You’re probably right, but the pakis and camel jockeys of bum fuck islamawherever will certainly give them a run for the money. Also, Central American cartels...Brazil.... they’re just as violent as the Africans; they just have more intelligent leadership, so the violence is more focused.
I watched a fascinating documentary about a french anthropologist who lived with (and actually ended up marrying) the Yononomi tribe in the Amazon rainforest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami
Probably be difficult to find it on Google now, because of how they suppress information, but the gist of it was that these south American tribes only have oral history so he traveled the basin to figure it out. The history of the south American people is something like this (don't quote me as I'm going from imperfect memory).
There are 6 people's in South America who have existed in a constant state of war since creation (but probably about 80,000 years). They periodically raid each other to kill men and capture females for breeding. All the tribes live this way and have a religion to explain why, all tribes (although they never interact except to kill each other) share the same religion, origin story, whatever.
The anthropologist wanted to understand how the tribe were inter-related so he spent a lot of time recording who was related to who, who were the parents, uncles, children etc. Because they don't get married or record that information, and that is where the controversy surrounding him comes from.
He discovered that in their culture the reproductive success of the males is directly linked to how violent they are. When you raid another tribe, kill men and steal their females you get to breed with them, he found that the number of descendants of the Yanomomi men directly correlated to the number of people they had killed - f you didn't kill anyone you didn't have any children, if you had killed a lot of men you had many children. This led him to conclude that their culture (the culture of the entire Amazon basin) had evolved over millennia to select for pure violence.
Then the Spanish came. Unlike the Anglos they colonized into population centres and interbred with the natives giving us the modern multiracial south American (who often also have African genetic material). The appalling violence they display can't be explained just by taking cocaine (although that does make people violent) but most likely also by having that tribal killer DNA that originated in the heart of the jungle through thousands of years of constant tit-for-tat warfare. Combine that with African DNA lacking empathy and foresight, and with ruthless colonizer DNA and it's a potent mix.
Mexicans are more violent than sand niggers. The United States branch of propaganda just doesn’t report it. Mexico is one of the most dangerous places on earth right noe
- Brazilians - yeah.
- Africans - they are shipped around where they will be the most “useful.”
- Muzzies - they’re the worst and more widespread. It’s like the religion brings out the worst in whatever people it infects. Anything in the Arabian area for well known reasons, but go up to the stans and they’re just as bad. Indonesia - yup. Minnesota - same thing. Of course, the Minnesotans are also African, so it’s the worst of both worlds.....
At the end of the day, I’ll agree that Africans are the worst because it’s constant, unending chaos due to their stupidity. The biggest and the strongest will take over in a bloody, violent manner only to be later supplanted by a new biggest, strongest gorilla in a bloody, violent manner.
(post is archived)