Oh I forgot the zelective breeding part. Yeah we bred niggers to be strong and capable of better work. When you're breeding horses you don't let the retarded busted leg stumpy one breed. It's a bad investment. We bred field animals to work fields and we bred house niggers from the smarter smaller stock. African bloodlines and genetics are just as varied as Asian or European ones. There are some with more himo erectus and some that are mainly homo sapien blood. Field nigger vs house nigger.
No we didn't that is nonsense for the following reasons:
1) I don't have the links on me, but there is a great documentary on the african slave trade and the summary is basically this:
a) They tried slaving Indians (from India not native slanty eyes from north america) and during transport most of them died because they are a weak species of human.
This is true, where I live we have a huge indian community and when they hit 55 or approach 60 they just fall apart.
b) Whites, survive okay but they were not cheap.
c) Niggers on the other hand, they were cheap, they were hardy and they survived the shipping process. The dead ones you threw overboard, but most of the nigger stock was quite hardy physically. We know the iq part of this equation. There may have been partial evolutionary selection because the purchased niggers survived initial enslavement by their own people, but none the less, there are litteral jew ship logs that speak of how they are stopping indian slaving because they all die during shipping but niggers are hardy.
Seriously.
2) Actual slavery ended at the end of the civil war or around 1865. So, assuming slavery started around 1619 (too lazy to check) and assuming slavery ended in 1865 or so, that is about 265 years of slavery.
If humans live to 100 that is about 2.5 generations.
If nigger slaves live to 50 that is about 5 generations.
If nigger slaves live to 25 that is about 10 generations.
So about 5 to 10 generations AT MOST would have been available for breeding.
There is NO SUCH THING as breeding a bigger nigger between 2.5 and 10 generations. The amount genetic control and organized breeding that would need to involved to make this happen is so fucking ridiculously huge that it would have been utterly the MOST IMPORTANT historical documentation that we would have about that period of time.
3) The reality is closer to something like this:
a) Slavery seems like it's a long time ago, but it really isn't. It is practically yesterday relative to our current life span. As of 2017, President John Tyler had 2 living grandsons, Tyler died in 1862 and had kids very late in life. 200 to 400 years ago is not that long ago at all.
There just wasn't enough time to breed anything of value.
b) I suspect that it was cheaper to buy new slaves and throw away the old ones than it was to have a breeding program of any kind. Anyone that has run a business knows you don't keep old hardware around, it is far more financiall efficient to be rotating out 4 year old computer hardware and just keep on financing new hardware.
c) An eaerlier poster used the term "THERE USED TO BE SPECIES OF HUMANS". Well, the left tells us there is no difference between races. If this is true than so is the opposite, not only are there races of humans, we currently have at least 8 different species of humans co-existing with different an unique requiremetns to their species:
semitic tribes
whites
nigger
indians
east asians (chinky chinks)
native indians
aussie abbos
polynesians
Some people say there are no species, some say there are fewer human specieas. I have worked with all of the above groups except abbos and my experience has been the best way to understand them is as a group based on speciation and not cultural, social or racial context. To me, as long as I understand I am working with a different species of human, these groups become reasonably predictable and it becomes much easier to deal with them.
d) If selective breeding happened, then we have to also ask our selves, where are the UBER IRISH if this was true? The Irish were slaves in North America way before the niggers, if selective breeding was a thing, where those giant Irish cunts? All I see around Boston are tiny little red headed fuckers with a napeoleon complex.
Anyway, did the slavers get a generation or two of selective breeding of slaves? Maybe, but that is all and there just wasn't enough time to get any real results. You need thousands of generations and quick iteration for selective breeding to be useful in any way shape or form.
You're missing the basis of the selective breeding. You already have big hardy niggers for field work. You bought them for that reason. You picked the best animal for the job needed. The breeding process had started WSY BEFORE SLAVERY, jist naturally. We artificially enhanced it like with dogs. King Charles spaniels didn't exist 400 years ago. Chihuahuas, pit bulls, yorkiepoos, etc. It doesn't take as long as you think to breed in readily available traits and refine them. It takes EONS to add gills or feathers or bipedal motion.
Even if what you propose is true, it is absolute nonsense. The niggers here are the same as the niggers over there. There are no differences. There was not enough time for selective breeding.
You don't get a chihuaua or a pitbull from originating stock in 2 to 10 generations.
It LITERALLY is not possible. Everyone knows this.
Fascinating read, thank you for taking the time to write that. It explains so much. When is the next lecture?
Whenever there is an interesting question that I have knowledge about that I happen to see and I happen to have time to respond to in detail lol.
I appreciate it. I studied human sciences but as you know everything is taught through a Marxist lense so you don't get to explore concepts like that. I've heard of those groups before but never presented so succinctly. A++
(post is archived)