Consume Product

I suspect that she has a degree in Black Studies. That's where Afropessimism comes from.

> Western philosophy built its idea of reason by defining who wasn't rational

The earliest philosophers on record, the pre-Socratics like Thales, had no interest in much beyond 'natural philosophy', whose subject matter is now within the domain of science.

Even if we fast forward in time to see if anyone is trying to define logic, reason, or rationality in a way that is somehow particular to Whites, we can't find any. Those she provides possibly as examples provide nothing, either. Descartes and Hume would not have dealt with nons. Of them, only Kant had some known 'racist' views.

I think she'd default to saying that it's just implicit because philosophers are overwhelmingly European, and, for whatever reason, the lack of nons philosophizing is enough for philosophy to be implicitly European. As though Europeans needed to hear the perspective of nons every step of the way before they could make any claim. 'Immanuel, we can't say anything about logic until Chief Ngubu has agreed that it accords with black reason. We need his approval every step of the way before you can publish your *Critique of Pure Reason*.' Nons weren't there when Whites came up with logical laws such as the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) and the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM). Ergo, White supremacy. Right?

Notice that she speaks of 'blackness' as though there simply exists a binary between White and black. But what of the 'Asian-ness' that her binary excludes? Unfortunately for her, I am well versed in Chinese philosophy. Versions of the LNC and LEM can be found in the *Mozi*, in which they were effectively debate rules which debaters were wrong to violate. Thus, the ancient Chinese arrived at the same conclusions independently of the Europeans.

The LNC had already appeared in Western philosophy by the time of the Socratics. Thus, they accuse the pre-Socratic Heraclitus of denying the LNC. (Denying the LNC is uncommon in Western philosophy, but a small number of Western philosophers, such as Julius Bahnsen, indeed rejected it.) Given that the Socratics and Mohists were contemporaneous - Socrates and Mozi may even have been born in the *exact* same year, 470 BCE - there is no way that one group got it from the other, such that the charge of White supremacy could be brought back in.

Niggers are mad that the Europeans and Asians found objective truths, most importantly, entirely without them. These logical laws are not falsehoods of Whiteness nor Asianness, since they were discovered independently of each other. Intelligent men of both races simply arrived at the same conclusions.

Finally, what little there is of philosophy by Africans arrived so late that it is heavily contaminated by Greco-Roman and Christian ideas, and its authorship has long been disputed as possibly fradulent works written by Europeans. I say 'philosophy by Africans' and not 'African philosophy' because it clearly reads as though the writers were well versed in the Bible and, to a lesser extent, Socratic philosophy.

> Linear progress

Her posited dichotomy between European linearity and non-European cyclicality is simply wrong: European thinkers like Polybius had many cylical views. Nor is it restricted to the ancients: it can be found in Pareto's circulation of elites. Non-European thinkers who likely had significant European ancestry, such as the Spanish-born protosociologist Ibn Khaldun, also had many cyclical views.

In most respects, Fontenelle, Kant, Hegel, Comte, Marx, and other Western thinkers who posited this in some regard or other (e.g. linear progress in knowledge, linear scientific progress, or even linear progress overall) are indeed obviously wrong, furthermore, their ideas have wrought incredible damage upon the world. It is simply a recent belief of the sort of Judaized, diseased European mind that generated ruinous liberals and/or Leftists like Locke and Mill, the latter, so foolish that he even drifted Leftward throughout the course of his wretched life.

Indeed, we are clearly at the end of a cycle today: overall human population will soon be declining, life expectancy is declining in the United States, IQ is declining in various countries such as the US and China. Progress is a dangerous idea that today actually and ironically hampers itself: if more people ceased to believe in it, we would stop telling ourselves that 'all will be right in the end' and actually aim to *undo* much progress, because it would become clearer that said progress is an objective regress. Undoing a few thousand years of cultural 'progress' would benefit Europe, in particular, greatly: our ancestors were almost immeasurably better off culturally, artistically, and intellectually. Name *one* famous Greek philosopher who did not die before the time of Jesus? You can't. For the Greeks reached their intellectual apex millennia ago, and are now intellectual primitives by comparison. How, then, can progress be linear?

> Mbembe

Given that Mbembe is chiefly influenced by Marxism and Foucauldianism, both very much Western, his thought isn't authentically black, either. Nor was the thought of Fanon and those other black Leftists.

Black Studies will tell you that it is black, but it is more Marxist and postmodern than anything else: clearly Western. Even the rejection of linear progress, though non-Marxist, is postmodernist and thus very Western, despite the idea of linear progress still very much surviving in the liberal Centre. Yet even there some of its most ardent one-time intellectual defenders, such as Fukuyama, seem to be losing or have already lost faith in it.

Being anti-White doesn't always necessitate being anti-Western. One can always want the White man's world without the White man in it. The thought of the most anti-White thinkers, paradoxically, rarely if ever draws anything from non-Western philosophies like Confucianism and Taoism, instead drawing heavily on bagellers like Ignatiev and Popper and on mentally Judaized goys who effectively only propagate bageller thought. Appiah, Kendi, and Mbembe are some of the most prominent black goys (technically, Appiah is homosexual and mulatto) among them. Black Studies should consider actually becoming African - an impossible ask, I know - rather than merely following bageller and baizuo thought. What is uniquely African about anything in this video?