Wall St. analyst: ‘Thank God white people populated America’

Marc Faber, known as “Dr. Doom” on CNBC and other financial media, where he too often is called upon to dispense his analysis, includes this line in his latest newsletter, Gloom, Doom, & Boom Report: “I am not a racist.”

That’s usually a precursor to racist comments and so it is in this case too, according to CNBC.

“And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority,” he wrote.

“If stating some historical facts makes me a racist, then I suppose that I am a racist. For years, Japanese were condemned because they denied the Nanking massacre,” he told CNBC in an email.

At last check, CNBC has not indicated it’ll stop giving him a platform.

In an email to Business Insider, Faber confirmed that the report was authentic.

“I am naturally standing by this comment since this is an undisputable fact.” Faber said.

Faber was a managing director at Drexel Burnham Lambert until 1990. He’s known for contrarian market views.

And now also for being a racist.

[Update 1:16 p.m.]

  • Al

    How do these dinosaurs still have jobs? Does anyone actually watch CNBC?

    • People who are heavily invested.

    • Jerry

      Somebody has to ensure the next recession happens.

      • Veronica

        Remember, the wealthy are also invested in a way that often makes them ginormous bucks when the markets tank– sucking away more money from the working middle class invested in 401ks.

      • theoacme

        Trump and Clinton, along with the entire Republican and Democratic political establishment, already have given me a depression so hopeless, not even my dying would get rid of it.

        • isolate

          Although it would probably be tempered somewhat.

  • Rob

    If there’s any justice, this fool will get the heave-ho from CNBC.

    • isolate

      What do you have against free speech, one of the Four Freedoms the nation was founded on? In this country it used to be possible for any idiot to rant in public and be safely ignored. Today any expression of opinion that runs contrary to mob groupthink is shouted down with threats of violence rather than calmly debated and refuted, if refutation is possible.

      It’s been interesting over my long lifespan watching America slide from the crown of creation to a wimpy, whimpering entity that needs safe zones, censorship and herd mentality to struggle through the day. Having an imitation leader that’s the laughingstock of the world is just the cherry on the top. Sic transit gloria mundi.

      • What you’ve just described isn’t a right to free speech, which involves the government making a law banning it. There’s never been any connection with the right to free speech and being criticized for that speech. Ever.

        So, no, there was never a point in this country where a person could print a newsletter, distribute it, and be free from criticism for it. Ever.

        • isolate

          If I understand your first sentence, you have it wrong way around. Free speech means exactly that. It operates beyond laws, which can only restrict it. And yes, free speech implies the right of criticism.

          What we’re seeing today is an odd group, neither Liberal nor Conservative, that wants to ban speech its members are uncomfortable with. I suspect it’s an artifact of the internet, which allows people with strange ideas to find each other and cluster together, then present themselves as a vocal special interest group. Things were simpler in the old days. 🙂

          • Jerry

            Nostalgia is a lie

          • Your memory is creating a false world of the past.I

            Ask the Lindberghs

          • isolate

            I would, except they’re dead.

      • Rob

        Faber is free to stand on any street corner and spout his hate and ignorance, or host a Haters R Us website. Legitimate news organizations are under no obligation – Constitutional or otherwise – to give him a platform for disseminating it.

      • Jay T. Berken

        “It’s been interesting over my long lifespan watching America slide from the crown of creation to a wimpy, whimpering entity that needs safe zones, censorship and herd mentality to struggle through the day.”

        In your whole discourse above you go into depth of how parts and Africa is sub-standard to western culture, education and technology. And now you poo-poo western culture is “Having an imitation leader that’s the laughingstock of the world”. So which is the higher culture of the two?

  • Jerry

    That is some rare ignorance of both African and American history.

    Ok, not rare. Really common, actually. Prevelant, and almost universal.

    • Jerry

      For an example, see the comment below by “isolate”

  • crystals

    White Supremacy in Action, brought to you by CNBC.

    • Jerry

      I’m going to assume he was wearing khakis and a white polo when he was writing this.

      • Veronica

        While sitting next to a lit tiki torch

  • Dan

    “At last check, CNBC has not indicated it’ll stop giving him a platform”

    They have since, unsurprisingly, indicated as much:

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewzeitlin/cnbc-will-no-longer-book-pundit-who-wrote-thank-god-white

  • chlost

    Wow. Just (sad voice) wow.

  • Mike Worcester

    //“If stating some historical facts makes me a racist, then I suppose that
    I am a racist. For years, Japanese were condemned because they denied
    the Nanking massacre,” he told CNBC in an email.

    I guess I’m puzzled by this statement. Is he saying that the Japanese are racist because they refused to acknowledge Nanking Massacre? The government of Japan was rightfully condemned for their unwillingness to acknowledge this nasty part of their involvement in WWII. What am I missing? (For those unaware of this incident, see Iras Chang’s fantastic work, “The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II”)

  • Barton

    According to his website, his newsletter subscribers are “usually institutional investors, corporations or high net worth individuals.”

    I really some how doubt that. And I’ll be that corporations won’t be subscribing much longer (or institutional investors for public money).

  • isolate

    Sort of a silly comment. During the European Age of Exploration that resulted in the discovery of North and South America among many other places, Africans were living in the Neolithic, with no more ability to cross the Atlantic than they could fly to the moon. Mr Faber has stated the obvious, exercised his right to free speech, and set off a teacup tempest of feigned indignation. He will be duly punished by indignant types and a media that is determined to overreact to any imagined slight regarding black people. What did he gain by it?

    • Jerry

      I can’t tell if you’re racist or ignorant. Probably both.

      • isolate

        Neither, but thank you for your uninformed opinion.

        • Brian

          You should look into the state of African civilization during the age of exporation. Then reconsider your answer.

        • Jerry

          If you’re completely unaware of the advanced kingdoms and economies in pre-colonial Africa and chose to generalize an entire continent as Neolithic tribesmen? That’s pretty ignorant and racist. African empires had large cities, universities, and vast trading networks.

          • isolate

            Not the African continent, but sub-Saharan Africa. Look up the definition of Neolithic and you’ll see pre-colonial, sub-Saharan Africa. Some sub-Saharan tribes had progressed to the Bronze Age, and one of them in what is now Tanzania produced small batches of high-carbon steel, but that was it. Yes, there were extensive trading networks, but trading networks are not high technology,

            What you describe as large cities would be called large villages in Europe at the time. There were Arab universities in North Africa, but nothing resembling them in sub-Saharan Africa, chiefly because of the absence of writing systems and a plethora of tribal languages that prevented the easy spread of information.

            When I lived there it was common for Africans to speak 3 languages: the local dialect, the regional language and a trade language like Hausa. The arrival of Europeans added another to the list.

            What Africa never developed, and still lacks, is manufacturing in any quantity in the post-handaxe era. Virtually all sub-Saharan states– barring South Africa– depend on resource exploitation, and that’s it. Nigeria should have an economy and a lifestyle equivalent to Germany, but all they have is oil, plus an unbelievable level of corruption that prevents large-scale development.

            Look at a map of sub-Saharan Africa and try to point out a successful state other than Botswana. The failure of post-colonial Africa to thrive has puzzled scholars for decades.

          • Jerry

            You’re ignoring th advanced ironworking of Benin, and the empire of Mali. Honestly, by your definition, Scotland was Paleolithic. You’re also making the error of defining civilization in only Eurocentric terms.

          • isolate

            I had indeed forgotten the “cult of Ogun” in the Nigerian/Benin states. Thanks for the reminder. Mali is considered a Sahelian state, not a sub-Saharan one.

            Once the ice sheets withdrew in the 11th millennium BCE, residents of what would become Scotland lived in the Paleolithic until around 12,000 years ago when new stone-working technologies were introduced from the outside. They continued in the Mesolithic (introduction of agriculture) and Neolithic until the arrival of the Romans in the 1st Century CE.

            Civilization in the West has predominated for so long that it’s a Westerner’s natural point of view. It’s only comparatively recently– say, in the past 300 years– that scholars have begun to understand pre-literate societies. Before that Westerners knew of the existence of other civilizations but took little interest in them. Nobody realized that China and India were the richest, most advanced civilizations until much later when the British began looting them.

          • Jerry

            I don’t know, a bunch of clans ruled by chiefs, living off livestock herding? Seems about as advanced in the late medieval era as Africa was. The Zulus, with an economy based on large livestock herds? Clearly Paleolithic, like Texas.

          • isolate

            Quite true. The Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic eras were present in different places at different times. There are tribes in New Guinea still flourishing in the Paleolithic. The four divisions are used as a sort of ruler to measure development according to Western standards.

            The presence of livestock-centric Zulu tribes in the Paleolithic is conjectural, as little is known about the people and the animals back then.

            Paleolithic Texas was much like the Paleolithic elsewhere, populated by tribes descended from those who crossed the Bering Land Bridge around 16,000 years ago. They would evolve into the Southwest Indian tribes.

          • theoacme

            Clearly Paleolithic, like Texas.

            Ted Cruz: “I resemble that remark!”

            Real Paleoliths: “He ain’t one of us!”

            Planarian worms: “Cruz, you ain’t one of us, either, we seek light, and you don’t!”

    • Rob

      What part of the fact that our economy owes its existence to, and was developed on the backs of slaves, are you unclear on? Oh, yeah – Africans did cross the Atlantic, in the bowels of ships such as the Amistad. Guess you forgot that too.

      • isolate

        The American economy was developed by brilliant, industrious people of many origins. At one point in our history and in one part of our country slavery was thought of as the normal way of obtaining and applying labor. It was perfectly legal and no one really thought anything about it. Slaves did not make major contributions to the burgeoning American economy any more than horses did, although both were essential means of getting things done.

        Black citizens in free states contributed their ideas and their talents to building America just as everyone else did, but their accomplishments are ignored because they weren’t slaves.

        What I find baffling about the modern era is the inability of young people to mentally put themselves in the slavery era and look at it from the viewpoint of the people who lived back then. I’ve never found anyone who can describe how slavery worked in those days: everyone believes slaves harvested cotton all year round under the whips of overseers, à la “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” which is about as far from the truth as you can get.

        As for the importation of slaves before 1807 when it was abolished in the US, put the blame on the African chiefs who sold their people by the boatload for the goodies American and British purchasers offered them. Had it not been for their collusion there never would have been so active a slave trade.

        • crystals

          Truly speechless.

          • Barton

            I don’t even know where to start correcting that ignorance and one sided view on the OPs part. An absolute ignorance of the Atlantic Slave trade from the early mid-1600s through to the issues with colonialism….

            As you say, speechless.

          • Jerry

            That’s what you get when you only view history through a white lens.

          • isolate

            Thank you. 🙂

          • crystals

            It isn’t a compliment. I hope at some point you can awaken from anti-blackness and the story you are telling yourself about slavery and the history of our country. I hope you don’t hurt too many innocent people before that day comes.

        • Jerry

          Of course they weren’t just picking cotton under the whips of overseers. They were also planting cotton under the whips of overseers, tending cotton under then whips of overseers, clearing fields under the whips of overseers, digging ditches under the whips of overseers, chopping wood under the whips of overseers, being separated from their families under the whips of overseers, being raped under the whips of overseers…

        • // It was perfectly legal and no one really thought anything about it.

          You’re describing history from a white perspective as definitive history.

          Slaves most certainly thought something about it

          • isolate

            Of course! But they were slaves and their opinions didn’t matter in that time and place, just as the opinions of women didn’t matter. However, Americans like Frederick Douglass, William Wells Brown, the Briton Ignatius Sancho and many others provided a black perspective on the plight of slaves and were instrumental in fueling Northern white outrage that resulted in the Civil War.

        • Jack Ungerleider

          I don’t know if its arrogance, ignorance or willful ignorance about the history of the United States, its founding and the first 70 or so years under the Constitution that leads to the comments you have made but in my opinion it must be one of those. To state “It was perfectly legal and no one really thought anything about it.” is illustrative of a lack of historic reference. You urge others to “mentally put themselves in the slavery era” but seem to make comments that indicate you haven’t done that yourself. The founding of this nation was overshadowed by the issue of slavery from the beginning. While there are compromises prior to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 they are less important than the ones that come after. The very structure of our government is compromise to the issue of slavery. The reason the Senate has equal representation by state is to provide “balance” between the north and south. What today is considered an abomination of a clause in the original Constitution, the one that counts slaves and takes 60% of that number as an addition to population for the determining of representation shows that the southern politicians did not, as you suggest, view the slave like a horse. The shapes of the states are effected by the issue of slavery. Ever wonder why Oklahoma has a “pan handle”? Its because Texas needed to be south of the line dictated in the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be a slave state. Part of that compromise was that Maine would be taken away from Massachusetts and made a free state to balance Missouri in the Senate. In fact the tradition in the early years of the nation to admit states in pairs (one north, one south) was to maintain balance in the Senate.

          To do as you say and put yourself in the mind of a late 18th or early 19th century American, particularly a politician, is to think constantly about slavery and its effects on the nation. There was nothing “business as usual” about it, except that it was the one issue that dominated what Congress did in regard to just about everything.

          I would also argue your last statement about African chiefs. I don’t know if they sold their own citizens into slavery, they often sold their vanquished rivals. I will agree that the slave trade was a complicated business. It also was a impacted by piracy on the Atlantic and in the Caribbean Sea. A slaver was a prize for pirates, not because of its cargo, but because they were the fastest ships on the water at the time. I would suggest you read the story of the Whydah, a slaver captured by Sam Bellamy one of the most feared pirates of his time. In fact the history of Atlantic piracy shows that they were often more “free” and “democratic” than the nations whose ships they terrorized.

          I have spent time “living” in the 18th and 19th century as I did research for several projects over the years. Its a period of time I find very interesting. It was an era of changing philosophies in many areas: education, government, science and religion to name a few. As many of the new ideas came up against the old practice of slavery they found problems with it. This led to the abolitionist movements in Great Britain and the United States. Eventually the compromises failed and the result in the U.S. was the Civil War. A war that many of the founders, even those that owned slaves, saw coming in the nation’s future and did everything they could to forestall it.