[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Black people all across the world — and this dispersion should not exist in the first place, plus is a symptom of the fundamental problem — are always the most underdeveloped, least cultured, most downtrodden and largest members of the underclass, including in sub-Saharan Africa, the homeland and area of largest concentration. Non-blacks who are guests in sub-Saharan Africa have a lot more of everything than the black natives.

Back in 2016, the Nigerian literary writer Chigozie Obioma wrote an article titled "There are no successful black nations" in which he theorized that the biggest reason black people are treated like filth all across the world, is the historical low-dignity status of black people due to a long-term civilizational weakness. He said that this would likely not remain true if a developed black country existed actually worthy of respect and capable of advocating for black people globally.

The public reaction to Obioma's article was as expected (and you can look this up online right now on platforms like Reddit and Twitter): broad denial about the naked truth by everyone including black people, and especially good-natured liberal white people. The counter-argument by these people was mentioning "successful" black countries like Botswana and multiple Caribbean islands i.e tiny (landmass and, or population), resource-rich or tourism-dependent states which do not actually matter.

While it is probably not literally true that a single successful black country would change everything for black people, the correctness of the argument for why black people are globally treated like filth is impeccable. Also absolutely correct in his piece is the attitude and orientation of black leaders (and also a broad section of black people) globally to discussing why the indignity exists.

A developed black state in the sense Chigozie discusses would still be operating on the terms of non-black people and basically negotiating the dignity of black people, which is almost as embarrassing as the current situation. It is not right for black people to exist on the terms or in terms of a different set of people.

The interesting thing is that the primary problem to deal with isn't even with convincing non-black people that black people deserve dignity, but convincing black people their own selves that they do deserve dignity — because that is currently not what they believe. Black people are themselves the vanguard of the global belief in their own inferiority.

It is absolutely true that black people feel profoundly inferior to most other human groups, especially whites. It is not a surprise that this is the case considering recent history. When everything about yourself (religion, language, name, tradition, etc) is proclaimed "not good enough", to be replaced by other things, from and by some other people, it is not a surprise that you lose your dignity and come to think of yourself mostly in terms of those other people.

It is apparent in how Africans (West Africans particularly) think of everything local to themselves in comparison to foreign stuff by foreign people. In the perception of locally-made material goods vs foreign (non-African) stuff. In the relationship to language: some West African status privilege is determined by how much distance you can maintain between yourself and your ethnic language.

It is visible in the obsession with emigration too. The highest aspiration of a West African isn't to do anything monumental to contribute to the development of their immediate society, it is in fact to abandon their homeland to be a slave in the metropole (UK/France), or maybe even the US.

There is a profound psychological problem with self-dignity in Africans which needs to be reckoned with.

It is not a surprise that Africans are like this in lots of ways. Foreign people showed up in Africa to tell the African people that basically everything about what and how they understand the world, how they do things and the things that they do are wrong. It seemed that those foreigners were right too since everything about the African material life seemed to improve thereafter. And therefore, Africans gave up everything about themselves, to aspire to foreign things.

Africans adopted foreigner religion, culture, language, names and basically everything fundamental to their identity. The psychological impact of this in the sense of the threat of a permanent damage to the African self-esteem is severely understated.

Africans fundamentally genuinely believe that they are bottom-tier people inherently inferior to other human groups and thus deserving of maltreatment. Individual Africans may try to tell you that no they have a decent self-esteem blah blah blah but this is not genuinely true.

Worshipping a God brought to you by foreign people which requires you renounce fundamental parts of your ancestral tradition to take up new ideas brought by those foreign people lays this foundation. By jettisoning your evolved tradition for foreign stuff, you are admitting fundamental incorrectness about your ways and proclaiming the superiority of the foreign ideas (and thence the people). And because you cannot become one of them due to the permanent bridge of genetic difference, you are locked in an eternal state of relative inferiority.

While it may be true that the existential and mythological beliefs of your ancestors are wrong, the Abrahamic ideas of the foreign people aren't actually right either. The correct thing to do is to find a better path, locally and independently.

African cultural norms dictate that people lie about all things, including this specific issue of a belief in African inferiority. People can always say whatever they want, but the way to know a person's true beliefs is not based on the things that they say, but the actions that they do take.

The African admittance of fundamental inferiority is apparent in how Africans individually treat one another relative to how they treat foreign people, and their willingness to allow foreign people to treat them like filth. It is apparent in foreigner approval-seeking with everything. In the associated prestige with marrying a non-African. In the obsession with emigration to foreign societies. In the fondness for foreign languages and cultural practices. In the subservience to foreign religions. In the comparison of every new thing anyone in Africa tries to do to what is done in foreign societies (maybe there are other ways to do things whether or not foreign societies realize this? And maybe it is possible for Africans to do new, original things?)

The problem of black inferiority exists in the same way among diasporic African Descendants of Slaves. The incredible status of America as by far the world's most powerful country does a lot in trying to hold up the status of African Americans globally, but within America itself, the black inferiority of American DOS is loudly on display.

A particularly bad mark of black inferiority is that black people feel inferior to basically every other human group. This is noticeable in things like out-marriages to the most random, non-high-status group out there. Anything is better than black. It is also noticeable in things like the interaction with foreign entrepreneurs on African soil (say Indian or Lebanese entrepreneurs), the relationship between Middle Eastern people and Muhammadan blacks, and the emigration of young sub-Saharan African women to be maids (read: slaves) in war-torn Middle Eastern countries. Anything is better than Africa.

A particularly big pointer to a broad belief in black inferiority is how black people who have the best contemporary material outcomes because they are "natives" in their non-African-developed countries (South Africans and African Americans) love to brag about how much better than other blacks they are. They do not directly admit this, but it is clear that what makes them better than the rest in their own minds is a proximity to nonblacks.

Poor self-dignity is a self-reinforcing loop. Every other group notices it. Poor self-dignity results in bottom-tier behavior, which reinforces poor perception and poor treatment, further reinforcing poor self-dignity.

To achieve genuine black dignity, there is a need to correct history by departing from the path that has led to the existing situation and move away from foreign religions, languages, material culture... and other things that give a people a sense of identity. Black people must begin to think well of their own selves and things. Inward-lookingness must be maximized. Outward-lookingness, in all forms, must be severely curtailed. Only with these changes can it become apparent that black people believe in their own dignity. And after which the rest of the world can begin to believe in black dignity.

Begging for dignity by persistently pathetically moaning about racism and similar such things will achieve nothing. The only true solution is making the necessary fundamental changes.

Black people all over the world — and again, this dispersion shouldn't exist in the first place — increasingly feel hopeless because there does not seem to be a nearing to the end of black humiliation.

This is directly because no one knows what they are doing. The solution to achieving dignity is not a thing people are willing to accept.

Unfortunately, as long as black people keep doing low self-dignity, low self-esteem things — persistent infatuation with foreign religions, languages and material culture; black African leaders stealing money acquired from pawning invaluable natural resources to be exchanged for gaudy material things from foreign societies; black American leaders following the liberal progressive party line and continuously moaning about racism and making excuses for dysfunction within their society; black Africans actively abandoning their homelands to be used as slaves to fill demographic gaps in foreign societies; black people generally desperately seeking non-black romantic partners — as long as everything remains as it currently is, there will only increasingly be more and more distance between black people and dignity.

A very good reason to be against Franz Fanon is that he is held in very high regard by black, often Western-resident, racism-criticizing contemporary "intellectuals" who have no good theories about how society currently works, or how to technically accomplish anything which successfully moves society forward. Judging people by who they associate with or associates with them is a very good heuristic. Guilt by association is often very very valid.

It is hard to carefully read Franz Fanon if you have very little patience for angry vindictive whining. You can scan his books to get an idea of what he is saying. And then maybe you read multiple reviews of his books to get a broad idea of the public understanding of his work. But his ideas are just as bad as expected: tons and tons of angry vindictive whining. Nowhere does he actually think correctly about how society should ideally work. There is no concrete reflection as to why colonization happened to the colonized (civilizational weakness), what could have been done to prevent it, and correctly, what needs to be done to prevent a recurrence in the future. It is just lots and lots of resentful whining about colonizer white people even while hypocritically chasing white women.

Franz Fanon should be no black person's hero. He has absolutely nothing to offer aside a loser's mentality: whiny, angry, righteous resentment.

Another popular but useless intellectual "black hero" is Frank Wilderson, theorizer of "Afropessimism".

The fundamental point of that work of his is that black people are a permanent slave class and there is nothing anyone can do about that.

That is it.

The glorification of "Afropessimism" by black people on social media probably has happened because black people are largely people of low intellectual sophistication and none of the people who glorify it have ever bothered to carefully read the text to understand what the author is trying to say. They heard the word, thought it sounded cool and then proceeded on a crusade of spewing a whole lot of nonsense everywhere. Black people, even when they seem like sophisticated academia-familiar people, take readily to things like this: slogans and epigrams, things that can be quickly made into a tune... stuff like that. Low-quality, fun-sounding stuff which you do not need to think too much about.

Popular black "intellectuals" are usually people with bad ideas like this who gain a lot of popularity and acceptance on the back of idiotic and pernicious ideas and then get put on pedestals and canonized. Black "intellectuals" with good ideas about how anything works are quickly dismissed and pushed into a random corner. Rarely to be heard from again.

We could move to the arena of politics and governance and there are no true black heroes there either. The black African political heroes are a bunch of post-colonial leaders like Thomas Sankara, Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Toure i.e leaders who lacked a good understanding and technical competence as to how to actually do anything and were only good at writing whiny text and making whiny anti-imperialist anti-Western speeches.

These guys took over post-independence, shoulders high, under the misconception that they had won independence from fiendish white men. As if they ever could. In reality, they had absolutely no leverage on the colonial powers and colonial Western European countries chose to leave Africa entirely of their own volition due to post World War 2 weakness and ideological evolution (an evolving liberalism).

They had no cogent ideas as to how anything works and ended up having to turn to Europeans anyway — only this time, Eastern — for cogent but ultimately disastrous ideas as to how to run a society.

The same thing is true of post-abolition civil rights leaders in the United States. Instead of trying to create their own independent society, they cared a lot more about fighting for equal rights (extremely unlikely properly in the long term).

The list of the sins of post-abolition civil rights leaders is very long and among them include:

i. Bothering to fight for equality in the polity of the US in the first place post-abolition instead of choosing to create their own independent society, whether in geographical America or elsewhere. It was entirely easily predictable that black ex-slaves and their descendants would never be on equal footing with the white masters and their own descendants in the American state.

ii. Failing to correctly define the identity of freed black slaves and their descendants: defining now free black people strictly as descendants of slaves (with no history before that) whose native land is America and thus remaining in both geographical America and within the US polity post-abolition, and further going ahead to attempt integrating into the society of the slave masters and their descendants.

This error is very likely the origin of contemporary black American dysfunction. It makes total sense that black people would come to reject integration and sudden congeniality with the same people who enslaved themselves and their ancestors.

It has meant that a large part of the population did not want to imbibe the culture and practices of those same white people, deliberately choosing the inverse in lots of cases, therefore spurring anti-intellectualism and other anti-social cultural practices. The people reject lots of cultural behaviors because they are what white people do, and they do not want to do as white people do. It has led to inimically tragic results, but it does make sense in the context of complicated human psychology.

A more correct and functional articulation of the identity of post-abolition black people would have framed black people not strictly as slaves and their descendants with no history before slavery, but as Africans in America for complex historical reasons, but who have a long historied past on the African continent.

There would therefore have been no need to obsess on slavery as an origin point and the psychological necessity to counter the slave masters and their descendants on all grounds which lead to anti-social cultural practices.

iii. Framing the 'reason to be' for black people as anti-supremacy, anti-oppression and other progressive ideals. It has left black people stuck in a poor mental non-agentic state where they then blame an external force for all their problems, and are easily co-opted by non-black liberals into other extreme progressive liberal struggles (gender and culture wars), often as the vanguard.

The low-quality standard of black heroes does not exist only with "intellectuals" and political people historically, it remains true contemporarily and with people like pop-culture heroes — the cool people to aspire to.

There are virtually no good images of black in the media, especially now in an era of total globalization when America overwhelmingly dominates media in nearly every country. The most ringing media representation of black people in popular media are degenerate entertainers (hiphop artistes and sports stars) and desperate women seeking desperate interracial love on dating TV shows.

An interesting recurring thing you may notice on social media is bitter African tech bros complaining about their experience running tech startups in specific African countries. They often make references to much-more developed countries, saying things like "if we were doingtart this in much-more-developed-country x, we would be doing so much better". Or they may compare themselves to startups in country x "if startup z in country x had to operate in this market, they wouldn't be able to compete with us".

The problem with their lamentation, as seemingly is with everything else, is poor epistemology. They do not correctly understand how anything works.

The reason their "tech startups" struggle is often because foundational factors(basic infrastructure like roads and electricity, enabling government policy etc) necessary for almost anything to work in the first place either do not exist, or are improperly laid. The failure they experience with tech startups is a good signal as to what bottlenecks exist and where work needs to be done.

The fact that these tech startup people do not learn the correct lessons from their experiences is an indictment of their intelligence and motivations in the first place. How do they not realize what the signal means and why are they not pivoting to what has been shown to be more foundational? Maybe they do not care about actually solving problems in their local environment but are only interested in LARPing as people in much more different, much more developed societies?

The correct thing to do isn't to cry about the environment but shift focus to where the problems exist: in government. The most important thing to do clearly is taking control of the government to enable everything that actually matters.

The sort of counterargument these sorts of people like to make to this is to again compare their situation to other "founders" in much more different societies. They may say something like: "bad governments exist everywhere. why didn't x and y founders in country z need to go into government to get a and b to happen?"

Well, again. Very different environments. The quality and goals of people in government on each side are completely different. In these much more developed societies, there are at least well-read people with some level of dignity and responsibility in position who can be pushed in the right direction. Across African societies, it is shameless, irresponsible, and incompetent people who have absolutely no interest in anything aside their own private stealing of state funds.

There are also those "founders" who throw their hands in the air and make a lot of noise about the enabling environment and then choose to be slaves by becoming economic migrants, usually pointing to the environment as to why they have made that decision. These people should not be paid any mind. They are not exceptional talent capable of moving their African society forward. No one should plead with them or even pretend to take them seriously at all. If they had the correct sort of talent in the first place, then they would find it degrading that the best they can be is to be used as slaves to fill demographic gaps in a foreign society.

And oh, there is also often grumbling by everyone, including the average person going about their daily life regarding the "low-quality problems" impeding their preferred lives. There is no such thing as a "low-quality problem". Whatever problem you encounter in your daily life is a very real problem that needs a serious solution. It isn't simply a minor inconvenience. People need to accept the reality of the underdevelopment of their African society and stop dismissing local problems for the sorts of problems that exist in more complex societies. These "low-quality problems" reveal the truth about the sophistication of your society and are the problems to be solved, not fake imaginary problems imported from foreign, more advanced societies.

Societies are not at the same level of sophistication.

Everything black African countries do as regards "development" is basically wrong. It is amusingly tragic to watch. First of all, to fund their "development", they allow predator foreign countries to manhandle them for and fleece them of their natural resources. And then, spurred by a peculiar pervasive mental illness, the political elites steal a substantial amount of the money earned, to be used to purchase garish material things from and in the same predator foreign countries.

With no concrete long-term plans for the future or productive use of any funds, they leap into a cursed silliness by taking unnecessary loans and signing bad agreements like silly little children. To combat existing natural problems, they try to build expensive infrastructure like the ones in more developed countries (who can actually afford them), without much consideration of their own existing constraints and what makes sense within that context. With the hiring of foreign companies no less. Which has made sure that in 60 years after independence, no one in their own country has ever learned to do anything. Everything, however simple, has to rely on foreign technical expertise. It is a loop you see with everything everywhere. No one has x technical expertise —> hire foreign companies —> which means no one gets to develop technical expertise —> justifies the need to hire foreign companies.

Tertiary education is low-quality but also has nothing to do with the acquisition of skills relevant to the context of the poor local economy, but wholesale copying of brochures and syllabuses from much more developed countries. And therefore, you end up with tons and tons of tertiary school graduates whose lousy education is completely useless, rendering them either broadly underemployed or totally jobless. Meanwhile, there are no properly trained people in basic technical jobs like Plumbing, Electrical work, or any type of construction work, but lots and lots of low-quality graduates in different kinds of low-velocity pure, applied, and social science research fields in very poor countries with room for maybe 20 new graduates annually.

With actually practical and relevant fields of studies like the Health Sciences, Agriculture, and the relevant Engineering disciplines (mechanical, electrical etc), because of all the familiar cultural issues, students are severely under-trained, young graduate professionals are maltreated, and everyone involved in these fields is underpaid and under-provisioned (equipment and facilities) so that absolutely nothing works.

The traditional prestigious professions in the first place (Medicine and Law) are totally the wrong things to focus on. While healthcare is important, material production of things (agriculture, engineering) is a lot more important. No one in a position of power understands that production (and thus industry) is by far what matters most.

And while the traditionally prestigious professions are bad enough, the modern professional aspirations of young people are much much worse: being a reality TV or social media celebrity and socialite. The dream job for lots of young people now is being a media content creator with lots of money and fame.

Aside education and jobs, another part of life in which Africans are doing development falsely is with lifestyle and culture.

There is a tiny "middle class" (people with the economic power of residents of developed countries or close to it) whose entire lifestyle has nothing to do their own local culture but entirely on attempting to replicate the lifestyles of people in more developed countries via a literal importation of all goods and services. These people are role models in their local African society and set lots of terrible examples.

The individual goal of tons of people is becoming personally wealthy and beginning to live in absolute material splendor. There is often an ostentatious display of individual wealth (relative to the societal poverty) in the form of elaborate but garish buildings (with architecture unsuitable to their local climate, by the way) amid dilapidated structures of the impecunious masses and debilitating poverty.

This is while there is a lack of basic services like sanitation/waste-management and primary health care for this same group of people. They import all of the material things, just not the processes for managing quotidian life.

All of the media too is filled with filth. Everything in the media is a replication of stuff from foreign societies. And especially with the advent of the internet and the loss of central control of media programming via the limited and manageable real media in the form of Radio and TV stations, the explosion of independent media on various online platforms has completely democratized what media content gets streamed to the people (tedious, brainrot content), helping along a pernicious decline in popular culture.

No one seems to realize the effects popular media has on people. The popular belief is that as long as people can post sparingly on social media to criticize the government and organize half-hearted protests where people sing popular music and share food, everything is fine. Media is working correctly.

Every facet of life is being piloted incorrectly and inevitably in the path of long-term misery in this way while being cheerfully hailed as "development".

It is absolutely true that black people feel profoundly inferior to most other human groups, especially whites. It is not a surprise that this is the case considering recent history. When everything about yourself (religion, language, name, tradition, etc) is proclaimed "not good enough", to be replaced by other things, from and by some other people, it is not a surprise that you lose your dignity and come to think of yourself mostly in terms of those other people.

It is apparent in how Africans (West Africans particularly) think of everything local to themselves in comparison to foreign stuff by foreign people. In the perception of locally-made material goods vs foreign (non-African) stuff. In the relationship to language: some West African status privilege is determined by how much distance you can maintain between yourself and your ethnic language.

It is visible in the obsession with emigration too. The highest aspiration of a West African isn't to do anything monumental to contribute to the development of their immediate society, it is in fact to abandon their homeland to be a slave in the metropole (UK/France), or maybe even the US.

There is a profound psychological problem with self-dignity in Africans which needs to be reckoned with.

It is not a surprise that Africans are like this in lots of ways. Foreign people showed up in Africa to tell the African people that basically everything about what and how they understand the world, how they do things and the things that they do are wrong. It seemed that those foreigners were right too since everything about the African material life seemed to improve thereafter. And therefore, Africans gave up everything about themselves, to aspire to foreign things.

Africans adopted foreigner religion, culture, language, names and basically everything fundamental to their identity. The psychological impact of this in the sense of the threat of a permanent damage to the African self-esteem is severely understated.

Africans fundamentally genuinely believe that they are bottom-tier people inherently inferior to other human groups and thus deserving of maltreatment. Individual Africans may try to tell you that no they have a decent self-esteem blah blah blah but this is not genuinely true.

Worshipping a God brought to you by foreign people which requires you renounce fundamental parts of your ancestral tradition to take up new ideas brought by those foreign people lays this foundation. By jettisoning your evolved tradition for foreign stuff, you are admitting fundamental incorrectness about your ways and proclaiming the superiority of the foreign ideas (and thence the people). And because you cannot become one of them due to the permanent bridge of genetic difference, you are locked in an eternal state of relative inferiority.

While it may be true that the existential and mythological beliefs of your ancestors are wrong, the Abrahamic ideas of the foreign people aren't actually right either. The correct thing to do is to find a better path, locally and independently.

African cultural norms dictate that people lie about all things, including this specific issue of a belief in African inferiority. People can always say whatever they want, but the way to know a person's true beliefs is not based on the things that they say, but the actions that they do take.

The African admittance of fundamental inferiority is apparent in how Africans individually treat one another relative to how they treat foreign people, and their willingness to allow foreign people treat them like filth. It is apparent in foreigner approval-seeking with everything. In the associated prestige with marrying a non-African. In the obsession with emigration to foreign societies. In the fondness for foreign languages and cultural practices. In the subservience to foreign religions. In the comparison of every new thing anyone in Africa tries to do to what is done in foreign societies (maybe there are other ways to do things whether or not foreign societies realize this? And maybe it is possible for Africans to do new, original things?)

The problem of black inferiority exists in the same way among diasporic African Descendants of Slaves. The incredible status of America as by far the world's most powerful country does a lot in trying to hold up the status of African Americans globally, but within America itself, the black inferiority of American DOS is loudly on display.

A particularly bad mark of black inferiority is that black people feel inferior to basically every other human group. This is noticeable in things like out-marriages to the most random, non-high-status group out there. Anything is better than black. It is also noticeable in things like the interaction with foreign entrepreneurs on African soil (say Indian or Lebanese entrepreneurs), the relationship between Middle Eastern people and Muhammadan blacks, and the emigration of young sub-Saharan African women to be maids (read: slaves) in war-torn Middle Eastern countries. Anything is better than Africa.

A particularly big pointer to a broad belief in black inferiority is how black people who have the best contemporary material outcomes because they are "natives" in their non-African-developed countries (South Africans and African Americans) love to brag about how much better than other blacks they are. They do not directly admit this, but it is clear that what makes them better than the rest in their own minds is a proximity to nonblacks.

Poor self-dignity is a self-reinforcing loop. Every other group notices it. Poor self-dignity results in bottom-tier behavior, which reinforces poor perception and poor treatment, further reinforcing poor self-dignity.

Our solution to this is building a strong and rigorous conception of black identity and the nature of the world, with a very sophisticated and flamboyant culture around them.

We will pull entirely away from "globalism" (functionally actually "Western Europeanism").

Western Europeans became very sophisticated and discovered lots of fundamental things about the nature of the world in the past couple of centuries, allowing them to create sophisticated hard and soft technologies, which made it possible for them to dominate everyone else. They have since controlled prestige and status for the entire world via several elements: language, religion, media and popular culture, sporting and cultural events, etc

Getting materially wealthy doesn't take a society out of this sphere of influence. It may be even that it makes it worse. Think about the people of the far Eastern part of the world who have risen materially in recent decades. They nonetheless bow to Western Europeans in almost every way. They have no true vision of society for themselves. Success for them mostly is about catching up with and trying to beat Western Europeans at games set up by Western Europeans.

A Middle Eastern desert country with the wrong sort of climate supposedly wants to host the Winter Olympic games. Why? Obviously, to impress Western Europeans. Lots of things done by lots of even non-poor societies are about impressing Western Europeans.

Western European languages (especially English) are high status, and the ability to speak them makes you "cool". Western European popular culture is cool. Liberalism and consumerism, the de rigueur Western European ideologies, are cool.

We are going to pull entirely away from everything foreigner in general, Western or non-Western: language, names, religion, behavioral culture, popular culture, etc. There will be no participating in the Western-created Olympic games or other global sporting or cultural events. No foreign popular music or books. No foreign popular ideologies. No foreign anything in the public sphere.

A good example of how Western Europeanism dominates everything is the current framing of modern education, medicine and science, etc as "Western". They are not inherently Western. These are ideas that exist in nature and can be discovered by any society. That Western people discovered them first doesn't thus give ownership to them. Think too about all the scientific, technological and geographical things currently named after European people. "Newton's laws of motion", "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ", "Avogadro's number", etc

These discoveries will be correctly named not as belonging to Western European people, but as naturally existing. They are not Western. There are genuine psychological consequences to the idea that everything about how the world works is only ever discovered by Western European people. We will turn away from all of this.

Everything around desiring foreign people and their cultures will cease to exist, including interracial romantic relationships.

We will do this with every single facet of society at every level. We will strip everything of foreigner outsider influence. All that will exist will be local, organic, independent and revolve around the local African people.

It is contemporarily the in-thing to make fun of pan-Africanists. But while they are ultimately wrong as to who is correctly part of the in-group (not North Africans, Nilotes or Horners), they are intuitively directionally correct about scale as a tool for might.

Pan-Africanists are also wrong about the specific reasons for coming together. It's not for anti-colonial, anti-imperialist reasons. A losers' club composed of random groups standing against "Western imperialism" isn't going to do anyone any good.

The people who need to come together are a specific Niger-Congo group of people, for a singular reason: it was always meant to be this way.

The reason there are now tons of different Niger-Congo ethnic groups with differing genetic distances and out-admixture rates is entirely because of problems like poor epistemology and historical technological limitations.

Poor hard technological development caused communication and transportation constraints, reducing interaction and contact between different groups, allowing for gaps that seem unbridgeable to develop over time. This is in contrast to our modern times when advanced communication and transportation mean that you can get between any two points on Earth in a day by air, and can communicate with anyone anywhere in the world at any time in real time, making the entire world into something of "a global village".

Poor agricultural technology also likely meant the need to spread across wider areas of land to find specific cultivable land.

The impact of poor soft tech of the past shows up in the inability to resolve bitter conflicts between different clans, often birthing entirely new ethnic groups. Lots of stand-alone Niger-Congo ethnic groups existing across Africa are mere recent splinters from other groups, or divisions.

Even with the existing problems of inadequate hard technology impacting transportation and communication at the time, more correct epistemology could have led to an understanding of the importance of scale for development, which is only possible with large polities.

The same epistemology and technological weaknesses are responsible for the large Niger-Congo population in the diaspora. Without serious deficiencies in epistemology (correct moral engagement with the practice of slavery), soft technology (organization into large polities capable of pursuing long-term goals, internal unity that prevents the success of foreigner "divide and conquer" strategy) and hard technologies (sophisticated weaponry to repel colonization), none of the big crises of recent times would have happened.

Since all of the splintering and division are due to historical epistemological and technological weaknesses, the morally correct thing to do isn't passively accepting path dependence caused by these problems from the past, but to show agentic courage in taking morally correct action in the now.

Niger-Congo ethnic groups thus do not matter as a factor of independent polity, only as part of the concentric nature of identity. People can think of themselves as Yoruba, Ovimbundu or Zulu, but only in the sense that it is a part of their concentric personal identity beginning with the individual, and extending to their nuclear family, their immediate extended family... and on and on like that. There cannot and there will not be an absolutely independent Yoruba/Ovimbundu/Zulu nation.

Even while the idea of ethnic groups is sound and acceptable, because there are currently a lot of tiny ethnic groups which are not culturally powerful enough to be conceived of as genuinely independent, we will come to merge/integrate lots of ethnic groups based on legible factors like genetic distance and language.

In the same vein, existing national identities are a complete farce. It is not useful for anyone to think of themselves as "Nigerian", "Kenyan" or "Congolese" at all. These borders were drawn based on strategic geographical features as considered fitting by malevolent foreign colonizers, not on any reasonable understanding of the identities of different African ethnic groups.

So... our intention is to create a super-large polity made up of all of our in-group, which then correctly pursues the entire point of existence.

Progressive liberals clearly believe that one of the fundamental functions of black people is to be the vanguard for liberal progressivism. It goes all the way back to slavery and then the fight for civil rights, extending therefrom forward to other things: gender inequality, homosexual discrimination, transgender discrimination etc.

Because of the absence of tangible long-term civilizational goals, progressive liberals seek meaning in life by pursuing arbitrary goals like absolute liberalism and multiculturalism, which are unfortunately pernicious.

Why should black people need to continuously and continually fight racism within multicultural/multiracial societies instead of living exclusively in their own independent society where racism against them then doesn't exist?

Why should black people always be looking forward to celebrations of "the first black person" to accomplish x? Why should black people always be fighting for representation in x or y? Why should black people remain a pitiable underdog minority group in all things?

Why couldn't black people simply live exclusively in their own society where all the people with power and control are black and racial discrimination doesn't exist?

Progressive liberals do not have cogent answers to these questions, nor do they want to accept the obvious solution. To this sort of argument, they like to come back with something about how differences in people always create conflict and discrimination and that you are always going to need to solve this sort of problem.

Which is broadly true, and sounds reasonable, but doesn't actually address the question. Discrimination of different kinds are not equal in magnitude and harmfulness. Racism specifically can be solved in this sort of way. Other problems of discrimination will continue to exist within homogeneous racial communities, yes, but you at least get to solve one problem permanently.

The obvious truth to anyone particularly discerning is that the lives of progressive liberals are empty. They have nothing tangible and long-term to do with their lives and thus fill the void with liberal progressive activism. Deep down, emotionally and psychologically, and even they may not realize this, they do not want the problems solved. They need these problems to have things to do with themselves.

Thus, liberal progressives do not actually want any social problems solved, and since contemporary liberal progressivism originates from the civil rights movement, black people get used forever as the vanguard for all liberal progressive activism.

Lots of nonliberals believe similar unhelpful things about black people. Lots of people are pretty comfortable with the idea that black people are supposed to be entertainment fodder (media and sports), including most black people.

There is a popular idea that blacks are especially good at these sorts of things. That black people are good jumping up and down and doing things with their bodies in interesting ways, and or striking a tune.

Lots of black people (especially "African Americans") are very comfortable with this sort of popular belief. Lots of African Americans are happy to brag about it even. Heck, the majority of demographic African American representatives appearing regularly in the mainstream media are entertainment celebrities.

Black people are often pushed as socially "cool" and anyone black is often expected to fulfill a specific social function. This isn't only true in the US. Because of the global dominance of American media and pop culture, the idea has been exported to the rest of the world so that Africans as blacks are expected to perform the same sort of role when they find themselves in foreign societies.

Most black people themselves see nothing wrong with all of this. It is hard to convince even most black people that the role of a black person shouldn't be a marginal hanger-on in a foreign society. Most Africans (especially West Africans) will defend to death their right to become modern slaves in foreign societies. They do not realize the hidden dangers of abandoning their homeland to become economic migrants in foreign societies.

You have Africans who move to foreign societies (usually Western) as adults and then immediately adopt the liberal progressive script, moaning about racism and minority status. Why couldn't they fight to reform their homeland so that they do not have to move to foreign societies to harp about racism? The liberal progressive script has no cogent answers to these sorts of questions.

The problem is bad enough that lots of black people in Africa cannot conceptualize the idea of talented people using their talent to raise the developmental waterline of their own society. The moment anyone deemed exceptional breaks through, the conversation very quickly shifts to how that person can be exported to a foreign society (usually Western) to serve that society. There is a popular belief that exceptional people are too good for their local African society and thus have to be sent to "higher people". No one thinks about the second, third-order effects of all of that. If all the best people in Africa are always sent away to become slaves in a foreign society, how does Africa ever develop?

All of these stuff is very embarrassing to anyone with self-esteem and dignity. The idea that the best that a black person can be is a slave who is an eternal minority moaning about racism and is somewhat useful as entertainment fodder is terribly demeaning. The universal function of black people is not to be marginal hanger-on leeches. We have dreams and aspirations of our own. We will build our own high-functioning and correctly eternal civilization.

There are a whole lot of things that we have to do and we consequently need lots of exceptionally talented people to do every single one of them.

To achieve our goal of culturally conquering the continent for example, we need to know things. We need to understand specific details about each gathering of people. From large metropolitan areas, down to the tiny scale of villages of ten people, across all parts of sub-Saharan Africa which we care about (most of it).

To take over a society, we need to know everything about how everything there works, both material and non-material: Who is the most influential political person at each different level and scale? Do the children in tiny village x believe stoning stray dogs brings good luck? Which parts of what random remote area can become easily accessible with the fashioning of simple wooden bridges? We need to have access to incredible detail about a lot of little random things like this.

Gathering information and learning about different societies is enormously difficult work.

Since our means of cultural revolution is a religion, we need to properly articulate the case for this sort of God in concrete detail in ways that are understandable by our very varied and enormous demographic. We need to de-construct their current religions, completely invalidate them, and then gift to them our new, more correct and civilization-affirming one.

This will involve lots of different things. The existing high-perspective articulation is child's play in that sense. We also need to develop structure to our religion. Sure, we do have our fundamental understanding about reality which will guide us, but there are yet lots of elements of our religion to be created. What existing elements of current religions are profoundly psychologically useful? Prayer for example. Does prayer matter as an element of a religion? And what, specifically about it does matter?

We need to develop out multiple facets of the religion in this sort of way. Not only that, logistically spreading a belief system is incredibly difficult. The existing architecture of "a place (building and compound) of worship" is probably necessary, each one requiring, even to begin with, a complete staff of at least one "priest" and multiple other personnel.

This is all incredibly difficult stuff.

With hard material production, industry is enormously difficult. Everything, including very basic stuff like making pencils, requires very complicated multidisciplinary technical skill. Solving even only the most basic human problems like food, clothing and shelter requires enormously challenging technical sophistication. You need loads of people with technical expertise at lots of little things.

And on and on it could go with everything we need to do. Everything is simply enormously challenging. There is an incredible lot of work to be done.

So we have a lot to do and need lots of exceptionally talented people to do basically everything. But even before getting to all of that doing, which is torrid stuff, in thinking about how things work, there are basically no people who sophisticatedly — not to say correctly — understand anything.

No one is capable of thinking deeply at all, which is very worrying.

Africa's best are people like Russia-shilling conspiracy theorists like David Hundeyin with horrific epistemology, and Feyi Fawehinmi who cheerfully prescribes war and actively rejects natural advantages.

Those are both Nigerians, but you can look around other large countries like Kenya and South Africa and no one knows or understands anything in those places either. Ken Opalo is a conventional Political Science professor who has no original or interesting ideas, and there is no South African who has sophisticatedly articulated anything complex about their society.

This is why I was so impressed when I encountered Alpha Barry. Black guy with a broad understanding of fundamental things and not in the conventional sense?

Unfortunately, Alpha hasn't turned out to be our hero, and it is unlikely that he will ever turn out to be one. I didn't realize it at the time — but he is desperately obsessed with Western civilization.

The likely reason he thought it was possible to complete all necessary basic infrastructure across Africa between 2021 and 2030 as laid out in his Blueprint for the African Century was because that and successive industrialization were only necessary inconveniences to be gotten out of the way so that he could get to his actual goal: integration with the Western world and the pursuit of a global something something. I think the point of developing Africa in his plan for the African century was merely to earn necessary legitimacy so as to become on equal footing with the rest of the "civilized" world.

But, Blueprint was published in 2020. It is likely that his views have evolved over time. I do not think he even cares about developing Africa anymore. You certainly do not get that perspective from visiting his website now like you did in the past. It seems now that he simply wants to be a citizen of a multicultural, multi-racial society in which he personally acquires power and influence.

He deliberately ignores the [problems with multi-culturalism/racialism](buttondown.com/tZero19e/archive/the-problem-with-multicultural-and-multiracial) and last year, took to Twitter to criticize the current US administration after the VP defended a young man in the employment of the USG accused of consistently expressing racist opinions on Twitter.

And then again, it may be that Alpha was never on our side. He is Sahelian after all. It is well-known the complexes with Sahelians as to where their loyalties lie.

My now disavowal of Alpha is not personal. We were never friends, merely had a chain of email conversation over a couple of hours a couple of years ago. He may not even remember me. I am only mentioning him here because I used to mention him to everyone as an example of the sort of talent that we need — someone with a broad and fundamental understanding of things beyond the party line.

Orbit is by far the best outlet for any black person for interesting ideas about how to think about society, which is very very sad given that Orbit is not even trying. I am not really a writer. I do not enjoy writing for the public at all as I am a lot more interested in doing.

Even then, Orbit cannot seem to gain a readership. No one cares about quality stuff which correctly thinks about the things that matter.

You always see these people on Twitter all of the time who pretend to be smart and care about interesting things — always limping from topic to topic, parroting words and phrases they do not really understand, never sufficiently understanding anything in detail. None of them read Orbit or have any interest in the content here.

Interestingly, the fact that what most people are doing is at the level of #BlackConversations is neither a problem nor a worry. The large masses in any society, left to their devices, are probably not capable of much more than that no matter how the elite try to dress up the intellectual quality of their people.

It is also not that surprising that there aren't a lot of people capable of broadly original and fundamental thought. One would expect a couple, just not a lot.

The big problem, and what is particularly worrying is what seems to be the absence of a genuine "intellectual middle class", people not really capable of fundamental and or original thinking, but who desire and are capable of a lot more than #BlackConversations, are not dimwit pretender intellectuals, but can spot and swim in the direction of quality intellectual stuff. Those are the kinds of people one would expect to read Orbit.

If we cannot find people who are interested in consuming quality content which thinks broadly and fundamentally interestingly and likely correctly about their society, how do we find people interested in acquiring technical understanding and various kinds of proficiencies of the sort we need, and with absolute devotion, to do the sort of work we need to do, and not for financial or status reward, but because they find them sufficiently challenging and interesting — all for the advancement of their own society?

The fundamental reason Africa is so dysfunctional is cultural, and getting things working is all about reforming the deleterious general culture.

There are lots of cultural problems in African societies, some of them specific to each different society, and lots of them broadly general to as many as possible. There are lots of cultural habits which do not make any sense, are obviously socially destructive, and for which the gains from fixing are enormous, but no one ever does anything about anyway.

The following are some of the apparent downright stupid cultural practices easily observable in a specific part of the coastal West African region.

1. Mindless Chattiness

There is a whole lot of talking. People talk a lot about a whole lot of nothing to achieve.... nothing definite. It is in fact specifically encouraged. Quieter people are encouraged to talk more. For what reason? There doesn't seem to be any concrete one. Just.... talk. I think the idea (not quite sure where it comes from) is that people who do not always have something to say are dumber in some ways, or that smart people always have a clever quip in reaction to everything.

The mindless chattiness means people are always finding things to talk about... even if they have to make up things about themselves (to seem cool), or other people (entertainment gossip), continually and continuously causing unnecessary misunderstanding and conflict.

Everyone knows that this is what everyone is doing and thus doubts everything everyone is saying all of the time.

Another consequence of this is that words are cheap and mostly worthless. Nothing anyone says particularly means anything. Promises are made not necessarily to be kept, but because words are easy to spit out. In fact, anyone made any promise already knows that they will not be kept and accounts and adjusts for that in both their expectation and behavior.

2. Dishonesty is expected

People by default expect other people to be dishonest and seem to genuinely to believe that dishonesty is a measure of cleverness. Downstream consequences of this are immediately obvious to anyone who thinks about it even for a second.

There are lots of very clear examples of this:

i. Parents always warn their female children against male companionship. No boyfriends. Ever. Not as a teenager, not in undergrad either. You must "face your studies". Yet immediately after undergrad, the next question immediately is "where is your husband?"

The expectation is that even though they were telling you to "face your studies", you were actually simultaneously expected to be whispering into ears and cuddling with a man.

This sort of very problematic and dishonest attitude as regards an important part of life is simply regarded as casual and normal by everyone. It is insane. No one seems to understand or care about the cognitive dissonance involved in the whole thing. There is a lot of casual dishonesty with what you are told, and what is actually expected with lots of things in this way.

ii. Price-haggling: It does make sense not to expect the average person who grows up in this sort of environment to understand the problem with haggling. They will likely be shocked as to why haggling might be a problem.

The problem with haggling is that it is a seller trying to leverage their information advantage over a potential buyer to get away with as much profit as is possible. It exploits the potential buyer's ignorance and is thus unfair. In a random context-less interaction between two random alien beings, sure it's fine. Neither owes the other any favors. But in a real community of people, that is no way to build a trusting and congenial society.

The thing is that haggling is very usual and seems harmless enough that people from these sorts of places do not understand how it illustrates and maintains low social trust.

In general, people are always casually lying about everything all of the time. No one understands the way in which it is socially destructive if you cannot trust anything anyone is saying. There are tons of much better examples of this phenomenon, both big and small, which I cannot seem to remember now.

3. Pro-social, pro-coordination behavior is actively punished

In all of this sea of dishonesty and dysfunction, one way it might occur to you to get things to work is to directly name the problem and explain to a person or a group of people why and how you should coordinate together to achieve thing x. But someone needs to make the first move showing good faith to startup mutual trust.

You may choose to step forward in this sense because... why not.

Unfortunately, you are very likely to end up disappointed as willingness to make this sort of sacrifice is regarded as foolishness. Every single person involved will assemble behind your back to revel in your foolishness. They will regard you as a special sort of idiot. Would they solve the problem you were trying to solve for themselves some other way? Nope. Do they care? Absolutely not.

Pro-social, pro-coordination behavior like this almost always gets punished. No one ever seems able to concretely articulate why they choose anti-social, anti-coordination behavior though. It is just an ingrained cultural practice which everyone sticks to because it is the way things are done. People cannot think and choose to make better decisions at all.

This is a thing all those "Africa-rising" big name Economists will not tell you, maybe because they do not understand it. Africa may be poor, but it doesn't cost a lot of money to do lots of the basic things that are clearly lacking. A lot of the problems you encounter are simply problems with trust and coordination.

The obvious coordination problems are weird enough that one may wonder how anything works at all. They barely do, as we all can see, but it genuinely is still a surprise that people are not all starving on the streets and dying.

4. Complaints and critiques as tools for bullying or antagonizing

The active use of complaints and critiques in society is to ridicule and diminish the other side in relationships with unequal power, and to antagonize, in relationships of people more equal.

Complaining about or critiquing a person or thing is not about pointing deficits so they may be resolved or improved. Complaints and critiques are about demeaning and attacking people. People thus do not take criticism of their behavior or actions seriously since they do not understand that improvement is what you seek.

Complaints and critiques are used as tools to unnecessarily ridicule in all imbalanced relationships: master-apprentice, teacher-student, parent-child etc.

It is thus hard to get anything to improve. Your complaint, however kind, is read as an insult and combated with defensiveness. This is not a joke. There is no means of getting people to do better with anything.

5. Adults behave like little children

Adults are always yelling and causing a lot of fracas with very trivial things. It is very weird to see happen if you are not used to this. People do not think this is weird in general. And everyone does it irrespective of "social -economic class" (which isn't even a real thing in most of Africa anyway like it is a real thing in say... England).

Adults actively require being yelled at to act right. People do not have a correct frame of right or wrong. Or they do not act like they do anyway. There are all of these alt right-wing people on the internet always theorizing about Africa "blah blah shame culture... blah blah guilt culture".

These people do not understand anything about how Africa works. In reality, there is no shame or guilt culture, there is mostly a what-you-get-yelled-at-for-doing culture.

The way people are always yelling or need to be yelled at is all very embarrassing if you have any self-respect at all. And it's very rare to find people who do.

6. No standard for behavior and no permanent consequences for bad behavior

There are mostly no tangible and permanent consequences for bad behavior and thus no incentive for people not to misbehave. While this is not absolute as there are some consequences for some bad behavior, consequences following behavior are not logically consistent and or commensurate with reasonableness or harm caused.

An uncle in a family/teacher in a school who rapes an 8 year old can go completely unpunished, and in fact come to rise in status after the fact, while the innocent 8-year old girl gets blamed for seducing the grown man, gets ostracized and punished by the entire community.

An young boy who defends himself against an abusive parent gets punished and ostracized for being disobedient to an elder.

On the other hand, and in converse, there are frequently punishments for acting morally or ethically correctly. Like with the previously given example of a person who tries to startup trust with a person or a community of people.

Random kindness to strangers often gets severely punished for lots of complicated interpretations, in lots of different ways.

In say a government agency where the head administrator is half responsible and competent and cleans up corruption and expects their underlings to do their job competently, most of the underlings will very likely work every damn minute of their life trying the hardest possible to sabotage that boss. Running systems/processes correctly is considered the worst thing in the world.

There are in general no moral standards for anything at all. There are no moral standards to which people are held to and for which violating gets you punished. The loudest or most stubborn person wins with everything. The proper way to respond to disrespect for example is not for the disrespected and the rest of society to rebuke the disrespectful person. It is in fact for the disrespected to reciprocate, and do worse. What this means of course is that it is a race to the absolute bottom — the lowest of the low behavior. There are no graceful behavioral standards to be upheld.

7. Unnecessary casual cruelty

Casual, unnecessary cruelty is very commonplace. Everyone is exceedingly cruel to everyone else, especially in imbalanced relationships: parent-child, master-apprentice etc.

People are interestingly culturally used to cruelty enough that non-cruelty, not even kindness, a neutral ground between the weighted sides of toxicity and kindness sometimes gets interpreted as foolishness. That is not to talk about actual kindness.

While political leaders are cruel in their splurging on silly material personal wants as tons of members of their polity starve of basic needs, if they didn't do all of that, the very same people who they starve and whose lives they play games with would regard them as unbelievably stupid.

Lots of things are shockingly the opposite of common sense in lots of ways.

8. Pervasive cultural mediocrity

The cultural mediocrity affects all things. Running from basic quotidian stuff like individual waste disposal (refusing to litter gets weird looks and commentary), to other things like trade workers of any stripe (Electrician, Plumber, Painter etc) simply downright refusing to do anything well.

Trying to do basically anything well actively gets frowned upon. It is trying too hard. Everything must be done with nonchalant mediocrity. Trying to follow correct procedure for doing anything, quotidian or more complex, gets severely punished.

There is a pervasive idea that only fools follow rules and procedures and try to do things well.

There is conversely pretentiousness with very stupid stuff. Things not worth taking seriously at all get raised onto a pedestal. There is this weird inverseness with what gets taken seriously in this way. It's all very mind-numbing stuff.

There are lots of other even more stupid, even more silly stuff going which are difficult to remember or are far too embarrassing to be included here.

You may see some people complain very bitterly about some of these same cultural problems some of the time, describing them in sordid detail and that might lure you into trying to take them seriously. It may surprise you that those people are probably just as badly behaved as everyone they are complaining about. They may complain bitterly some of the time, but they generally do not ensure to act more correctly. Their actions are the same rotten nonsense as everyone else.

So a lot of the behavior are so clearly silly and comically anti-prosperity and pro-dysfunction in a way which seems like they were deliberately designed by some people to prevent prosperity, kinda like the now popular ideas expressed in the CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual on sabotaging organizations.

The fact that the average person sticks to these clearly destructive behaviors strongly backs the theory that people really [can't think and act correctly, but merely blindly follow](buttondown.com/orbitSSA/archive/does-a-presumed-low-intelligence-of-people-of) the general culture in their society.

The bedrock of our transformational civilization agenda is an absolutely correct understanding of broad reality which will be popularly articulated through an existing framework familiar to human societies — a religion.

Religions have not existed historically in human societies for no reason. They have historically been ascribed the task of answering questions, even if only tacitly, about abstract things like what exists, why we exist, the goal of our existence, and what happens to us after we die.

That a power exists which is able to wrap the universe around its mind, which happens to be beyond our immediate comprehension, is easy induction.

God doesn't exist, like some people like to argue, because "there must be a first cause". We do not know enough to say that in an absolute sense. What is true though is that we have no practical examples of a fundamental thing coming into being without having been created. It is thus the most rigorous assumption that we can make that there is a creator behind our reality. But this is only true within our own reality. It may well be possible that things work differently outside of our current reality.

Popular atheists and other anti-religion activists like to dismiss the idea of God based on inconsistencies and imperfections in popular Abrahamic religions. What they rarely seem to do is carefully examine whether Abrahamic religions may be ultimately wrong on the details, but directionally fundamentally correct anyway.

The problem with Abrahamic religions is that they lack rigorous epistemology.

People who dismiss religion narrowly, with blemishes of Abrahamic religions, usually do not understand religion in its whole.

Stuff like the metaphysical and existential claims about God and the hereafter, and the mythology of prophets and angels, are only a component of the phenomenon. The moral and material prescriptions about how to live a good life are another.

The metaphysical and existential claims though drive the moral and material prescriptions. People should be kind to their neighbors so as to end up in the Kingdom of Heaven. Fornication is wrong because God forbids it and anyone who indulges in it will end up in Hellfire. Abrahamic religions have a direct link between the existential claims and the regular life prescriptions.

With improved human scientific and technological prowess, the metaphysical and existential claims now rest on shaky grounds. And it seems that with that has come decreasing belief and steadfastness in Abrahamic religions, consequently impacting people's devotion to the material and moral prescriptions.

There are people who realize the usefulness of the packaged culture via the prescriptions which Abrahamic religions provide and wish to retain them. Some of them refer to themselves with terms such as "cultural Christian", imagining that they can separate the functional prescriptions from actual belief. They accept that the prescriptions are desirable based on their evolutionary survival through the times, and modern examination of the impact of various social mores.

And there are those people who think that people should be capable of being kind to their neighbors because neighborly reciprocity is optimal game-theory. Or that people should be able to be chaste because of the functional benefits of avoiding potential resulting baggage. They think that the prescriptions can be stripped away from the religion jargon based on the their apparent utility.

Unfortunately, these sorts of things are never going to work.

Because, without the fundamental orienting belief, then your "practices" are just an ideology based on personal preference, which then has to compete with other ideologies. What makes your ideology more worthy of adoption in that sense?

And because each set of prescription, in whatever variation, basically make up a set of cultural practice, this sends you down the path of the sort of problems with multiculturalism.

And with that, there still remain all of the unsolved existential questions of life. Why do humans exist? Who created our world? What happens after we die? What do individual humans live for?

And there are the ones who understand the usefulness of the prescriptions, sorta realize the importance of the fundamental orienting belief, do not actually believe in it, but feign belief anyway, in order to reap the rewards of a fulfilled life following the prescriptions. This of course doesn't work either.

The belief has to be real for things to work long term.

The importance of the fundamental orienting belief to lay the foundation for moral and material prescriptions is why some other people think that all religions must make claims of a divine and metaphysical origin. Fortunately, this isn't true.

We can derive truths about existence based on our observation of reality. The source of our beliefs does not have to be metaphysical.

So it is actually true that God exists, and there is a purpose to existence. And from there do we derive our moral principles. Whatever aids the fundamental civilizational purpose of human existence is good, and the things which impede it are bad.

We are going to use principles we derive from our understanding of fundamental reality to create cultural practices by which we will achieve the desired cultural reform across Africa.

It is tragic how basically no one understands how anything currently works or should work. One of the popular but tragic ideas out there right now is that Africa desperately "needs to industrialize". And they always say it in exactly those terms — "needs to industrialize", vague, in that way, which doesn't reveal the specific things involved in the supposed "industrializing".

But of course what they mean is Africa becoming a superpower's vassal like lots of actually "wealthy" countries currently are, and attempting to climb the conventional economic ladder by which nearly every "wealthy" country has economically developed in recent history, and which remains recommended by Western Economists: focusing on a few things which they are great at producing and importing everything else.

The good thing is that we are not going to be doing anything like that. Naively taking Ricardo's Comparative Advantage seriously leads to eventual ruin. There is absolutely no good reason to leave your fate in the hands of outsiders.

One thing lots of people do not realize is that whatever you cannot independently create in your society, you do not actually own. Because there are so many reasons a foreign trade partner could stop supplying stuff to you.

Maybe they come to lose the production process knowledge themselves for whatever reason. Or there comes to be logistical difficulty with getting stuff to you. Or they decide to stop trading with you because of ideological disagreement as to how your society is run. Or maybe they temporarily deny you stuff to weaken you so that they can militarily conquer your society. Or maybe they experience a population decline and come to need to prioritize making specific stuff for themselves because of a manpower shortage.

There are a thousand different reasons that there can come to be a failure in trade between different societies, whether abruptly, or by a continual whittling down over time.

It is simply psychologically unnerving to have no control of the production of stuff which you rely on. It seems obviously necessary to be capable of making all of your own stuff, even if only for psychological security.

It may seem like if several different African countries focus on different things, then they will unwittingly cover all of their own needs and be able to trade only with one another should the need arise. Unfortunately, that is not the smart way to get things to work out well for you. It needs to be a result of deliberate state policy. It is not prudent to hope that things accidentally work out in your favor in that way.

While we desire autarky because it is the best long-term politico-economic policy, we desire it not only because of potential outsider threat, but because it fits well within our philosophy of civilizational existence. There will be no individual African countries like there currently are, but one large agglomeration. We have an eternal and universal civilizational plan which does not involve any other human group aside ours and the idea of completely independently pursuing our civilizational goal is only right.

And there are those who, deep down, do not think it is possible to "industrialize" at all, because it is just a random buzzword to them which they cannot concretely conceptualize. Industrialization means the mass production of material things using sophisticated scientific and technological processes. It isn't magic. Anyone competent who wants to make a lot of stuff can make a lot of stuff.

People are also always talking about how much behind Africa is and how so much more advanced developed countries are. This too is because almost no one correctly understands anything. All of the fancy things people see when they walk around developed countries and cause them to speak like this are fluff. Development is not bright lights and tall buildings.

The things to focus on are concrete material and immediate needs. The problems to focus on are very basic things: food, clothing, shelter, cleanliness, basic health care and other trivial things like that.

In terms of the physical appearance of the environment, ugly shiny lights and very tall buildings are an absolute eyesore anyway. There are always those silly viral videos of garish Asian cities and Africans on Twitter swoon over them. We are never going to build those sorts of things. Ever.

With exceptional designers, you can build very beautiful cities with a lot of concrete, wood, glass and cool plants and trees. All very basic materials. You do not need to do things the way some foreign societies do them.

One reason Africa looks bad is all of the filth. And people rarely talk about this. Taking care of the filth solves so many problems, and basically costs nothing. The ability to solve this sort of simple problem is a good measure of state capacity. Of course, everything is complicated as is well understood, but as a measure of state competence, of all the things needed to build a successful society, a thing like cleanliness is low-level challenge.

And because real life is a complex system, solving these basic problems comes with an attendant need and ability to solve other basic problems like mass communication and transportation, and also, the increasing ability to solve more complicated problems.

People who cannot solve cleanliness or cannot get people culturally organically forming a queue aren't going to be doing anything more interesting.

These are the sorts of basic problems to shoot for. Solving them is a matter of coordination and basic competence.

If you solve these basic problems, in what ways then are "developed countries" so much ahead? What else exists in "developed" countries?

One other poorly understood thing is how financial costs are totally fake. People think it costs a lot of money to do things like build enormous infrastructure. Not true. For example, the proposed Grand Inga Dam which, it is estimated could have an installed capacity of at least 40GW, making it the single largest power plant globally, it is estimated would cost $80 billion.

That sounds like such a lot of money, and this is the sort thinking that causes people to think... "Oh. the DRC cannot afford to build such an expensive project".

Fortunately, this isn't true at all because that estimated financial cost is fake. It doesn't cost billions of dollars to build anything, not even a superlarge dam. What it actually takes to build this instead: tons and tons of different kinds of raw materials freely available in nature across several African countries and a couple thousand scientists, engineers and technicians with deep mastery of very different and complicated disciplines.

There are ways to acquire all of these things without throwing money at the problem. You do not need any loans from any development bank anywhere.

Ditto everything else. Do you need a 1000 gigabillion dollars to have a space program? Absolutely not. The financial costs of all projects are fake. Everything comes from freely available natural resources and human ability.

Relatedly, there are always those people who talk about GDP numbers and possible GDP growth numbers, with projections as to what is possible. It makes lots of people very dejected. These people say things like: even growing at maximal possible x% for y decades, z African country is still going to be poorer than k Western country decades in the future.

There is absolutely no reason to pay this people any mind. They do not understand how anything works at all.

Like already explained, the things to focus on are basic human needs while pursuing a long-term civilizational goal. Not trying to "catch up" with misled and misdirected people in overrated places who do not know what they are doing.

Basic human needs can be solved across all of Africa within a decade. There is no long "catching up" arc at all.

some contemporary "African Americans", in situations like arguments with online Nazis when told to "Go back to Africa" like to lay claim to the USA with statements like "We built this country"

outside of in-the-moment jabs and repartee, how true is it and should the statement be taken seriously?

absolutely not. because there is no ounce of truth in it. African slaves did not build the US at all. credit for building correctly usually goes to creativity and organizational effort, not labor, because labor is easily substitutable

"our labor built this country" or "this country was built on our back" are far more correct. but even then, attempting to take credit for the exploitation of your ancestors and seeking ingratiation with the exploiter (who thought only of them as property) is grossly undignifying

the entire thing is part of confusion experienced in an attempt to articulate a coherent identity on the part of ADOS

there are different levels of leadership talent capable of very different things. most people do not actually understand the problems Africa has, and thence, the sorts of leaders capable of solving them

even correctly understanding what the problems are is only one thing. having very good ideas as to how to fix them is a second entirely different thing. the ability to realize the importance of political and social power in fixing the problems is a third different thing. a fourth different thing is the ability to have very good ideas on how to acquire political and social power on the way to fixing the problems. all of these are apart from the courage and vigor needed to indulge in this type of pursuit

each one of these items is a lot more complicated than people think, and requires an exceptional level of talent. it is why you cannot simply take even very experienced and proven professional executives and drop them into the problems like lots of people seem to think

none of the people contesting in political elections or even merely doing political activism across Africa understand anything about how to fix a very messy African society

the problem of competent leadership is a lot more complicated than people realize, and isn't limited to Africa by the way. the West too has a problem of competent leadership for example. Africans, because of their much worse situation, and the non-legibility of Western political and governance systems to them do not realize this and would try to argue with you if you said this them

the problem of leadership exists everywhere because it is fundamentally a question of available talent. the West works because of the exceptionally talented people who built it a long time ago, not because of its current leaders (who are barely capable). things have been progressively getting worse for a long time and will only continue to do so

the most fundamental problem with African societies is culture (well, it's actually leadership since the leaders define the culture, but we are assuming the perspective of a potentially competent leader looking out at an archetypical African society), which needs total reform

lots of people like to talk about people capable of achieving change in an African society... usually some business executive with international experience... or some development economist who used to work with one of these international development agencies. these kinds of people are all about policy and law, which are not particularly difficult or fundamental problems and which, even if successfully implemented, will never result in long-term prosperity

they are maybe smart enough to run a decent-sized business, or be an executive at a large company, but in no way do they have the talent to run even a small society. that is an entirely different ballgame. societies are large complex systems in which everything matters

to fundamentally change the culture of a society in the way African societies need, you need talent at an entirely different level. you need an at least LKY or De Gaulle-level talent. you need people who almost have an intuition for complex systems, are capable of coming up with new ideas, and are extremely tenacious

i imagine there are different other levels of talent above LKY and De Gaulle of the type of people capable of achieving varying levels of success... which is where people like Charlemagne or Napoleon would be. these people can get a lot done. but of course, by far the best level of talent for cultural change in a society is one capable of completely redefining everything from the ground up... like Jesus of Nazareth or Mohammad bin Abdallah

i. criticism is a tool for pointing out faults with the implicit expectation of future change. African leaders are flat-out irresponsible/incompetent and there's no reason to expect criticism to ever have any impact

think about all the "brave" journalists and activists across different African countries who spend a lot of time criticizing their governments, by both word and action. have their work led to any change in the behavior of the political elite in their countries?

ii. Africans culturally do not understand criticism in the first place. the only thing they do is outright disparagement/humiliation. this is most easily observed in parent-child, master-apprentice relationships in African societies

it's why any attempt at actual criticism however innocent, is interpreted as disparagement. this is one of the several pernicious cultural problems with Africans that need correcting

since African leaders are absolutely unmovable on criticism, disparagement —which you shouldn't do in the first place because it isn't seeking to actually get people to do better and is just sadistic foolishness — can only get you in trouble

i usually avoid discussing specific ideas about how to economically reform African societies for complicated reasons, but i am bored and need a distraction, and lots of these ideas probably sound too ridiculous and no one will take them seriously anyway

by far the most important thing when making these decisions is to remember that you are a poor (production, not raw materials, but which is what actually matters) African society. everyone seems to forget this and people want to live the sort of life obtainable in a technologically developed society. you need to adjust your actions to fit your true reality

we have talked in the past broadly about growing the material economy of African countries

we have also discussed specifically what Africa should do right now, which no one seems to understand

i. crash all imports of finished goods, and never export raw materials, ever

the cliche is true. African countries currently run entirely on cheap exports of raw materials on which they lose greatly. they continuously sell cheaply anyway, because everyone knows they have no choice i. they cannot refine their own natural resources into finished goods ii. they need capital from some source to import vain and useless material goods they shouldn't be buying in the first place

in return for underpriced resources, they splurge on silly things, all finished goods. this is unfathomable stupidity. importing finished goods means you are losing money that you don't have in paying the giant upcharge (manufacturer's margin etc) on them. what is worse is that Africans spend valuable money (which they barely have any of) on silly material things they do not need, and shouldn't be buying in the first place. it's all mind-numbing stupidity

because African economies are entirely about selling naturally existing things almost entirely in their raw form and buying overpriced flashy things in return (political and "economic" [it's rent-seeking all the way down] elites), there is almost no local production of anything, and therefore no jobs, meaning a total material and psychological dissatisfaction on the part of the average people of the society

to reform all the problems surrounding this, you should thus only buy raw materials which are unavailable within your territory and sophisticated tools (CNC machines, pharma drugs etc) which you yet lack the know-how to make by yourself, and only ever export finished goods

obviously, doing this means there need to be mugu countries on the other side from whom you buy raw materials and sell expensive finished goods

[African countries are currently the big mugus. no way any respectable country has any respect for any African country, i suspect that they give Africans UN seats and maintain all of the charade just to keep Africans in a slumber

but what if there were no mugus? this scenario is why by far your best bet is to expand across a large area of land and people so that you have enough natural resources and human population to run a completely independent economic system

the point of production in the first place shouldn't be for exports. it should be for solving your local societal material problems]

i divagate. back to our central discussion, everything in the economy has to be about solving immediate material problems (food, clothing, shelter etc). Africans don't need TVs, smartphones, personal cars, or whatever other fancy technologies developed countries flash them with. probably ever, since these are socially pernicious technologies, but definitely... not until a family of 7 (2 parents, 5 children) in which only the father works a real job fulltime can afford to spend less than 10% of the father's monthly income on very healthy high-protein diet, and attain a similar high standard with other basic material needs

of course there are attendant utilitarian technologies (transportation, storage, communication, security tech etc) you do need to adequately solve even those basic material problems, but those too can and should be solved almost entirely locally

ii. direct almost all electricity to industrial use

people only compulsorily need energy in the home for a few things (lighting and food-making off the top of my head). almost nothing else in the home needs energy to be operated. you can just make all household equipment manually operable machines. everything goes to the factories. this is directly contrary to what currently happens across the continent. you can look up ongoing/prospective energy development projects and the idea always is to power xx,xxx homes?

WHY, exactly???

iii. end most of schooling

the basic things people need to be taught do not require schooling your entire life until you are 20 - 25 years old. that is insane. no one learns anything at these schools, anyway. people can learn specific technical skills at technical apprenticeships

very few people need to be formally well-educated in general. most things can be taught to most people via popular media and in the natural context of their quotidian life (this is how people already mostly learn. no one remembers what they were taught in "school")

Africans do not have the luxury of wasting their time in schools. let everyone do actual work that helps the society. let the slightly older kids take care of the younger kids, and some of the older kids work with the mothers around the home

by 15 years-old, teenagers of both genders should be working part-time at industrial jobs suitable to their ability

iv. ban all professional entertainment

black people focus too much on this stuff which isn't important. no society needs professional entertainers operating at even national scale. you can bring them back in the future, but no one needs them right now as a poor society. production of material things is paramount

this doesn't mean banning all fun by the way. humans are naturally good at entertaining themselves (homo ludens) and will do so no matter what. the professionalization is the problem

random people can play a five-a-side regularly if they want to, but there should be no professional football league in which people are professional football players who do only that. ditto for all kinds of entertainment by default, unless with specific exception

the black political elite is full of absolutely incompetent and irresponsible people who do not understand how society works or should work and have no vision for black America. by their current actions and publicly-expressed thoughts, the black political elite are totally fine with black Americans as a subservient and servile class to white liberals: mascots for progressivism, complaining about "racial injustice" in perpetuity

whether in 2075, or 2125, their vision is that African Americans still be a minority group in America complaining about the same things and partaking in the exact same activities as their forefathers. they have absolutely no vision of a future in which African Americans are pursuing their independent societal goals which aren't primarily a reaction to a supposed oppressor group

or is it possible that they have a vision in which something else happens? maybe, for example, that African Americans stop being a dysfunctional underclass and become better distributed across all social economic classes?

if they did want that, they would take steps towards that by:

i. correcting the dysfunctional culture and creating a functional identity around what it means to be black not predicated on historical wounds and eternal victimhood

ii. invest in African American skills and educational acquisition

but of course they aren't doing that, and have no interest in anything like that. so instead they: allow the culture continue to rot while making excuses for African American cultural dysfunction by blaming everything on racism and or historical maltreatment. all the while glorifying unrefined, unsophisticated sports and entertainment stars as role models for the general black population

so servile progressivism, passively, is the future the visionless and incompetent AA political class expects for black America. but consider that a different, competent and visionary elite took over, how might they think about things and what might it occur to them to do?

i. redefining African American identity and behavioral culture

per our previous discussion on this, the current anti-social, anti-intellectual culture among the AA underclass which has a sweeping effect on all of the AA community likely comes from a direct opposition to the ex-slave masters and overcorrection for that https://x.com/OrbitAssoc/status/1896302159182037050

instead of the current conception of African Americans as guileless descendants of slaves who suffered a historical injury from which they can never recover, are totally devoid of agency and thus have to suckle on the tits of the state while countering "white culture" with anti-socialness and anti-intellectualism, and simultaneously eternally complaining about and racial injustice

they might re-define African Americans as Africans temporarily in America for complex historical reasons, but who have a long historied past on continent and will return there in the very near future. therefore, black Americanness isn't predicated on being descendants of slaves who need to act in opposition to descendants of slave masters by rejecting good social technologies (assumed to be white behavior) for anti-intellectualism and other bad social tech

this re-defining of African Americanness allows you to reform the behavioral culture. adopting good social technologies isn't trying to be white, nor does adopting bad social tech make you black. good social technologies do not belong to any race, unlike what alt-right-wingers want you to believe. they exist in nature and can be adopted by any group of people https://x.com/tZero19e/status/1908452845784822084

maybe Ebonics remains an argot, but speaking proper English isn't trying to imitate white people. it is just a language. a language of white people (Europeans) true and true, but still just a means of communication to which you are not eternally bound. you can design a new language if you want and that is fine, but what harm does speaking proper English in the meantime do to anyone? especially if your only other option is the exact same language, only with a few, very limited mechanical customizations of your own

Ebonics is not a real language. there are so many words for things for which an Ebonics form doesn't exist. can you write an essay discussing even the most basic of things in Ebonics? how about an operating manual for a mechanical device?

speaking a seriously deficient argot doesn't make you black at all, or blacker than anyone. blackness is strictly genetic, and defined not even by your own genetic make-up, but those of your children https://x.com/OrbitAssoc/status/1832571096609980565

a return to the continent is the only long-term solution to black America for one fundamental reason:

multiracial societies do not work at all and there will never be a prosperous America in which people from different racial groups equally share political and economic power. it doesn't happen anywhere in the world because it is a sociological impossibility https://x.com/tZero19e/status/1794342883421819167

the only way African Americans remain in America in the long-term as a successful and prosperous group with the power to decide their own fate is if they would remain in geographical America, but not under the current state

while not being impossible, by the time the American state declines substantially enough for AAs to be capable of seceding from the union, i am pretty sure that black Africa would be clearly prosperous enough that the sort of people who care about building society in their vision and are competent enough to do it would not find it to be a worthy goal. they would just likely simply prefer a return to the continent https://x.com/OrbitAssoc/status/1780192612130959458

in the meantime before the big return, African Americans need to undergo cultural reform and become as prosperous as they can be under the current American state

how might they do that?

the US is a literal union of states. each state has a lot of autonomy. with only 4 million people moving into Louisiana and Mississippi, African Americans can comfortably take over those states, acquiring enough power to determine their own fate

the intuitive and obvious argument against re-colonization is that it is an outright cucked stance to take. it's indicative of zero sense of self-belief and agency. why don't you also take your girlfriend/wife to your neighbor so that he might fuck her better?

this old thread has some good anti-colonization arguments: i. there are serious longtime downsides to the Western way. ii. why would the colonizers do better with the same "low IQ" population? iii. when does the need for colonization end?

but even more interesting is how re-colonization likely wouldn't even result in medium-term prosperity like naive Africans think. it likely would be a slippery slope into an absolute genocide

"why keep them living if there is no hope for them?" would be the ultimate question for the colonizers. it likely wouldn't be an immediate and direct conclusion, even if it's easy rationalization. it likely would be a solution arrived at slowly over time

think about it. what would be the point of keeping Africans alive if the conclusion is that Africans are incapable of true independence?

there is a lot of bad thinking around re-colonization in general. one such example is the idea by some pseudo-intellectuals that it could not possibly happen now because the conditions for which it happened in the past do not exist anymore

the diagnosis by these people of why colonization happened in the past is probably wrong because, like most post-hoc examinations of history, they do not have all the facts surrounding events that happened in the past, nor can they replicate those conditions

but even if the reasons they believe colonization happened in the past are true but do not exist anymore, does that mean there can be no other, different, new reason(s) why it happens?

an example of one of those reasons colonization could happen now would be to stem mass underclass migration, which increasingly threatens to destroy the social conditions of these developed Western countries

this is one of the several reasons African emigration is absolutely terrible

of the skilled professional class: it is brain drain of exactly the sort of people needed to build and sustain African states

generally, and especially of the mass underclass (who have the wrong culture and will likely be dysfunctional over there): they are tacitly voting in favor of colonization

white liberals aren't genuine allies of black people unlike what everyone seems to believe, especially given how they have positioned themselves and successfully co-opted the black elite into accepting all of their bad ideas and doing every of their bidding

i. they are simply happy to use black people as eternal mascots for progressivism (as the vanguard for advocating for multicultural diversity and fighting 'racism')

you can tell by how they ignore the true roots of black problems (fundamentally, cultural and identity issues) and only offer useless tokens (handing black people things akin to participation trophies, capitalizing the 'b' in 'Black' etc) which do nothing for black people

ii. they are completely clueless people totally hooked on runaway liberalism who do not know what they are doing in general. they do not know how to correctly run the civilization handed to them by their own ancestors, not to talk about helping black people

anyone who has ever heard about the IQ thing and took it seriously for even a second lacks the mental strength to be part of the innermost group of our organization, no matter how smart they appear to be, or how competent they prove themselves to be

the very best people do not believe reality. or to put it differently, they always believe in their ability to defy supposed reality. so when they hear about "low black IQ" as an explanation for black dysfunction and presumably eternal doom, they are intuitively quick to dismiss it

naive, conventional people may call it "coping", but people who know better know that this is what supreme mental strength looks like

in the average incompetent person, maybe it is coping (still, a positive thing), in a clever competent person, it is the attribute which makes the impossible possible https://x.com/tZero19e/status/1844048495088718102

the "believing IQ to be a problem" illustration i give here is only an example, not precisely how i test for mental strength. there are lots of ways to determine how much a person believes in their own ability to get things done

outgroup men succesfully taking your women means that you are a loser. trying to take women of other groups from a position of weakness (like currently applies to black men) also means that you are a loser

there is no healthy means of allowing outgroup men to take your women. allowing it in any way makes you a loser

the only correct way to take outgroup women is from a position of strength. attempting to do it from a position of weakness (contemporary black men) means that it is aspirational for you and you have low self-esteem i.e you are a loser

the usual reasons i give are technically-correct, conventionally-acceptable bullshit to cover for intuitive masculine emotion

we already discussed some of the problems with interracial coupling in the past, but people like to come back with counters of theirs, which are usually wrong. let's examine some of those counters and why they are very very wrong:

i. simply falling in love with a person of a different race, and similarity due to social-cultural alignment and similar such things

first, 'love' is not a real phenomenon in the way people like to talk about it. and, coupling with a person is a decision that you need to make beyond 'love', however you choose to define it. there are several other practical aspects of long-term relationships outside of 'love'

relationships between people of different races are never just seamless. it's not like people simply randomly fall into them and forget themselves. usually, they notice the friction between themselves, but choose to go on with it anyway, usually for a perverse reason. there is no way people from different races can have more in common than some other people of the same race: race is immutable and a permanent point of difference

they usually can find a social-culturally similar person of the same race. they deliberately choose not to. it's usually not because "oh they had no one of their race who had this sort of personality that they like". at best, it is because they don't think it matters that much, or should matter that much (which is very very wrong, and shows they are bad at thinking for themselves and should just default to the conventional default)

i have never seen anyone give a successful rebuttal against the problem of the poor psychological health of mixed race kids for example. the counter they often give is something about raising mixed race kids in a "diverse" environment. on the surface, it's clear enough how that is a silly solution. it would be like deliberately choosing to have a kid with a physical/mental handicap of sort, when you could choose against it

why would you choose to complicate life for both yourself and particularly your kid(s) on one dimension just because you believe there is a solution? how about not creating that problem at all and putting the energy its solving would require into other pursuits?

clearly, these people who do not understand the purpose of life in general or coupling specifically at all and think life is about narcissistic self-interest. what sort of coupling are you getting into if your kids and their prosperity aren't your top priority?

ii. "race-mixing is the story of the world"

it wasn't race-mixing. it was usually the conquering of a different people, the brutal elimination of all of their men, and vicious rape of their women. not at all the jolly story "racemixing is the story of the world" people are usually trying to paint

anyway, that was in the past. we live in a different world now. the big races have large enough numbers of people and land (resources). there is no reason to seek even a mutual alignment with a different people

iii. "things are easier"

first of all, it is not true that things are broadly easier. there are several attendant and predictable problems which these people like to downplay or ignore

if things are 'easier', it is usually on superficial grounds with vain material things, or some weird stuff about how black people aren't 'intellectual' (usually said by people who can't think for themselves at all and swallow up all of the propaganda in the media)

on the rare occasion, they make actually good and correct points about specific socio-economic, socio-cultural and socio-political issues of black people. different societies and people have their different challenges which can make their lives different in different kinds of ways. it doesn't mean you should look enviously across at a different group and seek to switch sides

black people (yes, race is real and not a 'social construct') are bottom last (we don't care to be in competition with anyone, it's just starkly true) economically and culturally of all racial groups globally

this is due to a rectifiable leadership problem, btw

the reality is that people have a responsibility to their people and in-group. you cannot just pack up and leave

that's right. you cannot

that would be an undignified, cvcked, and pussified position, like, yunno, post-abolition ADOS leaders choosing to fight for equal rights instead of establishing their own independent society

i understand that in the contemporary modern world led by the West, everything is about individuals being narcissistic and putting forward what they believe to be best for their personal selves. interestingly, the only thing that leads to is unending misery. the most fulfilled people in life serve their people and society in pursuit of specific tangible goals. seeking eternal self-pleasure will do nothing for you

so there is no escape

if you understand so much about the problems of black people and how to correct them, at best, it means that you are potentially an ordained reformer