If Negros Had Been Left To Their Own Devices...

[Ventura77]

What becomes noteworthy in each of your mindless streams of replies is that you pontificate blindly, while making liberal usage of your favorite word 'stupid', deliriously oblivious to the fact that your word of choice literally defines you in every sense...there is little variation or insight in any of your posts, merely the weak impulse of sub-juvenile vitriol and awkward hostility...clearly you have no idea how to present your thoughts in a way that is more refined to polemics or rational debate...put up an actual argument or recognize that this is well beyond your limited intelligence...the wide use of the IQ spectrum validates racial qualifiers moron, if you believe otherwise please offer proof...or anything beyond your mindless habit of labeling everyone 'stupid' when you clearly own that particular value...LOL

I can support my points better than you could ever disassemble them ...

For the sake of argument let's assume that you are the smartest man to ever walk the face of Earth.
Let's also assume that Rushton's application of data is correct ... We won't even talk about how that would explain your tiny wee-wee.
Let's say that I am looking to fill a position as Operation's Manager.

For starters ... I have a mixed racial employee pool.
You would be required to manage employees of a broad selection of race (Creole, Mayan, German, African American, Indian, Caucasian).
Most of those employees are far more intelligent than the two of us put together ... That's why I employ them, that's what their job requires.

Explain to me how your obsession with racial qualifiers would better meet my expectations of you to properly manage my employees.
Explain to me how I wouldn't have to constantly babysit your sorry ass in order to keep you from chasing off my clients and to stop the staff from killing you.

I am betting you cannot sufficiently answer either of those questions ... Which is why I wouldn't give you the job ...

.

Oh but behold how you cannot help yourself in reinforcing my very point you fertile imbecile...you are manifestly incapable of posting anything beyond sub-juvenile anatomical insults and mindless static...thus far you have not 'disassembled' anything I've posted because you cannot...in the tiny febrile dimensions of your atrophied brain you incorrectly assume that spitting out anatomical slurs and invoking the word 'stupid' somehow equates to a winning argument...racial qualifiers are validated by the IQ disparities you sumptuous twit, the relevant data is hardly hidden in some think-tank vault, it is widely available to those interested enough...you clearly cannot even understand the critical difference between statistical averages, and individual exceptions...you so clearly put the ( S ) in 'stupid'

 

[Ventura77]

What becomes noteworthy in each of your mindless streams of replies is that you pontificate blindly, while making liberal usage of your favorite word 'stupid', deliriously oblivious to the fact that your word of choice literally defines you in every sense...there is little variation or insight in any of your posts, merely the weak impulse of sub-juvenile vitriol and awkward hostility...clearly you have no idea how to present your thoughts in a way that is more refined to polemics or rational debate...put up an actual argument or recognize that this is well beyond your limited intelligence...the wide use of the IQ spectrum validates racial qualifiers moron, if you believe otherwise please offer proof...or anything beyond your mindless habit of labeling everyone 'stupid' when you clearly own that particular value...LOL

I can support my points better than you could ever disassemble them ...

For the sake of argument let's assume that you are the smartest man to ever walk the face of Earth.
Let's also assume that Rushton's application of data is correct ... We won't even talk about how that would explain your tiny wee-wee.
Let's say that I am looking to fill a position as Operation's Manager.

For starters ... I have a mixed racial employee pool.
You would be required to manage employees of a broad selection of race (Creole, Mayan, German, African American, Indian, Caucasian).
Most of those employees are far more intelligent than the two of us put together ... That's why I employ them, that's what their job requires.

Explain to me how your obsession with racial qualifiers would better meet my expectations of you to properly manage my employees.
Explain to me how I wouldn't have to constantly babysit your sorry ass in order to keep you from chasing off my clients and to stop the staff from killing you.

I am betting you cannot sufficiently answer either of those questions ... Which is why I wouldn't give you the job ...

.

Oh but behold how you cannot help yourself in reinforcing my very point you fertile imbecile...you are manifestly incapable of posting anything beyond sub-juvenile anatomical insults and mindless static...thus far you have not 'disassembled' anything I've posted because you cannot...in the tiny febrile dimensions of your atrophied brain you incorrectly assume that spitting out anatomical slurs and invoking the word 'stupid' somehow equates to a winning argument...racial qualifiers are validated by the IQ disparities you sumptuous twit, the relevant data is hardly hidden in some think-tank vault, it is widely available to those interested enough...you clearly cannot even understand the critical difference between statistical averages, and individual exceptions...you so clearly put the ( S ) in 'stupid'

Got a great idea simpleton: try to refute the finding of the study posted below...kindly spare me your signature sub-juvenile static and impress us all with your insights!!!


Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

· Download PDF Copy

April 26, 2005

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

6. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

7. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

8. Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

9. Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

 

[BlackSand]

Oh but behold how you cannot help yourself in reinforcing my very point you fertile imbecile...you are manifestly incapable of posting anything beyond sub-juvenile anatomical insults and mindless static...thus far you have not 'disassembled' anything I've posted because you cannot...in the tiny febrile dimensions of your atrophied brain you incorrectly assume that spitting out anatomical slurs and invoking the word 'stupid' somehow equates to a winning argument...racial qualifiers are validated by the IQ disparities you sumptuous twit, the relevant data is hardly hidden in some think-tank vault, it is widely available to those interested enough...you clearly cannot even understand the critical difference between statistical averages, and individual exceptions...you so clearly put the ( S ) in 'stupid'

So I can assume your stupid ass couldn't or wouldn't answer the questions ...
Either case would be sufficient reason for me to throw your resume in the trash ... And it would have nothing to with your views and race.

.

 

[Ventura77]

Oh but behold how you cannot help yourself in reinforcing my very point you fertile imbecile...you are manifestly incapable of posting anything beyond sub-juvenile anatomical insults and mindless static...thus far you have not 'disassembled' anything I've posted because you cannot...in the tiny febrile dimensions of your atrophied brain you incorrectly assume that spitting out anatomical slurs and invoking the word 'stupid' somehow equates to a winning argument...racial qualifiers are validated by the IQ disparities you sumptuous twit, the relevant data is hardly hidden in some think-tank vault, it is widely available to those interested enough...you clearly cannot even understand the critical difference between statistical averages, and individual exceptions...you so clearly put the ( S ) in 'stupid'

So I can assume your stupid ass couldn't or wouldn't answer the questions ...
Either case would be sufficient reason for me to throw your resume in the trash ... And it would have nothing to with your views and race.

.

Ahhhhhhhh you didn't disappoint in your predictable idiotic reply...you are incapable of anything beyond lockstep stupid...thanks!!!!

 

[BlackSand]

Got a great idea simpleton: try to refute the finding of the study posted below...kindly spare me your signature sub-juvenile static and impress us all with your insights!!!


Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

· Download PDF Copy

April 26, 2005

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

6. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

7. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

8. Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

9. Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

Thanks for the copy/paste nit-wit ... But nothing you posted has explained how any of it could be of use to me.
Sorry you are still stupid enough to think I have challenged the validity of your worthless crap.

Validity isn't what gives it value as much as what it could possibly be useful for ...

.

 

[BlackSand]

Ahhhhhhhh you didn't disappoint in your predictable idiotic reply...you are incapable of anything beyond lockstep stupid...thanks!!!!

How is it idiotic ... Why can't you answer the two simple questions ...
You are the one beating an empty drum ... Which is understandable considering your tiny wee-wee probably couldn't handle it.

.

 

[Fenton Lum]

You are responsible for your own way in this life. And again, color has nothing to do with it. Intestinal fortitude has everything to do with it:


Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Intestinal fortitude is not why whites have what they do. Laws depriving others of opportunity is.

There have never been any laws banning sub-Saharans from creating civilizations, building, inventing and advancing. They simply were unable to do so, and have found it difficult once these thngs were bestowed on them. In their weakness they fell prey and in their weakness they fail still.

Most of the peoples of the earth did not create viable civilizations-------that is why the DRUIDS are all gone----
they were EATEN by ROME-----the whole Iberian Penninsula was EATEN by Rome------even the RHINE VALLEY-----a kind of minor little mess of a "civilization" was EATEN by Rome----
Rome was modeled on EGYPT including its Nubian components

And the earth is ~6000 years old.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Intestinal fortitude is not why whites have what they do. Laws depriving others of opportunity is.

There have never been any laws banning sub-Saharans from creating civilizations, building, inventing and advancing. They simply were unable to do so, and have found it difficult once these thngs were bestowed on them. In their weakness they fell prey and in their weakness they fail still.

There is no such thing as sub Saharans, And the rest of this post when one knows about Africa, borders on mental retardation.

sub-Saharan is just as reasonable a delineation of HUMAN BEANS as is black, white, red, and yellow

Not if you ask Africans who live above and below the Sahara desert. Secondly there were tremendous civilizations that existed south of the Sahara.

Then blacks would do better to tout the merits of those "civilizations", rather than lose all credibility by trying to appropriate the accomplishments of others, as their own.

They actuall built your society for you, ya'll were too goddamn lazy to do it yourselves.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Intestinal fortitude is not why whites have what they do. Laws depriving others of opportunity is.

There have never been any laws banning sub-Saharans from creating civilizations, building, inventing and advancing. They simply were unable to do so, and have found it difficult once these thngs were bestowed on them. In their weakness they fell prey and in their weakness they fail still.

Most of the peoples of the earth did not create viable civilizations-------that is why the DRUIDS are all gone----
they were EATEN by ROME-----the whole Iberian Penninsula was EATEN by Rome------even the RHINE VALLEY-----a kind of minor little mess of a "civilization" was EATEN by Rome----
Rome was modeled on EGYPT including its Nubian components

Egypt is in Africa. Egyptians were not white. But at least you make more sense than the guy you quoted.

From the founding of the empire; and with the exception of an about 50 year rule; the Egyptian civilization, was ruled and operated by the same caucasoids who settled the entirety of the Mediterranean. The mistake most Afrocentric history revisionists make is to suppose that merely because Egypt is on the very northeast edge of the continent of Africa; that it must have been founded by Negros ( which originate from central, and west Africa).

No mistake, fact. The problem Eurocentric history revisionists make is establishing some imaginary border of African civilization using the Sahara desert and making claims that Egyptians are white.

One must first devalue and erase another society/culture before you can colonized and enslave it.

 

[Vastator]

There have never been any laws banning sub-Saharans from creating civilizations, building, inventing and advancing. They simply were unable to do so, and have found it difficult once these thngs were bestowed on them. In their weakness they fell prey and in their weakness they fail still.

There is no such thing as sub Saharans, And the rest of this post when one knows about Africa, borders on mental retardation.

sub-Saharan is just as reasonable a delineation of HUMAN BEANS as is black, white, red, and yellow

Not if you ask Africans who live above and below the Sahara desert. Secondly there were tremendous civilizations that existed south of the Sahara.

Then blacks would do better to tout the merits of those "civilizations", rather than lose all credibility by trying to appropriate the accomplishments of others, as their own.

They actuall built your society for you, ya'll were too goddamn lazy to do it yourselves.

Wrong...

 

[Fenton Lum]

There is no such thing as sub Saharans, And the rest of this post when one knows about Africa, borders on mental retardation.

sub-Saharan is just as reasonable a delineation of HUMAN BEANS as is black, white, red, and yellow

Not if you ask Africans who live above and below the Sahara desert. Secondly there were tremendous civilizations that existed south of the Sahara.

Then blacks would do better to tout the merits of those "civilizations", rather than lose all credibility by trying to appropriate the accomplishments of others, as their own.

They actuall built your society for you, ya'll were too goddamn lazy to do it yourselves.

Wrong...

You history is what it is pard.

 

[Ventura77]

Ahhhhhhhh you didn't disappoint in your predictable idiotic reply...you are incapable of anything beyond lockstep stupid...thanks!!!!

How is it idiotic ... Why can't you answer the two simple questions ...
You are the one beating an empty drum ... Which is understandable considering your tiny wee-wee probably couldn't handle it.

.

Clearly you are far too stupid to grasp the fact that your inapplicable questions were indeed answered, but where is the stunning refutation of the study that I posted? Surely you have the knowledge and polemical acumen to shred this study...right? LMFAO

 

[IM2]

There is no such thing as sub Saharans, And the rest of this post when one knows about Africa, borders on mental retardation.

sub-Saharan is just as reasonable a delineation of HUMAN BEANS as is black, white, red, and yellow

Not if you ask Africans who live above and below the Sahara desert. Secondly there were tremendous civilizations that existed south of the Sahara.

Then blacks would do better to tout the merits of those "civilizations", rather than lose all credibility by trying to appropriate the accomplishments of others, as their own.

They actuall built your society for you, ya'll were too goddamn lazy to do it yourselves.

Wrong...

Nah, it's true. And the thing is it's documented.

 

[Meathead]

They actuall built your society for you, ya'll were too goddamn lazy to do it yourselves.

Well, maybe you live in a mud hut, but most of us in the West don't. You know, in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa they even managed some wattle and daub buildings. I guess those were the great jungle-bunny civilizations you guys talk about.

 

[Ventura77]

There have never been any laws banning sub-Saharans from creating civilizations, building, inventing and advancing. They simply were unable to do so, and have found it difficult once these thngs were bestowed on them. In their weakness they fell prey and in their weakness they fail still.

There is no such thing as sub Saharans, And the rest of this post when one knows about Africa, borders on mental retardation.

sub-Saharan is just as reasonable a delineation of HUMAN BEANS as is black, white, red, and yellow

Not if you ask Africans who live above and below the Sahara desert. Secondly there were tremendous civilizations that existed south of the Sahara.

Then blacks would do better to tout the merits of those "civilizations", rather than lose all credibility by trying to appropriate the accomplishments of others, as their own.

They actuall built your society for you, ya'll were too goddamn lazy to do it yourselves.

Really stupid? What don't you then explain how these brilliant Black innovators and visionaries built 'our society' and then promptly regressed to their present state of mindless savagery?

 

[Fenton Lum]

They actuall built your society for you, ya'll were too goddamn lazy to do it yourselves.

Well, maybe you live in a mud hut, but most of us in the West don'You know, in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa they even managed some wattle and daub buildings. I guess those were the great jungle bunny civilizations you guy talk about.

You chose your screen name properly. If you're ignorant of world history I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

[Ventura77]

sub-Saharan is just as reasonable a delineation of HUMAN BEANS as is black, white, red, and yellow

Not if you ask Africans who live above and below the Sahara desert. Secondly there were tremendous civilizations that existed south of the Sahara.

Then blacks would do better to tout the merits of those "civilizations", rather than lose all credibility by trying to appropriate the accomplishments of others, as their own.

They actuall built your society for you, ya'll were too goddamn lazy to do it yourselves.

Wrong...

Nah, it's true. And the thing is it's documented.

....in which case you should encounter little difficulty in providing this elusive 'documentation'...

 

[Fenton Lum]

There is no such thing as sub Saharans, And the rest of this post when one knows about Africa, borders on mental retardation.

sub-Saharan is just as reasonable a delineation of HUMAN BEANS as is black, white, red, and yellow

Not if you ask Africans who live above and below the Sahara desert. Secondly there were tremendous civilizations that existed south of the Sahara.

Then blacks would do better to tout the merits of those "civilizations", rather than lose all credibility by trying to appropriate the accomplishments of others, as their own.

They actuall built your society for you, ya'll were too goddamn lazy to do it yourselves.

Really stupid? What don't you then explain how these brilliant Black innovators and visionaries built 'our society' and then promptly regressed to their present state of mindless savagery?

Whay are you so scared of them if they're all so feckless?

 

[Ventura77]

They actuall built your society for you, ya'll were too goddamn lazy to do it yourselves.

Well, maybe you live in a mud hut, but most of us in the West don'You know, in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa they even managed some wattle and daub buildings. I guess those were the great jungle bunny civilizations you guy talk about.

You chose your screen name properly. If you're ignorant of world history I'm afraid I can't help you.

clearly you cannot even help yourself...your brain is teeming with excuses and distortions of facts

 

[Ventura77]

There have never been any laws banning sub-Saharans from creating civilizations, building, inventing and advancing. They simply were unable to do so, and have found it difficult once these thngs were bestowed on them. In their weakness they fell prey and in their weakness they fail still.

Most of the peoples of the earth did not create viable civilizations-------that is why the DRUIDS are all gone----
they were EATEN by ROME-----the whole Iberian Penninsula was EATEN by Rome------even the RHINE VALLEY-----a kind of minor little mess of a "civilization" was EATEN by Rome----
Rome was modeled on EGYPT including its Nubian components

Egypt is in Africa. Egyptians were not white. But at least you make more sense than the guy you quoted.

From the founding of the empire; and with the exception of an about 50 year rule; the Egyptian civilization, was ruled and operated by the same caucasoids who settled the entirety of the Mediterranean. The mistake most Afrocentric history revisionists make is to suppose that merely because Egypt is on the very northeast edge of the continent of Africa; that it must have been founded by Negros ( which originate from central, and west Africa).

No mistake, fact. The problem Eurocentric history revisionists make is establishing some imaginary border of African civilization using the Sahara desert and making claims that Egyptians are white.

One must first devalue and erase another society/culture before you can colonized and enslave it.

the sad part is that you cannot find proof of the society you convince yourself existed...fantasy and distortions are clearly your refuge...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA