lands are in Europe and China.

When you can't intellectually defend an idea for more than 10 minutes the idea is probably shit.
Here. (You) clearly need this more than I do.

Yup. First day here, Holla Forums?

No, they are on volcanic tropical islands.

What is important for agriculture is the combination of good weather and good land. Ukraine have one of the best land in the word but the weather ruin it most years. Despite that fact, Ukraine have the potential to produce a third of the food made in Europe. India and China have both, it's why they an feed so many people.

In comparison, the lands of Western Europe or the USA are not exceptional. The land of Canada is poor and Australia is basically a desert.

Africa is fucking big. Some parts are a desert and some parts are very generous and fertile. Look at the South Sudan, Central Afiquan repiblic, Nigeria, Gahna… All are greener than Europe.

weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/what-is-africas-agriculture-potential/
openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16624/769900WP0SDS0A00Box374393B00PUBLIC0.pdf;sequence=1
ifpri.org/publication/unlocking-africas-agricultural-potential
news.trust.org//item/20141016131857-p65fx/

The society people live in is based on the technology that is around them. Tech shapes people.
I have read articles about african nations that have rolling black outs all the time.
I also read a study about india from a long time ago that said that the areas that had access to television and were brainwashed by the governments birth control propaganda has a hire rate of birth control adoption.

To improve africa, really it comes down to building an infrastructure that isnt shit, better education, getting rid of whatever tribal system they have, providing and normalizing birth control so that the nation isnt overpopulated and filled with poors and starving people.

Look at china, they instituted the one child policy and their population is on the future decline, while their country is rivaling america.
A lower population is a sign of prosperity if anything

I mean, having culturally different groups in one state will lead to that state being less stable, obviously. That is just basic political science. But that doesn't mean that multuculturalism is morally wrong, not that immigration or intermarriage is something to be feared.

The reason the social problems in Africa were amplified, though, is because the states were imposed on them by foreign colonial powers. The states weren't organic.

So, said African states just have to be more tolerant then.

Unlike the USA or Europe, Am I right? Do you have any idea why we have so many separatists?

Africa would have this infrastructure if nations like France and others stopped fucking them over and taking everything that isn't nailed down.

If you haven't read the article. You'll enjoy it.

...

I said
Not that your hyperbole matters. 60% of arable land in the world is in Africa. That there exists ever so slightly more fertile plots of land elsewhere does not explain the monumental failure of African agriculture. The sub 80 I.Q people living there does.

Well, european nation states were also forced by a certain dominant culture upon weaker regional cultures. Take for example the Catalonians in Spain, the Bavarians in Germany, the Occitanians in France, the Frisians in the Netherlands, the Scottish in the UK, or the entire clusterfuck that is Belgium.

Okay, maybe not organic, but states in European generally have had a longer time to force populations to adapt to them.

What is your point even?

Seriously, why are there suddenly a bunch of reactionaries in this thread? Are they really that obsessed over defending the European legacy in Africa? Geez.

> if only they tried XYZ then Africa would be paradise on earth xoxo

It's not "some".

We have about 15 different cultures and regional languages in France, Germany have probably more. Nothing unite them except the state they are living in. Alsacian had to live in both and not a single time they tried to kill the other people in the country they are in.

We are concerned about the fact that 3 of the 4 billions Africans in 2100 will go to Europe/North America.

"Benefits of colonialism" and "settlements for financial losses", basically, reparations to France for all the times Francophone Africa had enough of France's shit.

Don't worry, if we let Africans rule themselves they will surely get rid of this tribal mindset they have.

And uniformity and stability was effectively forced upon them. This is not the case in Africa, where institutions simply are not strong enough to enforce cultural homogeneity (besides the cultural issue not being as simply as you portray it to be: imagine a state smack in the middle of europe comprised of french-speaking and german-speaking people).

Due to the fact that the current states in Africa were forced upon them by European forces, they remained weak without direct European backing. Thus, instability is rampant. This is not just an ethnic/cultural issue, it is also an institutional and economical issue.

There's only one African continent, dickhead. Name another huge landmass on Earth where black people are the dominant population. Until then you're full of shit.

You are aware that is literal nonsense, right? You assume that by 2100 there will be 4 billion Africans. I know you probably got that from one of those extrapolating graphs, and I know that this figure is the case if growth in Africa remains as high as possible.

Except, as we have seen in the past, economical developement leads to lower birthrates. Also, if you really want to stop Africans from coming to Europe, perhaps making their lives at home better by stopping the horrid institution that is neocolonialism would help. Don't forget, they're going here because they expect a better life here. Allow them to live a better life there, and they'll stay.

No need to hate on them.

Colonial powers forced them to live together in peace, but they had to go because apparently it was evil.

You described both the United provinces and Alsace and Lorraine.

Now, if you add Italian, you have the absolute best country in the history of countries.

The things holding Belgium together are gone, except for their king but he have no power. Belgium still have to become a third world country.

Yes, très bon, ignore the fact that the French Central Bank is holding 500 billion dollars worth of African cash which itself equals about 20% of French GDP. I'm sure this couldn't be a huge stimulant for an aging France with laggard economic growth while damaging African economies–I thought righties were supposed to be against finance capital? I'm sure it would matter if it was white people's money the central bank was playing with but probably not tbh

Liberal do gooders and christcucks keep donating food and medicine preventing the eugenic die off Africa so desperately needs.

Care to elaborate about that "colonial debt" you keep talking about?

Yes. If evil whitey didn't steal it Bowambe would invest it all into educational and agricultural projects for future generations like all the other African warlords. Read the thread you. Your clown world view has already been addressed. The problem with Africa is not money or land or history. It's the people.

...

Haiti.

Literally fuck off nazi scum

Do you want me to open paint and make a picture saying that colonialism was about France investing 99% of its GDP for 6 centuries straight to Africa?

Give me a link to a non politically motivated source.

...

You know some blacks don't come from Africa, right? In some place of Asia or in Indonesia, locals are blacks. Abbos have a black skin too.

Explain yourself.

...

You said France is creating coups all over Africa, and what France is doing is stopping coups all over Africa.
If anything, you proved France had a major positive impact on Africa and just made a typo.

Nice picture. Now explain to me what is that colonial debt thing,it's the first time I hear about it and I want to know more.

...

They are literally the same brand of starving subhuman niggers with 80 I.Q, why do they have time to care about muh culture? They do realize that nobody in the outside world cares about their minute special snowflake differences right?
Seems like its okay for Africans to be reactionary and make war over ethnicity even though they are literally starving.

You're so naïve, Holla Forums.

You know some African countries are fairly well-off, right? Libya no longer deserves to be on the list but before the bombing of Libya it probably had the highest standard of living on the African continent.

lmao

ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1264947
Follow up since its old data.

They're genetically removed from Africans by about 50,000 years though.

"B-but France is the honest police man of Africa!"

They have to get rid of their corrupt clique before it can just happen.

They had a trade embargo because they wouldn't stop trading with the pirate ships.

...

...

...

And why wouldn't they trade with pirates? What separates thieves that steal sugarcane, tobacco and spices from trade ships from slave boats that steal men, women and children from Africa's coast? Besides, you never posted a source that claimed that the trade embargo was enacted simply because the Haitians allegedly traded with pirates. All European powers did.

What part of "they only prevent coups if their puppet leaders are at risk of losing power" don't you understand?

...

We just said what Africa needed was political stability. If France go back to France, the stability is gone.

France asked Haiti to pay a huge sum because they gave former black slaves military instructions and the blacks killed all whiteys and all mulattoes on the island. This could not have been unpunished.

It's still something.

fuck you get of this fucking board can imperial apologia be considered banworthy already?

Even you can do better.

What the fuck are you even going on about?

You haven't shown this at all. Without France's continued intervention there would be no continued prosperity just like there was none before France. The more contact African nations had with Colonials the more the prosperity.
As is proven every single time a new warlord takes over and starts building a brand new palace. The Peace Corps does the very same thing on a smaller scale to make sure the black farmers buy fertilizer and not a bunch of crap to show off to their friends and family.

You're the one losing the argument, all you can do now is cry about muh autism level bc that's like your sonic arms.

Some have been converted to Christianity, some to Islam.

I don't know why but it is enough to kill each others.

i0m not arguing with you i'm calling you an idiot

I said if you want political stability in Africa, you need to play with stable powers, and there is none in Africa.

I don't want the situation to stay the same forever, but good change can only happen if it can happen.

What are your arguments beside France=bad?

People ITT claiming "artificial" borders (whatever that means) imposed by europe are the cause of african misery because they put many different people in a single country (even though there is really no discernible difference between one kind of nigger and another).

These are the same people that claim race is a spook, that white-black solidarity is possible in america and that miscegenation is irrelevant shit.

T.Pol

You're probably one of those kids that ate glue as a kid. Does this post even warrant a serious response? Are you going to have me prove to you that Africa is in fact not a country, but a continent with thousands of mutually intelligible spoken languages, cuisines, histories, architecture, wildlife and noticeable physical differences between peoples depending on their ethnicity and land of origin?

Jesus Christ, Holla Forums…

Oh and wanting an ethnostate for one's people isn't the same as making "gas the kikes/dindus Nazi masturbation fantasy now 14/88" an official manifesto and claiming a totally different continent that your ancestors didn't even originate from for your race.

...

I'm Ghanaian. Christianity and Islam ain't even scratching the surface of all the shit that people fight over in Africa. A lot of ethnic groups have bitter, bloody rivalries with each other that stretch back centuries. Think of The Rwandan Genocide where almost a million Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutu death squads because the Tutsi had historically oppressed the Hutu by controlling the cattle/agriculture based societies that the two coexisted in. These burgers don't know shit.

No, nazis do. Most white people reject your segregationism.

...

Given the immense resources their lands provide them with it is meeting the bare minimum.
For starters Libya, as well as many others on that list, is not filled with blacks. And the trend on the list is that the less blacks there are, the more the prosperity.
Equatorial Guinea struck oil. South Africa is still propped up by its white population that pays over 90% of the taxes.
I don't hate Africa. I hate the people who think that the problems of Africa are a result everything other than the niggers that make up the majority of its population. All the while claiming others are of fault.

kek I thought you were half white with a father from the Caribbean

Wtf are you a shapeshifting black reptilian now

Admit it, Macron could force an African kid to watch him kill his pet dog and you'd support him cuz "fuck niggers lol".

Never said I'm Caribbean. I'm half German (mum) and half Ghanaian (dad).

Well you're not Ghanian either then you're a mullato.

By self segregating in a phenomenon known as "white flight" whenever the area gets to muddy.
Meanwhile they own two dogs and a parrot.
No one likes living in a multiculti/multiracial neighborhood. It's only the poor that are forced to since they can't afford to move. Do the poor gain some new racial class camaraderie with their ethnic neighbors? Is this the answer!? No. We get skinheads that tattoo swastikas on their eyelids.

...

The racial maps of the cities of the US show that.

Out of free will, people choose segregation.

Again, can you show this to me? It is the central point of your argumentation and I want to know if it is real.

...

Still black enough for you to call me a nigger, hence the flag.

...

Some self-segregate, others don't, please don't lump superior people (non-racists) with inferiors (racists) like you.

Don't worry, with the way things are going in another generation nobody will call you nigger any more when all the white people are gone and all of the mullatos will pull a 180 only identifying with their white side as they always inevitably do. Your niggers will be your pure cousins from the south of the sahel flooding in.

Kulaks deserved it. They shouldn't have been cool indirectly benefitting from with living on an island with an economy driven by human trafficking. "Bad things happen when good people do nothing."

To the defence of blacks, being a "victim of apparteid" does not give you skills in farming. Kicking the good farmers out of the farms and placing unqualified people who never saw a pig to do their job could only have ended with a disaster.

Look for yourself.
radicalcartography.net/index.html?chicagodots

By then all the racists are gonna be a historical footnote so we'll all be pretty chill with each other.

You Holla Forums-tards really have never heard of critical thinking or analysis have you? It's all "dumb blacks" vs. "glorious gracious whites" to you. Take your reactionary bullshit out of here and go back to Holla Forums, we don't want you.

You have no idea how racists the Chinese are. Out of the 50 ethnicities in China, all but two are treated worse than blacks under the apartheid. What do you think they will do once the white colonial powers are gone and there is a vacuum of power?

Actually, Congo Free State was a corporation.

Only white people are racists! People still believe this!

May you, Mutumbo and Abdul have a lot of fun fighting Nazi masturbation fantasys with each other over the crumbs of the European continent.

Holy shit you are unsalvageably retarded. Kill yourself before it is too late.

And water is wet.

The SA government paid stipends to old farmers to teach the new ones how to farm. There is already a greentext of a first hand account on how that went.

Teaching people with I.Q's below 83 anything complex is near impossible. The US army set that lower limit for a reason. I mean, where do you draw the line? At what point is it not someone else to blame that not a single majority black country can function on a level even vaguely similar to others.

Like the land actually *belonged* to the Boers.

The economy since then has changed drastically. The agrarian life is no longer as profitable as it used to be due to globalization. That's why less and less family owned farmers exist in Britain. South Africans are just reacting to the market.

Also, link your source for this shit. I wanna know where you got your "spend fertilizer money on consumer goods" idea from.

You know Botswana isn't exactly a white country, right? Let's go back to the starting premise of yours which is that there was no evidence to assume that blacks would manage their affairs any better even if imperialist economic exploitation like that of France was removed.

So, the fact that there are black African countries that are well-off already shows that they could manage their affairs if imperialist economic exploitation was removed. Those countries succeeded despite colonial history and the pressure of the imperialist powers, so there is no reason to think it couldn't done if the barrier of imperialist interference and exploitation were removed.

At the same time it wouldn't be heaven it would still be capitalism (assuming they don't move to socialism) if only a slightly healthier, progressive and younger variant of it and there would still be other social problems.

Right now Africa is actually one of the fastest growing regions in the world and undergoing one of the fastest urbanizations in world history. The mostly white OECD is growing at a paltry 0-2% a year; they look to invest their capital areas of the world that are more dynamic and profitable to offset their own decline.

Whatever it was it cut the hands off children if their parents couldn't meet rubber, diamond and gold quotas set by King Leopold II's colonial officers.

The Boers are the original inhabitants of a third of S.A. In that part, around the Cap, they are the locals and all the blacks are illegals immigrants.

Some countries are regular poor and corrupt third world countries and not a primitive dystopia, sure. What do you want to prove?

Germany get levelled and occupied for decades. They managed to do good.

Lmao.
And in any case, whites have as many of these things but it's different when white people want an ethnostate?
Why is it only africans are allowed to be racist and allowed to say diversity is bad for thrm?

They can't be much worse than burgers and faguettes seeing as they at least *trade* with African countries instead of just bombing people and overthrowing honest leaders till they get the resources they want.

No, Africans re not the only ones. Indians, Arabs Turks, Asians are allowed to be racist too.

A good advice: never trust a Chink.

chinaafricaproject.com/category/military/

...

You can, it's called Europe. If you don't wanna live round Mexicans and the descendants of slaves brought to America from Africa by force move to wherever it is your ancestors emigrated from.

newsweek.com/china-sending-army-djibouti-africa-why-635310

First, the two aren't even remotely comparable.

Second, Germany got leveled and then had billions of dollars dumped into it. If Germany had to shell out hundreds of billions of marks in reparations and rebuild itself, as in post colonial Africa, then I imagine the situation would be significantly different.

Do what we tell you to do and you will have a share
Why do you think France told the Marshall plan to fuck off?

I don't trust China anyway. They stopped being socialist back when Mao died, now they're state capitalists. I expect nothing less from them.

So by "ethnostate" do you just mean people of the same skin tone, or what, because none of what you are saying makes the least bit of sense.

Source? I'm pretty sure the San and Xhosa were the first to greet them when they first hopped off their boats.

It was not better before, they just had no projection force.

Look at Korea and Vietnam. How do you call that?

...

What are you talking about? My point was that Germany was rebuild with other countries help.

Mao was against all forms of capitalist exploitation of the third world. He wrote about it extensively.

Nigger

Just like African countries receive help from the colonial power…. to do whatever is good for the colonial power.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
But they didn't. According to this France received 2.3 billion dollars.

Europe is flooded by rapefugees and sandniggers, in no small part because of you leftycucks

Mao never tried to colonize Africa for capital gain, dickhead. Read a book.

Ha, yes, the Swiss Africa, the Finish slave trade and the Irish oppression on Indians.

So, 0,1% of the GDP of one year?

Plus all their debt was cancelled by the very same Western "Jewish-run" countries they accused of forcing them to start to WWII. Must be really nice.

The average German didn't even feel the potential negative effects of the debt cancellation everything was cancelled except pay-roll debt of corporations to their employees. Greece was starved to death by the Germans and the Greek-puppet government was simultaneously a creditor to the Reich and they forgave their debt and didn't get shit. Now Greece is being murdered by German banks who refuse to even consider debt amnesty. Talk about irony.

And why does he sent men to Korea and Vietnam?

Good. You'll fit right in, Holla Forums.

To fight American imperialism just like how Castro sent 40,000 soldiers to Angola to drive out the Portugese.

South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan all became developed in 3 decades despitr spending most of their existence as colonized third world shitholes with no natural resources and no space at all. It's because the population there is smarter.

Lee Kwan Yew, the ruler of Singapore, realized as much and believed he couldn't have made his country developed if it had been a country with a majority of Africans or Tamils instead of Han Chinese.

They saw what happen when you give them the treaty of Versailles.

African countries got their debt cancelled too.

It's because they work like crazy.

I can't even tell who's Holla Forums and who's prole no more…

You were wrong and trying to change the subject isn't going to change that.

And France kicked the socialist guy to drive out the Soviet sphere of influence.
Two can play this game.

Nice contrarianism, kid. The fact remains most of the major Western capitalist nations had colonies and usually during crucial stages of their development.

Let's make a list of European states with significant colonial empires:
UK, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Austria-Hungary, Russia, even Denmark to a certain extent.

So pretty much all the major players and powers in European politics had a colonial history. Switzerland and Luxembourg aren't even worth mentioning due to their small populations and their role as banking resorts for the big powers.

Finland and the Scandinavian nations traded with the big powers and were granted muh privileges that allowed them to invest their capital in their imperial spheres if they wanted to. Ireland is a post-colonial success story but also mostly tax haven for American megacorps.

GG.
Step

...

I welcome communist influence in Africa no matter what race it's coming from

currently it's chinese "communism" ie just another imperialism.

africa needs some autonomy and pan-africanism for once

This thread's fulla Sam Harris-tier excuses for foreign interventionism and war mongering. The right-wing's so fucking reactionary…

As much as it *belonged* to anyone else. It was largely uninhabited when they took over. They have been there a long time. Maybe if they where black you would feel different about them. The work they had done cultivating it into farmland was probably what they where paying for.

When the white farmers did it 5 years before it was profitable. Then it suddenly became so unprofitable they abandoned 90% of it. It's just a coincidence that it coincides with blacks taking it over.
*Rube Goldberg intensifies*

Pieter D. Rossouw, recounting a first hand experience of a farmer.

The point being discussed is: Is Africa poor because it was occupied and deposited by an external power and is Europe successfully because they were the receiving side?

And Ireland got the African treatment.

There is instances of African country not being colonized and of European countries being colonised.

If you think Finland got special trade agreement because they are half white, you are a brainwashed liberal in a progressive university. There was no white solidarity and Finland got nothing.

Look at Iceland if you want. They make a good control group ans they were moslty left alone.

So, the USSR was communist now?

I was told it was not.

It's South Africa, not Somalia.

Even if it was (which it ain't) so is Greenland, but nobody's tryna argue that it don't belong to the Inuit just cuz there's only 50,000 of them.

If it was they wouldn't have sold it off so quick. Besides, globalization didn't just start fucking up local economies and traditional life once Alex Jones started screaming bout it on the airwaves.

No, Europe is"flooded" (it isn't, by the way) due to the abject poverty and war in the regions refugees are coming from. Stopping the war and poverty ends the "flooding". How to stop the war and poverty? Well, ending capitalism would be a great start.

theguardian.com/global-development/2016/may/22/southern-africa-worst-global-food-crisis-25-years

Or more specifically, start with ending neoliberalism, neoimperialism, and neocolonialism.

Literally it was just a city-state and started out as one of the wealthiest parts of Asia, as a major port-city for the British Empire even during colonialism.

Literally all land is owned by the government which provides 85% of housing+ has a major role in the economy
(source:huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/ha-joon-chang-economics_n_5120030.html)

It's easier to concentrate on business (and consumption for the working class) when you're not paying crazy high rents which is the model that modern neoliberal economics preaches. They had progressive elements in their economy in addition to their notable advantages that helped them develop it wasn't all "hurrr durr Asians are good at math" or some shit.

Let me tell you something about the other two examples you will never be told, they both had significant land reform that expropriated/diminished their landed aristocracies due to the pressure coming from communist states and US-support for such a program to "head off communism" they also developed significant welfare states and a large part of their economy was state-run. They tariffed their industrial goods but because they were US sweethearts it didn't matter the US gave them loans on generous terms and allowed them access to their markets despite such practices.

Here's one thing you will not be told about ALL the major hotspots of development in Asia: South Korea, Singapore, Japan, HK, Taiwan, Thailand, to some extent PRC etc. they are ALL hotspots of international organized crime. The imperialist-run heroin trade in particular had a major role in all of those countries but in the three you named they were so elbow-deep in that shit that it is a factor that could practically explain their success by itself.

Hell, while US-supported kleptocrats were stealing everything the Indonesian people that wasn't nailed down their elite was depositing most of their wealth in Singaporean banks. That's why Singaporeans refer to the Indonesian giant that borders them as "big brother" and shy away from ever criticizing them.

It was socialist with a lot of problems, but still under all the layers of greed and bureaucracy at least *tried* to be communist. China just stopped giving a fuck all together and is tryna play catch up to America nowadays.

Why haven't thought of it?

Let me just find the magical wand of war stopping and poverty eradication.

*which by the way the Singaporean model is far from the model that modern neoliberal economics preaches

...

Which is why I said I don't trust them. The Soviet Union was better.

Mandela knew kicking the good farmers out of the farm would result in a disaster.

...

I can deal with this kind of "free market communism".

Quit supporting the wars that the European and American ruling classes are pushing. You don't have to stop all wars as an individual but you should be against the wars that you can stop if you want to stop migration.

Criticize the economically colonialist policies that help keep poor countries poor and protest counter-revolutionary interventions/subversion designed to uphold the status quo in those states. It's not that hard you don't have to save the world but you should be against the things that the ruling class are doing to others in your name and if you do that it also shows the way for workers in the other imperialist countries (say Russia and China) as well as the underdeveloped countries to do the same.

THANK YOU

How is this fucking hard to understand?

...

I don't do that, but I have to feed the 'fugees even if they are from Lesotho or Eritrea.

You think I want our heavy weapon to go in the hands of "moderate rebels"? What I want to is that Assad is left alone to restore peace in the country and kill as many jihadist he can. If Putin want to help I don't see the problem.

I AM against the wars, fuck almost everyone is. Can I have no immigration to my country now?
What is that? A local conflict is happening somewhere and all the people of the concerned countries have a right to become citizen of my country? Bad weather happen and we now have climate change refugees as well? What the fuck is an economic refugee now, at least try to hide it!

Poor countries are not going to become rich if their middle class invest the tens of thousands they have in human traffickers to go live in my country instead of creating a business at home.

my gott, you can start arueing anytime

imagine a world where someone could wear a flag ironically. your pic gave me a laugh though

Where did I say that? They can become better off by actually developing, not by imperialist "aid" or bank loans. It's possible, it won't stop every problem, but it would be a start.

You said they would stop coming when the country get rich.

The ones coming here are not the poor ones, but the ones who can pay the passage and feed themself on the way.

If they are allowed to come, they will because we are rich and they are not. If the ones with money come here, their country will stay poor forever.
Is that hard to understand?

Again the Seychelles would make just as good a control group if not better and so would Botswana. You're making excuses because you don't have much of an argument I never said Ireland or Finland were treated fairly by their colonizers, far from it. But they were both culturally, economically and geographically closer to the major world imperialist countries and that made it easier for them to develop. Both also had working classes that were inclined towards radical leftism and communism that made their ruling classes a bit more urgent about getting on with development .

And Ireland is a tax-shelter, which means it isn't much different from the Seychelles. The big exploiting super-powers take the money they rob from the working classes abroad and in poor nations and invest them in Ireland or in the Seychelles or the Bahamas. The fact those were once colonies ruled by iron and brute-force doesn't change the architecture of the global economic order

Finland on the other hand wealthy through industrial development but this wasn't too big of a chore given its small population and the friendly relationship it had with both super-powers along with the rest of the European capitalism world after WWII.

*abroad and at home

Greece isn't socialist, Syriza is in a coalition with the right-wing New Democracy party.

You and I have a very different definition of what well-off means. 25% of the population has AIDS. Its whole existence is propped up by diamonds. The average lifespan is 53 years. Seems like a shithole. Not as bad as the borderline non countries elsewhere in Africa but dude.
No. The whole existence of any economic prosperity in those regions in the first place is because of colonialism. Evident by the fact that these countries are much more prosperous (relatively) to those who did not have as much contact with colonials. The economics of this is clear as day.
Sure, there are smart Africans. Sure, there are countries that you can visit without getting stabbed. Maybe the I.Q of some of these people are higher than the African average. Good for them. It's still a shithole. The people still suck comparatively. They never invented anything. They never explored. They breed like rabbits regardless of prosperity. I am sure they are wonderful people. I just don't pretend that their impulses are conducive to a prosperous society and I don't pretend their welfare is propped up by anything other than western influence.

Must be the amazing people and not neo-imperialism with China buying up the continent faster than they are buying up Canada.

I don't understand how you can maintain your position when every example you drudge up of African prosperity is directly linked to Western influence. The West buys up their land, builds infrastructure, pays off the leaders and warlords and then fucks off with the profit back to Europe. And then there you stand looking at GDP charts as if they are an indication of the renaissance of the space faring kangz.

I mean they look poor to me:

If their "middle class" is about as well off as our working class then maybe its time to stop trusting the media when they say that the "rising middle class" in the Third World actually means something. Income isn't class fam.

I went to Calais, you won't fool me. Nothing scream "I am a desperate war refugee" like a 501 Lewis. A few does look poor but they still ad to pay a minimum of 10 grand to get their asses here.

So for you it's just a matter of proximity? Why is Poland so poor then? They are closer to Spain, France and England than Finland. Why is Bellarus so poor?

You can see Spain from Morocco. They do nothing spectacular.

By the way, the first time I went to Calais it was in 2005. The Jungle was already there and it was nothing new.

At some point the Red cross had a refugee shelter at Sangates but Chirac closed it.

Well, let's take a look. Korea and Singapore's GDP only starts to pick up around 1980. For Korea, that's 27 years since having their entire country completely flattened. For Singapore, it's 15 since their expulsion from Malaysia. For Taiwan, that's 31 years since the Kuomintang occupied the island. Up until 1987, Taiwan was still under martial law.

So, it's a pretty weird coincidence that all three suddenly started taking off, pretty much right at the same time!

South Korea at least: imf.org/external/np/fin/tad/extrans1.aspx?memberKey1=550&endDate=2017-07-14&finposition_flag=YES

Started to get significant assistance from the IMF in the mid 80s.

And Taiwan projects.worldbank.org/search?lang=en&countrycode_exact=TW was getting World Bank money, approximately $344.7M between 1961 and 1971. Plus whatever little Uncle Sugar has left over for them for fighting those evil commies, I'm sure :^)

And wouldn't you know it, projects.worldbank.org/search?lang=en&searchTerm=&countrycode_exact=SG Singapore starts getting WB money too, approximately $181.3M, from 1963 to 1975

So, which is more likely, that Africans are just too stupid to economy, or that complex processes of material transfer, acquisition, and accumulation and the economic and political policies which fueled them produced vastly different outcomes? Gosh, why might you think that having stable, prosperous satellites in the immediate proximity of an ideological enemy would be viewed as a good thing for global capital? What reason could a global industrial economy which has vested interests in having unlimited access to or accountability for accessing raw materials possibly have for keeping a former continent of colonies kept primarily for the abundance of their natural resources in political and economic chaos? Ya think it might be for the same reason that China is building all that shit in Africa now?

I know it's hard, Holla Forums, but use your brain. You can do it!

It wasn't like they actually killed a number of farmers that didn't want to leave or anything. Nah, they all just sold it quick for profit. Not like it was to sell or die. Fucking whitey always getting a one up on us black folks smdh.
I just don't regularly meet people who use "belong" when talking about countries and who owns them. It's like you tie the ownership of a country to who you feel should own it based on your own limited subjective historical knowledge. It's the view of a 15 year old with no historic reference on how he feels the world should look. For reference Greenland has been under Danish rule for a long time now. But aint no one gon tell me they do belong. That land fo eskimos. I dont no how, but they do
So Mugabe just played right into their hands. Astonishing. Rube Goldberg doesn't hold a candle to you.

Are you speaking in millions of USD? This is literally nothing. 180M over 20 years? Seriously, this is for you the cause of their success?

By a pure coincidence, it happen that the west stopped protecting its economy at this moment and outsourcing became a thing.

What a waste of trips tbqh fam.

Until recently it was one of the poorest nations in the world, a lot of people said the same thing about the Asian tigers in the 90s, I mean they were shitholes by any objective measure in the 60s-80s, especially South Korea. Tbh its still a late capitalist hellhole despite the higher income its citizens receive Now it seems people can't stop praising those states now that they've maintained their high per-capita GDPs for more then two decades.

This is objectively wrong. The Belgian Congo had the highest-level of capital-intensive investment of any major colony and it emerged from colonialism as one of the poorest states in the world and if anything has gotten even poorer.

Botswana was never the jewel of anyone's colonial empire; when the Italians left Libya it was the poorest nation on Earth by some measures; in Namibia one of the greatest genocides in history was committed by the Germans etc. the Seychelles was never anything more then a tourist-stop and a port in the British Empire, they only became independent in 1976 and yet their per-capita gdp increased seven-fold! So it can plainly be seen that the countries that are the most thoroughly colonized are the ones that are better-off today.

Indonesia is a shithole. India is a shithole. The Congo is a shithole. The Philippines is a shithole. These are the "jewels" of their respective empires and the most thoroughly colonized. Therefore, it doesn't really that economic prosperity follows colonization.

Thanks for making my argument for me that economic colonialism is real and does measurable damage to the economies of poor nations. As for the other part about Chinese imperialism try dialectics for once: the answer is its a mix of both. Chinese imperialism is driving economic growth in Africa because they need their own sweatshop colonies to break out of the role in the global division of labor they've played for decades, if not centuries. The rapid economic growth of Africa is due to the skill and diligence of their workers no amount of capital-investment would be able to falsify that on a grand-scale, a good argument can be made that proletarianization and the rise of labor productivity has to rise for imperialist capital to make profitable dividends and justify such large capital expenditures in the first place.

Really, you've proved with this post that when it comes to the essentials you already agree with me but that you simply don't want to give up your racist beliefs. When will you grow up and give up the teenage Holla Forumslack mindset?

*are not the ones

I suggest rereading the post.

Everywhere in the modern world where money has started to flow so to has prosperity started to flow. Everywhere except Africa. No matter how much money we pour in there is no prosperity to be found.
When we import Asians into western economies they excel. When we import blacks we end up with places like Detroit. When we force them to conform to our standards they do bad. When we free them from that yoke they do even worse.
All these rationalizations you give only work in a vacuum. As soon as you look at blacks in a bigger picture and compare them to other groups in similar circumstance these rationalizations don't hold up. What you do end up with is a huge network of a global conspiracy where everywhere the black man has gone there have been scheming elements behind the scenes working against him. Racism from the US to Sweden.(Fucking racist swedes) Economic trickery from the Colonial era to modern day.(Fucking racist Chinese) They top the charts in everything considered negative for society, from hunger to obesity. From white collar crime to rapes and murders. All to no fault of their own. It can't be that life in Africa for 125k years separated from the ones that went north didn't condition them to western society. It can't be that the natural eugenics programs like the ice age and the artificial ones like the European war on crime conditioned whites to be different. No. ITS FUCKING RACISM YOU BIGOT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

because one hand pours a trickle into them while the other is sucking a litre out

what
is this from a new black pigeon speaks video?

I think you should step away from the computer and go read a book. I think you need practice because you don't seem to understand anything anyone says to you.

E-Asian countries where shitholes in a sense but never Africa tier shitholes. I feel you are drawing a parallel where one is not apt. We also know that E-Asians have been able to excel in western tier societies for a long time and that they have created societies outside of western influence themselves. That has historically never held true for blacks.
I appreciate you speaking about this and I appreciate you correcting the typo you made. But your leading assertion that economic prosperity did not follow colonialism is not true. I just don't really consider this to be a point of argumentation.
nber.org/papers/w18162.pdf
The abstract is very clear.
positive relationship between colonial European settlement and development, (2) a stronger relationship
between colonial European settlement and economic development today than between development
today and the proportion of the population of European descent today; and (3) no evidence that the
positive relationship between colonial European settlement and economic development diminishes
or becomes negative at very low levels of colonial European settlement, contradicting a large literature
that focuses on the enduring adverse effects of small European settlements creating extractive institutions.
The most plausible explanation of our findings is that any adverse effect of extractive institutions associated
with minority European settlement was more than offset by other things the European settlers brought
with them, such as human capital and technology.

I agree that African prosperity is possible if guided by a firm white or yellow hand.(although I fear the yellow one strikes a bit too hard) I do not however believe that Africa can in any shape build up and maintain an attractive society without that and I see no historic example of such. In fact I see the opposite. More involvement of western and eastern powers denotes a more prosperous Africa.
We both agree this point, that Western influence promotes growth in Africa. You however overestimate the role Africans play in this. If any other race of people where sitting on the pot of gold that is lying in wait in certain African nations they would be more prosperous than any other similarly sized nation on earth. Instead we are stuck with modern day Africa. You then grasp any semblance of what could be described as prosperous nationhood from these failed states that are propped up by foreign investment and shout hurrah. I just don't see how there is anything to shout hurrah over when we compare the blacks in Africa to what we could have if they where of different stock.

amazon.com/Cro-Magnon-Birth-First-Modern-Humans/dp/1608194051

medievalchronicles.com/medieval-torture-devices/medieval-crime-punishment/

Whilst the upper classes in Europe where enjoying higher birthrates than the lower classes the lower classes where getting a 1% annual cut off on all their violent criminals through executions. This was the norm for hundreds of years effectively replacing the lower class with upper class genetics.

Yeah. These transparent rationalizations of how its all whitey when drawn out of their vacuums don't seem like a racist scapegoat at all.

Also

What the fuck do you mean by this? That killing criminals for years made everyone pure honest christian men?

Well, let's just take a look
nber.org/CorporateSupporters2016.pdf
Contributing $10,000 - $15,000:

Contributing $10,000 - $25,000:
>Credit Suisse
>ExxonMobil
>Goldman Sachs
>Google
Contributing $5,000 or Less:

Hmmm, now why, why would a group that receives financial support from gigantic multinational corporations that rely on colonial resource extraction release a report that says the system by which they extract those resources is A-okay.

That's a real puzzler there.

So do you think black people just didn't have any laws or punishments for breaking them in their entire history or, what?

That's usually how explanations work, yeah. Do you spit in your doctor's face when he gives you "transparent rationalizations" for why you're sick? Is germ theory a conspiracy against white people too?

Do you have any sources to back that up?

Let's ask a better question. If NotSocs are the master race, and lesser races are to be enslaved, why aren't you in control? And if it's because of the jews, what does that say about you?
Wouldn't that make the jews the master race?

Do you also happen to believe in cultural marxism by any chance?

What part of "I don't like the Chinese and their dealings in Africa" don't you understand?

Kinda irrelevant though, don't you think? My point is that there was no emergency need for agricultural production back in 1994 when the state bought the farmland.

Mugabe's a shit leader, no denying that, but Thomas Sankara and Kwame Nkrumah weren't and look what happened to them.

Then Sweden doesn't belong to Swedes.

This is another untrue assertion:
economist.com/node/21538104

China was also considered to be poorer then India and also possibly the world's poorest nation after independence and India has Africa-tier poverty even today:
theaustralian.com.au/news/world/india-far-poorer-than-africa-new-measure-shows/news-story/8bf326de3c7da4ea1f9472ef80328841

Even Japan, the great success story had a Congo-tier per-capita gdp in the 1800s and was poorer then the West by a fairly large degree. Sure, it was understandable given the conditions of the time and Western dynamism but it seems hardly an exaggeration to say it was once a backwards shithole.

S-see! I-It's not real!
Thankfully the data they use is freely available. The prosperity of these African nations is not something anybody questions, nor is the European influence in question. That they compiled this data and made some evil capitalists look good is not extraordinary. But yeah, only research funded by pinkos in select Universities in the US and western Europe that reaches conclusions that validate my worldview of porky being bad can in any context be a truthful representation of reality.

I feel you are grasping at straws when trying to draw parallels between European and SSAfrican culture. But whatever. The crux was not that poor dumb people with criminal tendencies where dying faster than others. It was that they, over time, got replaced with people who where smarter and more conducive to "civilized" society. Something that was very unique to the harsher climate of the North in combination with the condensed population centers that evolved.

They don't normally fall apart as soon as you try to apply them into a broader context. Like:
They are dumb in every other corner of the world as well
Asians don't seem to face that
What racist policies exist in Sweden and Finland?
In no corner of the world is the black man safe from the evils of whitey.

I still do not understand why you use emotionally loaded terms like belong. It's the simpletons way of looking at the world. It's not about being able to produce some moral justification as to why you feel you "deserve" to live on a plot of land somewhere more than somebody else. Did the "native" Americans "belong" more to America than the people they exterminated when they arrived from Siberia? Did the settlers from Europe "belong" more to the Americans after they displaced the now suddenly "native" Americans? Or is it simply a question of ability and will? Stop thinking in emotions.

Complete garbage, settler-colonies aren't the same as a "colonie d'exploitation" as the French say and that's been well-understood by thinking people for hundreds of years.

In practice, sometimes the two types of colonies overlapped as in Portuguese Algola or Dutch Indonesia but they are quite different things for the most part. Only the first crop of Australian laborers were actually brought there to do coolie-tier work and even then the prisoners bragged how well they had it in comparison to the workers in England because of the land's natural abundance. Australians were also given the freedom to manage their affairs as they saw fit; the Brits learned from their mistakes with the Americans.

Again, I'd re-emphasize that the Belgian Congo had the most capital-invested in it and the most capital-intensive industries of any African colony but when they attained independence there was NOT ONE person there who had received a college education from the colonizer who was allegedly spreading civilization. It was just pure exploitation, plain and simple.

Oh, you mean when the CIA and Belgian merceneries the one guy (Lumumba) that seriously wanted to make the country better then cut him up and dumped his remains in acid?

If you think S-Korea was a shithole of African proportions because right after a war the country was poor we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that point friend.
GDP and wealth are not the main indicators of the potential of a people. Especially not right after a war or during the 1800s. I don't think the murder and crime rates are in the least way similar. Not to mention the spread of disease. If anything it shows how far you have to reach to find a parallel to modern day Africa and how big of a shithole it actually is.

They don't say that they are the same thing. Just that the effects where for the very most part the same.
That is one of the claim the paper refutes. If you disagree then good for you but the paper has the economic data to back it up instead of a bunch of "just so" stories from English literature professors that *believe* a lot of things horrible whitey was supposed to have done and caused but never produce any actual evidence to back up.

Congo as an outlier does not invalidate the rule that applied to all of the other colonies. If anything its a testament to how absolutely dreadful those people are. Certified worst of Africa.
Because the human capital of Congo is conducive to abstract thinking and literary work. It can't be that they are dumb. It must be something else… Rube Goldberg might have an idea.
Almost as if they produced results. Unlike the Africans. Almost as if these two groups of people aren't the same. Might also be that the brits realized that being locked in a conflict with multiple EU nations whilst trying to control a colony oceans away through military force wasn't the best idea. Almost like trade was more beneficial than colonization if the people who worked the land where at least somewhat capable.

Here we go. Now we are talking. Poor Lumumba just wanted to make his nation proud, he dindu nuffin then evil whitey came and dumped him in acid ensuring that peace and prosperity would never reach Congo whilst evil whitey laughed all the way to the bank. Never again would there be a revolutionary in Africa that promised good for the people only to later start chopping up those of different ethnic backgrounds… After dozens of failed revolutions I wish we had Lumumba. He was different.
Oh yeah, they really went out of their way to find the only brutal dictator in Africa and propped him up. The series of events that unfolded can only be described as the perfect unstoppable storm that no man or creature could stop. That locked the Congolese people into a cycle of perpetual rape and AIDS child warfare. It was just as likely to happen in any other country if the situation was right, like Finland or Denmark or Iceland.
This machine makes Rube happy with its complexity and redundancy. At no point do blacks have any agency or ability to not rape and murder each other because evil whitey was always there to kick of the perfect series of events that locked the blacks into this cycle. It wasn't just that they wanted the resources which they could have traded for much more cheaply and efficiently like they do everywhere else in the world instead of going through this incredible plot. They wanted to do it whilst ensuring that the Congolese suffered. Evil. Whitey.

...

Oh yeah. My point that the differences of environments between those who lived in Zimbabwe and those who lived in the north of Europe during an ice age is completely shattered now that you poked holes in a book conforming with the modern day scientific consensus relating the the human exodus out of Africa.
I know you are probably not initiated into the most fundamental of human genetics but children tend to resemble parents both in looks and personality among a host of other things. If criminals and low I.Q. people don't have many children and the higher I.Q. less criminal people are having a lot of children that will have a long term effect on a population. This is the foundation to natural selection. The traits of those who conform to the environment are more likely to reproduce and reproduce they did.

I specifically called these places shitholes. I can't help it if you compartmentalize social welfare and economics as separate entities when talking about prosperity.

I really like your pictures. You keep posting things that inadvertently showscase how inept blacks are at extracting value from their very rich lands yet somehow always manage to make a new contraption that rationalizes away all personal responsibility from blacks and put blame unto whites.

Being better than a nigger doesn't mean that you are a good person that does no harm. To put this in context the Japanese put together a military operation requiring long term planning, preparation and ability to safely travel at sea. Compared to the greatest military escapades of Africans tying together a spear and sometimes even throwing it.

The Leopold meme is not a great one. It's a topic in and of itself.

It's not Scandinavia I'll give you that. It's still comparatively to me not close to an African shithole. Liberia, Somalia, Niger, South Africa makes the list after Mandela "freed" everyone to hell. You've made a great case for why Congo is shit whilst trying to pin the blame on whitey. If you feel you would rather live amongst the local populace there rather than in S-Korea then, like I said, we simply disagree.

...

Even Belgian colonial authorities admitted that the population had been reduced by about ten million when they did their censuses. Nobody even argues that the whites did the majority of the killing but you have to be drooling retard not to think that Leopold and his mercs weren't culpable for what happened–and they did kill a lot of people by themselves. You know what's pretty good evidence of the crimes that Leopold committed? The fact that the Belgian parliament themselves forced Leopold to give it up because his rule was so controversial fuck all changed, they were a little less genocidal tho tbh.

People were talking about putting a Christian King on trial and sentencing him to death because his crimes were so notorious. It was extremely well documented, especially by Victorian standards, with African victims even being taken to Europe to give testimony and numerous perpetrators admitting the crimes they committed.

You're not approaching the subject in a serious way as a historian, you're just indulging in racist contrarianism because black kids bullied you at school for being an autist.

It's a bit disturbing how few people know about Françafrique. I have only read the term in the one article that taught it to me.

For fuck's sake, stop feeding the troll.

mods please ban everyone itt

That was tried. We got Black Americans. The results were less than great.

As opposed to impressing the lurkers with anecdotal evidence of a mystery stronk womyn of color who speaks 20 languages.
What facts do you want me to dispute? You say that a certain thing happened because evil whitey. I then point out how ridiculous that explanation is and how when you actually combine this evil whitey narrative into a coherent historical world view you are shown a picture of how evil white people managed to trick black people at every turn into becoming rapist aids dispensers whose best attempt at a society resembles 1800's Japan and war torn 1960's Korea. Never is anything even remotely the fault of blacks having a low I.Q. It just can't be. It's always evil whitey.
I dispute that colonialism made Africa poorer. All economic evidence suggests that it got richer as a direct result of contact. Other than that we don't disagree on the events of history happening. We disagree on why the events unfolded like they did.
I wonder why no one has ever tried to educate Africans. Set up schools there. Teach them how to farm. How they all just let this human capital go to waste. No one has tried.
You act as if this a pet theory of mine and not an economic fact. Whatever. From your source on India:

The author draws a start contrast between pre-industrial India with, Germany, Sweden, USA, and the UK. Truly a crime of the Anglo to not do more for the Indians to match these nations. So what if they are industrial and some of the strongest economies on the planet. Even if the Indian economy was failing already it was the fault of the Evil Whitey Trading Company to not do more to help. Yes, so what if the Brits invested so heavily in India that they started to lose money on the whole operation whilst the Indian economy grew. Some sins are simply not forgivable in money. Such as racist colonialism.
Ok. They kick ass now, as opposed to niggers. Why? Numerous people disagree with your assertion but they are just justifying Chinese colonialism into Africa today. Probably. I mean, the numbers are there. The more intensive the colonization, higher the prosperity. But it doesn't matter. I am more interested in Africa and the population there.
And this is contra to anything I've been saying? Why aren't these people making their homelands the rape capital of the world like they do in Congo? Why don't these people shit on the beach like the Liberians? Why do you think that poor people existing somehow excuses black people being poor when they are sitting on a goldmine?
Why hasn't Africa proven you right? Why has Asia made it but not Africa? Why did Asia have deep culture, technological history and sophisticated warfare whilst Africa hasn't produced jack shit in any field?
Oh boy. It's not like cranial scans showcase that the Victorian race realists where right and that blacks have smaller brains on average. It's not like Stephen Gould and his prize jewel "Mismeasure of Man" showed it actually being him doing the mismeasuring.
It's not like Lewontin got BTFO by Edwards and Bamshad.
Outside of western academia race as a concept is used without question. Especially in China.
But no. You are right. I am just an evil whitey keeping the black man down. Nothing I say can possibly be correct. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's not possible that anyone is different. I mean, how then, could my egalitarian ideals ever work?

Do you ever wonder when you peddle basic bitch pop history that you know every empty head liberal progressive eats up like candy that you might just be, in that moment, as empty headed as they are? Doesn't have to always be the case. Just something worth pondering.
Blacks have no will on their own and no agency. Because evil whitey let it happen on their watch it's their fault even if the Congolese where raping before and after the Belgians where there. As soon as Belgium took over the Congolese should have stopped raping.
Yeah. The best evidence you have is not any actual evidence. Just the fact that the Belgian public overreacted due to some dramatic pictures. That never happens.

If you actually care you can read this.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/07/24/mythologies-about-leopolds-congo-free-state/

I'm saying you've got no place to bitch bout "white g_nocide" if you think what happened in Australia and North and South America was just "human nature". How hard is that to understand?

Did anybody actually read the fucking article?

Lol, this coming from the guy that said Africa sucks because evolution made niggers dumb. You wouldn't know a coherent historical world view if it sat on your face.

...

2.3 billion dollars in 1948 money is not an insubstantial sum by any stretch. It would be about 35 billion dollars in modern dollars. That's more than the GDP of Bolivia.

Reactionaries gonna react.

Macron is a prime example of why idpol is throttling leftism.

At least he's not a waysist though!

Man, humanity really hates Black people, doesn't it?

They're not black and they're not people.

Don't worry. Climate change will make sure there are no billions of humans ANYWHERE by 2100.

How about the other Caribbean islands like the Bahamas or Jamaica? Those are functioning countries with high HDIs and are majority black.

Jamaica isn't really functioning by any standard that we would apply to European, East Asian, or even most South American countries. Jamaica has one of the world's highest murder rates, for instance. Bermuda is also a bank and tourist resort masquerading as a country, so the British will make sure it is sufficiently safe for the global rich to go there and hide their money, but even they have a higher murder rate than the US at the moment.

How exactly is Jamaica 'not really functioning'?

It's full of niggers. Of course it's not working,

Crime was low when they first gained independence from the British, but it was getting worse until the death penalty was brought back recently, apparently. They're doing fairly well for a majority black country, but these countries need to be graded on a curve, much like the Arab world.

They have a high murder rate, yes, but the country's hardly collapsing. Standards of living are quite good. Nothing near Africa or Haiti-tier. Poverty rate isn't bad.

It doesn't seem fair to call it a non-functioning country by any metric.

British rule only ended 50 years ago. Give them some time. Apparently a 2011 poll suggested 60% or so of Jamaicans thought that they'd be better off under British rule again.

But they're not trending towards a collapse either.

Anyway, colonial rule in general only ended about 50-60 years ago but that seems to be more than enough time for the right to conclude blacks are just inherently stupid niggers incapable of independence.

They thought that before independence so it's really just confirmation bias at work.

It's not like black countries are guaranteed to be total disaster areas. Botswana, for instance, is probably more functional than Jamaica. but, almost anywhere you go in the world, majority-black areas are consistently relatively poor and unsafe, and sometimes are total disaster areas. Either this is all the fault of residual racism from slavery and colonialism propagated by US media worldwide, or there is something to the idea that blacks, on average, have high levels of aggression.

You only need to scroll through wikipedia to see there are African countries with murder rates near, at, or even lower then the murder rate typical in developed countries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Even Haiti is fairly peaceful in comparison to Jamaica and its Latin American neighbors despite higher GDP and in the latter there is a larger admixture of ameridian and European heritage when it comes to ethnic composition. Truthfully, America's murder problem in the 90s was about as bad as Haiti's is today and in fact even when the US was majority white it sustained murder-rates higher then it has today, which has been declining all-and-all. As you can see by the graph America has always had more murders then Britain, which might explain why a nation like Jamaica and Haiti or South Africa and Madagascar can have such radically divergent murder-rates. It's almost like race is a negligible factor and culture, history, and the material conditions of two given countries are what is determinative.

In fact, Latin America is the murder capital of the world that's despite a higher prevalence of white people and white genes and higher per capita GDP then Africa has.

To hand-waive things away and say "I don't want to talk about Madagascar; I want to talk about South Africa!" is to think unscientifically. To say, "well if you take the really violent black majority nations and mix them with those with low-violence you get a black murder rate higher then the world average" seems scientific at face-value but when you consider that Medieval Europe had extremely high-murder rates then it becomes obvious that these things are hardly innate and that murder-rates tend to fall with development. Afaik only Honduras exceeds Britain's immense murder-rate of 73 per 100,000 in 1500.

Even the most peaceful European societies 700 years ago were more violent then the Latin American and African averages; even Scandinavia
was at one-time more violent then South Africa.

This is why conservative and racialist views are inherently false because they assume the status quo to be immutable and for genetics to be determinative when it comes to a peoples outcome or potential social development.

Consider the fact that England was actually twice as rich as the poorest Third World nations today:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336143/Medieval-Britons-twice-rich-poor-Third-World-today.html

When you consider that its surprising that many poor third world nations have murder-rates that are as low as they actually are. There's no reason to think that given the right conditions that Africans can't create more vibrant, prosperous, and more peaceful societies then they currently have.

...

*pay me