Incidentally, any developed nation have a black majority?

This site is REALLY starting to look like Stormfront

 

...

 

Wow this is racist

 

The fact you name just about every news org that isn't fox or breitbart and think they are ALL biased, says more about your bias than anything about those news organizations.
You think all news organizations are against you or something?

 

The fact that you think the 11 MSM outlets I listed are "about every news org that isn't fox or breitbart" says far more about your level of bias than mine.

 

it's really a disgrace what the media has become. Corporate institutions who's main motivations are to improve ratings and convince people to vote one way. The only news that i consider real journalism is the local news i see every day, they simply report the news and focus on substance. CNN, MSNC, ABC, CBS, FOX are all a disgrace, it is shocking to me that the news has deteriorated as it has.... They all deserve to be criticized and it's a shame that we, the public, tune in as much as we do. What we should do is not even tune in so their ratings crash and maybe we can start getting real journalism going.

 

How do you propose they make money?
They sell a product.
And it's only a few companies that are owners. Capitalism.

I tune into non of them.
I listen to my state public radio on my morn and eve commutes.

 

i truly believe that there is an opportunity for a news network to put to shame all of these biased networks. I believe most Americans crave real journalism and would tune in in record numbers if a national news outlet actually reported the news in a respectable unbiased manner.

It's out of control. On an average day, i put MSNBC on in mornings and hear liberal Joe talking about Trump having dementia, then at night put on CNN and get to see Don Lemon race bait with his racist black friends and talk about Russia collusion. When i tune in to FOX, there is Sean Hannity going on about the Clinton corruption machine and how the 'deep state' is colluding to stop Trump. LOL! Jesus Christ! At least Sean Hannity admits he is an editorialist and not a journalist so i respect him more.

 

Let me ask you something. Is there any nation in Africa, where racist whites did not unjustly, and cruelly usurp?

 

But they have always been fighting and killing one another, as tribal societies.

Look, the fact of the matter is, europeans had been civilized for over a thousand years when they made large contacts with africans. Africa had one civilization long ago, in northern africa, but most of the rest of africa remained hunters and gatherers, in tribes. Not that much different from rain forest people in south america today. For some reason, they just never went the civilization route, while some of the world did, including north africa and the fertile crescent, with this spreading north but it never "took" in most of africa. So, these cultures were behind some of the rest of the world, and have never caught up really. So why did other humans create and embrace civilization but much of africa did not? It is genetic? Are they missing something genetically that other humans have, which might account for their remaining tribal societies? I dunno, just asking.

It may have something to do with the environment of africa, as someone mentioned, Having to respond more to the environment in order to survive might have something to do with man and the rise of civilization. That necessity was the mother of invention? Makes sense, at least to me.

 

Read some history.

North Korea BEGAN as a totalitarian dictatorship

 

Maybe losing the Hebrew slaves did it?

 

i would need to look into this but i'm not denying periods of injustices. Someone explained this is rooted in European imperialism or colonialism but then doesn't this tell us that Africans were less advanced even before Europe conquered? after all, they were conquered. So what explains that Africans were less advanced before the period of imperialism or colonialism?

 

I am not so sure.
With instant news, so called, on phones. All most seem interested in are tabloid headlines.
That really was what was to be expected back 25 or so yrs ago when news went 24/7. I wondered how they'd fill all that time.
Now we know.

 

Here's something from the white racist controlled Belgian Congo

 

You need to look into it? WOW!

Any rate, let's look at it from another angle. The Nazi's of Germany where technically more advanced than the French or the British. Where the Nazis more advanced than the French and British in your opinion?

 

yes, it has a lot to do with being forced to respond to environment. Imagine two scenarios, one group of people live in a forest which is full of vegetation, fruits, animals all year round. The weather is not a problem and neither is shelter, they sleep and keep moving. Now imagine a group of people who have to deal with harsh winters, now it's a problem. They have to farm and harvest, right here is how a civilization starts. This all requires organization and a civilization to support. They then have to store food through harsh winters and build shelters, they can't just sleep on the cold and move around looking for fruits. This is an entirely different challenge..

The tropics, in general, aren't very civilized...other zones are. I have pointed this out before, but notice how the more north you go, the more developed and well off people are. Canada > USA > Mexico. Norway/Finland/Sweden > France, Italy, Germany. Germany > Greece. Even within countries, the northern parts are usually more advanced. During 1700s, 1800s.. northern USA was the industrialized zone, the south was less developed. In Spain, the more well off people are in the northern areas.

Now this is not to say this is the only explanation, through history, tropical zones have enjoyed advanced civilizations and there have been other forces at play, some of which have been discussed here. There is no denying though, that as it stands, the tropical zones are less advanced and well off than the northern zones or even zones more south.

 

you know nothing about me so YOUR opinion doesn't matter.

 

I'm still waiting.

 

I expected as much, same crap dressed up in a biased infographic.

 

I'm still waiting for an answer. Oh by the way, in the Marxist model, the feudal state is overthrown by the rise of the bourgeoisie, ushering in the capitalist epoch. Capitalism is then overthrown by the rise of the proletariat, which ushers in not communism, but the Socialist state. These conditions all have to be met before the communist society can develop. Now do you understand the process? You should if your a student of Marx.

 

<Rule 2/3> all dictatorships start off as communist regimes. It is the excuse given to eventually take over as a dictatorial regime. Capitalism is the only option that leads to prosperity. Socialism and communism are just the initial smokescreens before the fire that is dictatorial fascism.

 

So you say "all dictatorships start off as communist regimes." Let me ask you something. Was Saddam Hussein a communist?

 

I live in China. I know first hand, that while there are leftist elements still in the system, China is a deeply conservative culture.

 

It is true. Chinese women work out of economic necessity. There is still a cultural expectation that women return to the home after getting married and having children, but economic realities preclude that possibility in a lot of cases.

As far as the leftover women issue goes, I won't say you are definitely wrong, but you are likely wrong. I suggest this book if you have the time.

https://www.amazon.com/Leftover-Wom...y-Arguments/dp/1780329210/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

The author presents evidence that the term was popularized by government propaganda outlets in the aftermath of the Chinese government calling for "higher quality population." In other words, the government wanted educated urban women to get married and have kids, not to focus on their careers. That was to ensure more "high quality" people were born, not just peasants in the countryside and poor people.