This is what allowing women in public life results in, white man. Do you get it now?
THEY DO NOT BELONG!
The author of this horrendous theory is below:
As I’ve mentioned countless of times before: women destroy society, women do not belong in public life, women deserve to be caged, women cannot process information.
Many cunts and morons will respond to my statement with, “You’re generalizing. Not all women are like that”, without realizing that they are making my point with that quintessential response. How?
The mere fact that they would point out that I am generalizing would indicate that they are aware and recognize that my statement is indeed a generalized statement and comprehend the nature and function of generalities. In addition, they mentioning the obvious — my statement about women is generalized — is to point out that there are exceptions to the rule. However, women are extremely fucking stupid, and as mentioned before, cannot process information, they are unable to see that a generalized statement, already and inherently acknowledges that there are exceptions, hence it being a generalized statement. It appeals to the cognoscenti and doesn’t require some moron saying, “You’re generalizing!”
So, the mere fact that they are using the argument of exceptions, supports the fact that my generalized statement is accurate and functions as intended, which is to point out the commonality and not the exceptions.
I admit that this is a fourth tier, high IQ deliberation, and a perfect shit test to determine the type of people you want to be around, keep company and worth conversing with. Again, this form of retardation exhibited by women — not being able to comprehend generalizations — makes my points that women destroy society, women do not belong in public life, women deserve to be caged, women cannot process information.
Back to the anti-white propaganda.
This rug-munching dyke clearly doesn’t understand human evolution and the ecological factors that affected the evolutionary processes of races.
Whites, as a result of having evolved in colder regions on the planet, were subjected to evolutionary pressures that forced them to domesticate animals such as wolves and foxes. In addition to the severe and harsh wintery conditions, the megafaunal extinctions and microfaunal scarcities forced the white man to hunt with wolves, eat the game the wolves took down, and the wolves in turn would eat the game the white man took down, thereby resulting in a cohabitational existence.
Wolves slept in the caves and around the campfires with the white man adding more selective pressures towards domestication. These pressures, are the reasons why we have pet dogs today. As the socio-cultural evolutionary stages progressed into agrarianism, the white man and a select few other races that achieved agraianism, had to domesticate other animals for labor-saving methods and other domestic functions. Pulling sleds, fetching the kill, alerting of danger are just a few.
I wonder if this dumb dyke would attribute the domestication of dogs by Eskimos to “White Supremacy”, too.
Being kind to animals is part of the white evolutionary makeup, just as altruism and individualism are, too. Not only is it because they understand the function and utility of these domesticated animals, but it is how and why whites have no issues putting their humanitarianism on display during times of catastrophe and calamity, as opposed to another race of people we know.
Whenever there is a natural disaster, whites use that opportunity to put their humanity on display, whereas Africans resort to who they are in nature — savage hunter gatherer, themselves animals — and rob, loot, steal and kill. The white man intervenes and attempts to show kindness to these dumb animals as he would any other animal such as dog.
Essentially, the charge being made is that white altruism is racist, despite the fact that blacks and other people of color are the primary beneficiaries. These “racist” whites are all over the globe, building schools and hospitals for savages in third world nations, ending slavery and putting a stop to child labor camps; doling out aid to disaster victims, often putting their lives on the line. Whites show to blacks and other people of color, the same kindness they do to animals.
Conversely, Africans (and other people of color) did not have these ecological and evolutionary pressures and did not respond to these pressures the way whites did. Because the climate in the tropic of cancer is hot and the vegetation is plentiful, the demands to domesticate were not as pressing for Africans and non-Sub-Saharan African races. Domestication turned out similar, yet distinctly different.
The case of Sub-Saharan Africans is one that is quite unique, for their sociocultural evolutionary imprint is that of hunter gatherers, and they still are today. They never achieved agrarianism like other races did.
Achieving agrarianism is essential to many developmental and stadial progressions. For example, as a result of fluctuations in the ecological conditions respective to each region on the planet, microfaunal and megafaunal epochs of scarcity and extinctions occurred leading human beings to eat each other as a source of food. Through the stadial progressions of pastoralism, horticulturalism then agrarianism, they began to tame wild animals as a source of food; grew shrubs and plants then cultivate crops and engage in commercial farming. The latter stage made slavery necessary, for it now relied on humans to no longer be a source of food, but a source of labor to produce food.
Sub-saharan Africans barely achieved pastoralism and couldn’t have made it much farther, because of the megafaunal and microfaunal extinctions alongside with the expansion of the Saharan Desert which aided in the extinction and creation of unsuitable conditions for farming.
Shifting Agriculture was their norm. As the term “shifting” implies, there was no stability for commercial farming. Only subsistence farming was possible, at best. This, if anyone knows anything about socio-cultural evolution, isn’t rigorous enough to propel any society along the stadial progressions towards pastoralism, horticulturalism and most importantly agrarianism. Domestication of animals could not have aided in their plight, because there were almost no animals for domestication as a result of the megafaunal extinctions, therefore, no evolutionary need nor pressure to domesticate arose. The tsetse fly, interestingly affected their evolutionary process. Of, course, all of this is definitively linked to intelligence.
Other races and people of color, share similar identifiable traits and genetic markers, because they achieved agrarian societies. The anthropological markers and identifiers such as technologies related to these races and civilizations (laws, writing systems, complex religions and philosophies, the wheel and the domestication of animals) are not present among Sub-Sahran Africans.
Animal domestication was extremely rare. The zebra was never tamed even though it is closely related to horses. Neither was the eland. Cows and animals within the phylogeny were masturbated and their semen and urine were used to ward off insects and pests instead of using them as labor devices. This is still done today.
(If one considers this to be domestication and not domestication in the usual sense (for food to increase caloric intake and decrease caloric expenditure), then okay. Just admit it is extremely primitive).
The only curious domestication I found was that of the African dog — the Basenjis — a basal (proto-canine) that originated in the Congo. Although, strong vidence for domestication of the Basenjis in history is found only in Egypt. Nonetheless, the basenji was “domesticated” by SSAs, for violence and aggression, as dogs generally are in any other country or nation where SSAs are. Think Michael Vick to comprehend the inveterate vestigial traits at work, there.
This video explains a lot with regards to the differences in domestication of dogs between whites and Africans.
As you can see, it turns out that Europeans were TRULY domesticated for civilized society. Africans, no.
Furthermore, whites being kind to dogs and animals is very genetic and race-based, but is not racist.
Simply put: different races build different societies.