MUST FOLLOW TEH KKKLAN RULEZ
Cap'n TrVth
FROUP AND ALL GOOMERS GOTS TO FOLLOW R RULEZ.
FRB#1 <klu...@terraworld.net> wrote in message news:<als3vtkbjc9kca4kr...@4ax.com>...
> This is not a test group, and vCards aren't welcome here, (tinh), either. Please
> do your testing in one of the many alt.test groups.
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:15:59 -0500, sah...@anti-spam.com wrote:
>
> >this is a test message
Tris
Cap'n TrVth <firemanf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d1566a5f.01111...@posting.google.com...
> YET ONE MO SHITSTAIN DAT DONT FOLLOW TEH KKKLAN RULEZ. WE RULEZ DIS
> FROUP AND ALL GOOMERS GOTS TO FOLLOW R RULEZ.
Oh, all hail -whatever...
Paul Cooper
"Tris" <nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:1005847422.3308.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Reminds me of the scene from Terry Pratchett's "Pyramids" where the priests
of Djelibabey are accusing each other of blasphemy!
Urthman
> FROUP AND ALL GOOMERS GOTS TO FOLLOW R RULEZ.
Like, we want to be ruled by THIS set of brain cells ... or even what's left
o' dems dings! -DOH- :o)
Hey George - where's Lenny?
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica after
the heading Ku Klux Klan:
"Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern whites
united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction measures of the
United States Congress"
"The various causes assigned for the origin and development of this
movement were: the absence of stable government in the South for several
years after the Civil War; the corrupt and tyrannical rule of the alien,
renegade and negro, and the belief that it was supported by the Federal
troops which controlled elections and legislative bodies; the
disfranchisement of whites; the spread of ideas of social and political
equality among the negroes; fear of negro insurrections; the arming of negro
militia and the disarming of whites; outrages upon white women by black men"
"The constitutions and rituals of these secret orders have
declarations of principles, of which the following are characteristic: to
protect and succour the weak and unfortunate, especially the widows and
orphans of Confederate soldiers; to protect members of the white race in
life, honour and property from the encroachments of the blacks"
"To control the negro the Klan played upon his superstitious fears by
having night patrols, parades and drills of silent horsemen covered with
white sheets, carrying skulls with coals of fire for eyes"
"the Ku Klux movement went on until it accomplished its object by giving
protection to the whites, reducing the blacks to order, replacing the whites
in control of society and state, expelling the worst of the carpet-baggers
and scalawags, and nullifying those laws of Congress which had resulted in
placing the Southern whites under the control of a party composed
principally of ex-slaves."
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Tris
Alex Vange <va...@i1.net> wrote in message
news:3bf525f6$1...@news.newsgroups.com...
Oh my, you're not arguing from authority again, are you Alex? Fortunately
we live in more enlightened times, and the 'negro' as you call him hopefully
does not now have to live in the fear that he might be set upon by ten or
more cowardly, backward, small-minded fucktards.
Mirza Borogovac
races in todays society result of biology or culture. Black people for
example on average have 10 points smaller IQ (or so I heard), but they
blacks excell better than whites in sports such as boxing or basketball.
I do not know if there was any scientific evidence eather way, but if
there was how would our society accept it?
mirza
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Tris" <nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:1005928404.5722.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
There is no Escape!
By David Duke
European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), National President
There is no escape from the terror of the future.
You can run away for a while.
But the terror will catch up to you.
It will destroy you and everything you love.
No, I am not talking about a new Hollywood horror movie. I am talking about
America. America is changing from the land of our forefathers to a place
where we are no longer at home in spirit, and where our families are no
longer safe in their own homes.
New Orleans has become increasingly like Haiti since the 1960's Civil Rights
movement integrated the schools. Since then, White civil rights have
steadily disappeared.
First the schools deteriorated into cesspools of violence, drugs, ignorance,
barbarity and venereal disease. Blacks always had access to public schools,
but now, almost all Whites were driven from them. They went from a majority,
to less than four percent today. Whites were driven from the buses and
streetcars. In the buses where Blacks once rode in the back, now Whites dare
not ride at all! To do so is just too dangerous. Friendly and tidy White
neighborhoods discovered the true joys of forced racial integration: junk
cars, prostitutes and drug dealers on the streets. The only Whites remaining
in many neighborhoods fearfully live now behind bars in homes that have
become reverse jails meant to keep the criminals out.
Black political power transformed New Orleans into a corrupt Black banana
republic. Taxes went up, services went down. The condition of the streets
wrecks the cars. Housing projects are so strewn with trash they look as
though they belong in a Third World Country. Rape, murder and robbery are
daily occurrences in the same city where I could once walk anywhere as a
child. Of course, traditional American values and culture are gone now also.
America founding fathers names such as George Washington's are removed from
schools by the Black school board because he is, "an immoral example for the
children." Kwanzaa, a Black pagan celebration, has replaced Christmas
celebrations in schools.
For the last forty years, Whites have steadily fled the city of New Orleans.
They left thousands of the beautiful and stately homes; many of the
beautiful, oak-lined boulevards; and the intangible history and charm of
what was once America's most romantic city. Now its old charm can only be
found in a few heavily policed areas that the tourists visit or where the
very richest live. Yet, frequently a tourist will veer from the protected
areas and find themselves robbed, raped, or murdered by denizens that would
be more at home in the most primitive tribes of Africa.
The White refugees first fled mostly to Jefferson Parish, a White redoubt
where they could regain the semblance of a normal life. But, then, Jefferson
began its demographic darkening, so the Whites again packed up their
belongings once more and moved even further away. Some ended up across Lake
Ponchartrain, willing to drive three hours a day to get to and from work,
all so their families would be safe.
Some even pretended that they came to North Shore for the trees. But they
certainly didn't move to the now Black areas in New Orleans where flourish
live oaks, some of the most magnificent and beautiful trees in the world.
Most of the new North Shore residents knew, at least somewhere deep inside,
why they fled and why they came to the area where I now live. I was candid
about my choice of Mandeville. I like the demographics. I like being among
my own kind, living in the kind of clean and beautiful environment our
people create. In the last election for U.S. Congress, I warned my neighbors
on the North Shore. I told them that conditions of New Orleans would
eventually come to them unless a great political change happened in America.
A week ago, a graphic example of what I had warned them about, occurred.
Just a mile from where I live and work, in a subdivision called Woodridge, a
beautiful 25-year-old mother of four, Samantha Jaume, was brutally murdered
in her home by a Black intruder who had followed her home from a shopping
center. He apparently wanted to steal her new vehicle. The quick thinking of
her seven-year-old son, Jason, almost saved his mother and probably
prevented the murder of his sisters and himself. He hid himself under a desk
and called the police.
Samantha lost all of her civil rights including her right to live. Her
husband's civil rights were also violated, and her four children suffered
loss of their Civil Rights more than any Black person in the 1960's who had
to use separate water fountains. This family lost wife and mother for the
rest of their lives. If you want to know the true cost of integration, it is
White lives. If Mandeville were truly the White area so many seek, Samantha
would still be alive. Do we dare to discuss the other hundreds of victims
who have suffered a similar fate over the years on the North Shore? Or the
millions of White victims of Black crime across America. And, it can only
get worse. When the North Shore population goes the way of New Orleans,
Jefferson, and of the new America of the 21st century, the loss of Samantha
will be replayed so many times that Whites will become refugees once more.
But, where will they go? Massive non-white immigration, differential
birthrates, and intermarriage will make our people a rapidly shrinking
minority. Our racial enemies will not stop their darkening of America until
there is no refuge for our people, only annihilation.
This is no movie. This is real life. There is no escape from the coming
terror. It is time we turn around and fight. We must wrest control of our
political system from those who would obliterate our people. It is too late
for Mrs. Samantha Jaume, but not too late for her children, and for our
children if we begin our road back today. My life is consecrated to that
task. How about yours?
We cannot continue our work without your support. Please make a donation to
our efforts today. http://www.whitecivilrights.com/donate.shtml
Important Online Links!
Visit our website at www.whitecivilrights.com
Learn more about EURO at: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/faq.shtml
How to join EURO online: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
How to download an application and mail it in:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ero.shtml
Where to find local EURO Chapters:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ero_contacts.shtml
Where to read our press releases: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/news/
Watch news clips and interviews: http://www.davidduke.com/video/index.html
Where to buy books, tapes or stickers: www.davidduke.net
Read sample chapters online from David Duke's book "My Awakening":
http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/toc.html
T. Max Devlin
>Sice we are on topic of race, let me ask a question. Are inequalities in
>races in todays society result of biology or culture.
The answer is both.
>Black people for
>example on average have 10 points smaller IQ (or so I heard), but they
>blacks excell better than whites in sports such as boxing or basketball.
Your linking these two unrelated facts together forms a metaphysical
teleology which you cannot support. There is no quantity of equality
which 'makes up for' strengths or weaknesses observed in a rhetorical
group.
>I do not know if there was any scientific evidence eather way, but if
>there was how would our society accept it?
Reasonably, as always. There can be no such evidence which is not
biased, so I would presume they'd declare it was biased. It is widely
recognized that people from a certain area of Kenya are exceptional
long-distance runners, due to the high altitude and some trick of
genetics. This isn't prejudiced. But then, it isn't linked with any
"but they..." which provides the same kind of purposefully insulting
'balance of metaphysical fitness' claim as your rhetoric did.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Tris
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
> >Sice we are on topic of race, let me ask a question. Are inequalities in
> >races in todays society result of biology or culture.
>
> The answer is both.
Well how do you know?
> Your linking these two unrelated facts together forms a metaphysical
> teleology which you cannot support. There is no quantity of equality
> which 'makes up for' strengths or weaknesses observed in a rhetorical
> group.
I am not claiming any such thing. I am merely stating that there is a
differences between races and I am giving some examples.
>
> >I do not know if there was any scientific evidence eather way, but if
> >there was how would our society accept it?
>
> Reasonably, as always. There can be no such evidence which is not
> biased, so I would presume they'd declare it was biased. It is widely
> recognized that people from a certain area of Kenya are exceptional
> long-distance runners, due to the high altitude and some trick of
> genetics. This isn't prejudiced. But then, it isn't linked with any
> "but they..." which provides the same kind of purposefully insulting
> 'balance of metaphysical fitness' claim as your rhetoric did.
>
>
Well it was not my intent to provide any balance at least not
consciously. I am just trying to see what people think on a subject
which is one of the last taboos in this country. I really don't want
anyone to be hung up on "But they..."
This is another thing that is worth noting. People are afraid to talk
about these things out of the fear that they will be proclaimed racist.
I really thing that such culture of fear will need to change.
T. Max Devlin
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
>> >Sice we are on topic of race, let me ask a question. Are inequalities in
>> >races in todays society result of biology or culture.
>>
>> The answer is both.
>
>Well how do you know?
By verifying my presumption against the real world, the only true way of
knowing. In this case, I know that it must be biology and culture,
simply because there is no absolute method of distinguishing the two
very inter-related things. The issue is whether you will apply one
label or the other for some convenient purpose; in the real world, the
difference between the two is not so precise as to make a difference.
>> Your linking these two unrelated facts together forms a metaphysical
>> teleology which you cannot support. There is no quantity of equality
>> which 'makes up for' strengths or weaknesses observed in a rhetorical
>> group.
>
>I am not claiming any such thing. I am merely stating that there is a
>differences between races and I am giving some examples.
Your grammatical mistake makes it impossible for me to know what you
were saying. I'm not trying to pick on you, but it makes a difference.
If there is "a difference between races", the claim is false. There is
no single property or attribute which distinguishes race. Race is a
family resemblance category, and so even if "there are differences",
they are not the same differences between each race, and so 'the
differences' are not a consistent or conclusive enough set of attributes
to be useful for careful analysis.
>> >I do not know if there was any scientific evidence eather way, but if
>> >there was how would our society accept it?
>>
>> Reasonably, as always. There can be no such evidence which is not
>> biased, so I would presume they'd declare it was biased. It is widely
>> recognized that people from a certain area of Kenya are exceptional
>> long-distance runners, due to the high altitude and some trick of
>> genetics. This isn't prejudiced. But then, it isn't linked with any
>> "but they..." which provides the same kind of purposefully insulting
>> 'balance of metaphysical fitness' claim as your rhetoric did.
>
>Well it was not my intent to provide any balance at least not
>consciously. I am just trying to see what people think on a subject
>which is one of the last taboos in this country. I really don't want
>anyone to be hung up on "But they..."
Then don't use it. It is a hidden teleology. There is no taboo that I
know of that you could be referring to, unless you think racism is a
'taboo' rather than simply a reprehensibly soft-headed position.
>This is another thing that is worth noting. People are afraid to talk
>about these things out of the fear that they will be proclaimed racist.
>I really thing that such culture of fear will need to change.
People should be afraid to talk about these things when they haven't any
idea what they are talking about. It is a culture of tolerance, and
need not change. We tolerate racists, but we don't pretend they aren't
racists. Free inquiry doesn't mean putting up with silly notions which
cannot be supported logically.
the Nay Sayer
> Sice we are on topic of race, let me ask a question. Are inequalities in
> races in todays society result of biology or culture.
Has nothing to do with genetics, everything to do with environment.
In fact, on the genetic level, there is no such thing as 'race'. It
in reality doesn't exist. Most human beings are more likely to be
genetically similar to someone outside of thier 'race' than someone
who's part of their 'race'.....
the Nay Sayer
Douglas E Gogerty
What is better a German Shepherd or a Border Collie?
Both of these dogs have adapted to a particular role. Is it their biology
that allowed them to adapt or is it the culture? Their culture is their
handlers that select and train them to meet established goals. It is their
biology that allowed them to flourish. This is what has been called
"unnatural" selection. An outside force prohibits an individual from
breeding or encourages breeding for a certain purpose.
Natural selection works in the same way. Some species will be more adapted
to an environment than another. What accounts for the environment?
Partially it is the culture. Thus, biology and culture and inseparable.
You cannot select one feature over another. Also, any test you do to
determine say IQ will have a cultural bias. Give a test to 100 Americans
and 100 French Canadians, and how can you compare them? If all the
questions are in French, the Canadians have a cultural advantage. So, it is
impossible to determine what is the factor.
I will say that because race is defined by a set of observable differences
rather than anything more concrete like genetics, that it is irrelevant.
There are no general differences among the races above these inconsequential
physical observances.
Alex Vange will shortly post his usual posts, but they are of no consequence
or validity...
--
Douglas E Gogerty No, I'm from Iowa...
DougG...@hotmail.com I just work in outer space.
http://DougGogerty.homestead.com -James T. Kirk
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
> >> >Sice we are on topic of race, let me ask a question. Are inequalities in
> >> >races in todays society result of biology or culture.
> >>
> >> The answer is both.
> >
> >Well how do you know?
>
> By verifying my presumption against the real world, the only true way of
> knowing. In this case, I know that it must be biology and culture,
> simply because there is no absolute method of distinguishing the two
> very inter-related things.
Simply because there is no way to distiguish between the two, it does
not mean it is both, but it probably is Both.
> The issue is whether you will apply one
> label or the other for some convenient purpose; in the real world, the
> difference between the two is not so precise as to make a difference.
Not true. There would be more of a stigma atached for a members of a
grop that is in some way dsadvantaged if their disadvantage is
geneticaly coded, rather than cultural, and therefore corectable.
>
> >> Your linking these two unrelated facts together forms a metaphysical
> >> teleology which you cannot support. There is no quantity of equality
> >> which 'makes up for' strengths or weaknesses observed in a rhetorical
> >> group.
> >
> >I am not claiming any such thing. I am merely stating that there is a
> >differences between races and I am giving some examples.
>
> Your grammatical mistake makes it impossible for me to know what you
> were saying. I'm not trying to pick on you, but it makes a difference.
> If there is "a difference between races", the claim is false. There is
> no single property or attribute which distinguishes race. Race is a
> family resemblance category, and so even if "there are differences",
> they are not the same differences between each race, and so 'the
> differences' are not a consistent or conclusive enough set of attributes
> to be useful for careful analysis.
I am sory if you did not understand me first time. Let me try to restate
my position. Are there atributes that we can assign to a race of people
that would distinguis them in some good or bad way from some other race.
Can we say "all members of race X are good at Y".
>
>
>
> Then don't use it. It is a hidden teleology. There is no taboo that I
> know of that you could be referring to, unless you think racism is a
> 'taboo' rather than simply a reprehensibly soft-headed position.
Well if scientist discovers and declares that all members of race X are
inferior than members of race Y in some characteristic Z, than I think
that scientist would certanly be proclaimed racist, even if he is not.
Wouldn't that create a taboo?
>
> People should be afraid to talk about these things when they haven't any
> idea what they are talking about.
Well if people can't talk about thinkgs that they are ignorant of, how
will they learn?
> It is a culture of tolerance, and
> need not change. We tolerate racists, but we don't pretend they aren't
> racists.
Do we tolerate racism, or merely allow it to exist. Don't we ostricize,
preasure, discurage and shun racism?
> Free inquiry doesn't mean putting up with silly notions which
> cannot be supported logically.
Did I do something like that?
Mirza Borogovac
the Nay Sayer wrote:
>
>
> Has nothing to do with genetics, everything to do with environment.
> In fact, on the genetic level, there is no such thing as 'race'. It
> in reality doesn't exist.
Obviously that is not true. White people, for example, are more
sensitive to sun which makes them higher risk group for skin cancer. I
don't see how that can possably be due to enviroment.
Mirza Borogovac
Douglas E Gogerty wrote:
>
> "Mirza Borogovac" <ha...@hdmagazine.com> wrote in message
> news:3BF64365...@hdmagazine.com...
> > Sice we are on topic of race, let me ask a question. Are inequalities in
> > races in todays society result of biology or culture. Black people for
> > example on average have 10 points smaller IQ (or so I heard), but they
> > blacks excell better than whites in sports such as boxing or basketball.
> > I do not know if there was any scientific evidence eather way, but if
> > there was how would our society accept it?
> >
> > mirza
>
> What is better a German Shepherd or a Border Collie?
>
> Both of these dogs have adapted to a particular role. Is it their biology
> that allowed them to adapt or is it the culture? Their culture is their
> handlers that select and train them to meet established goals. It is their
> biology that allowed them to flourish. This is what has been called
> "unnatural" selection. An outside force prohibits an individual from
> breeding or encourages breeding for a certain purpose.
But you have hit an interesting point. The point is that different races
of dogs are good for different tasks. You will not use poodle for
herding sheep for example. Now that is fine for dogs, but what about
humans. Is it possible, for example, that members of race X make good
businessman, and members of race Y make good janitors. How would society
react to such a discovery. What would that mean to people of those
respective races. Would you personally be able to deal with such a
thing. Maybe we would be better off not knowing.
>
> Natural selection works in the same way. Some species will be more adapted
> to an environment than another. What accounts for the environment?
> Partially it is the culture. Thus, biology and culture and inseparable.
> You cannot select one feature over another. Also, any test you do to
> determine say IQ will have a cultural bias. Give a test to 100 Americans
> and 100 French Canadians, and how can you compare them? If all the
> questions are in French, the Canadians have a cultural advantage. So, it is
> impossible to determine what is the factor.
Well you are talking about problems that arise when one tries to
implement such tests. But I don't believe that we can hide behind
implementation problems. It is possible to test genetic differences.
Take 1000 French-Canadian babies, and 1000 american babies, raise them
together with one language, and then test them, and you will get pretty
good picture of how genetics influences what-ever you are measuring.
This scenario would be hard to implement, but is possible to make tests
that would allow us to draw some limited conclusions about genetic and
intelligence for example.
>
> I will say that because race is defined by a set of observable differences
> rather than anything more concrete like genetics, that it is irrelevant.
> There are no general differences among the races above these inconsequential
> physical observances.
>
How do you know? In dogs, for example, some races are stronger, some are
smarter, some more aggressive, etc. Couldn't it be same for humans?
T. Max Devlin
>>
>> Has nothing to do with genetics, everything to do with environment.
>> In fact, on the genetic level, there is no such thing as 'race'. It
>> in reality doesn't exist.
>
>Obviously that is not true. White people, for example, are more
>sensitive to sun which makes them higher risk group for skin cancer. I
>don't see how that can possably be due to enviroment.
That is an issue of skin color, not race. Unless this is the only
defining attribute between ALL races, it is not a valid support for the
claim that it is race-based.
Race is a family resemblance, and nothing else. As such, it cannot be
reduced analytically to properly scientific terms, all of which must
have concrete and fixed referents definable in mathematical terms.
As for how low melanin levels can 'possibly be due to environment', the
answer is natural selection.
>> Most human beings are more likely to be
>> genetically similar to someone outside of thier 'race' than someone
>> who's part of their 'race'.....
--
T. Max Devlin
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
>> >> >Sice we are on topic of race, let me ask a question. Are inequalities in
>> >> >races in todays society result of biology or culture.
>> >>
>> >> The answer is both.
>> >
>> >Well how do you know?
>>
>> By verifying my presumption against the real world, the only true way of
>> knowing. In this case, I know that it must be biology and culture,
>> simply because there is no absolute method of distinguishing the two
>> very inter-related things.
>
>Simply because there is no way to distiguish between the two, it does
>not mean it is both, but it probably is Both.
We are talking about what is or is not, and bothering with what
'probably is' is a waste of time. If you cannot distinguish between the
two, it means you cannot use the two rigorously enough to support any
valid conclusions. Therefore, anything you are describing with one
might well be the other. In truth, 'culture' is merely a special case
of 'biology', and what constitutes 'biology' is a {scientific} matter of
culture.
>> The issue is whether you will apply one
>> label or the other for some convenient purpose; in the real world, the
>> difference between the two is not so precise as to make a difference.
>
>Not true. There would be more of a stigma atached for a members of a
>grop that is in some way dsadvantaged if their disadvantage is
>geneticaly coded, rather than cultural, and therefore corectable.
Ah, the dreaded dangling teleology. And therefore?
What does 'correct' mean? Are you going to be assuming the role of God,
judging the correctness of someone else's actions? If so, it doesn't
matter whether you call it genetics or culture; you might as well call
it Evil, a more natural choice of word.
The fact is, a stigma is attached to anyone we wish to stigmatize, and
trying to insist that there is some relationship between the excuse used
and the "disadvantage" (read: difference) is silly, since neither has
any validity to begin with. Biology and culture may be two distinct
justifications for bigotry, but neither is a reason for bigotry.
[...]
>I am sory if you did not understand me first time. Let me try to restate
>my position. Are there atributes that we can assign to a race of people
>that would distinguis them in some good or bad way from some other race.
>Can we say "all members of race X are good at Y".
You'll have to define "good" and "bad" more clearly before your first
question can be answered. Your second question has a definite answer,
however, and it is "no". You cannot ever say that without it being
simple bigotry. You may as well say "all people who are good at Y are
members of race X".
>> Then don't use it. It is a hidden teleology. There is no taboo that I
>> know of that you could be referring to, unless you think racism is a
>> 'taboo' rather than simply a reprehensibly soft-headed position.
>
>Well if scientist discovers and declares that all members of race X are
>inferior than members of race Y in some characteristic Z, than I think
>that scientist would certanly be proclaimed racist, even if he is not.
>Wouldn't that create a taboo?
No. That would be an error, not a taboo. Now you've switched from
'bad' to 'inferior'. Any scientist using that term in the blank
tautology you've provided *is* racist. There is no 'even if he is not'.
You have to be very careful about extracting terms from a scientific
context. Scientists do not define things, they only use labels (as
empty symbols lacking definition) to refer to things they measure.
Every scientist who uses the term 'race' (if there are any left) uses it
for a very particular referent, and anything the 'prove' about race with
math only applies to their referent in their context, and cannot be
generalizable without much more evidence. As for the fact that
scientists don't use the word 'race', it is not because of any 'taboo'
or political correctness. It is simply because the word is useless in a
scientific context.
>> People should be afraid to talk about these things when they haven't any
>> idea what they are talking about.
>
>Well if people can't talk about thinkgs that they are ignorant of, how
>will they learn?
I didn't say they can't, I said they should be afraid to. And so the
answer to your question is "by overcoming their fear".
>> It is a culture of tolerance, and
>> need not change. We tolerate racists, but we don't pretend they aren't
>> racists.
>
>Do we tolerate racism, or merely allow it to exist.
Explain the difference.
>Don't we ostricize,
>preasure, discurage and shun racism?
Of course we do. Why wouldn't we? We tolerate racists (meaning being
racist is all by itself not a punishable offense or mental disorder) but
we don't pretend they aren't racists.
>> Free inquiry doesn't mean putting up with silly notions which
>> cannot be supported logically.
>
>Did I do something like that?
No, I don't think you did. My apologies for the confusion. I was
extending your issue of 'taboo' to generalize it and deal with a larger
question. Which is how to tell when science is excluding alternative
views, and when it is dismissing false views. Quasi-scientific idealism
and pseudo-science are sometimes very difficult to distinguish from free
inquiry.
T. Max Devlin
We already do know. All you need to do is look at history to see how
society reacts to such a discovery. As well as how valid such
'discoveries' actually are. It is not possible, you see, that members
of race X "make good" anything with sufficient mathematical validity to
be called a scientific theory. Your point about dog breeds ignores the
fact that wolves were purposefully bred by conscious effort.
Your argument reduces to an argument from ignorance. Consider the idea
that if eugenics were purposefully implemented, you would be creating,
not discovering, the principle you are referring to, that some genetic
families are better at certain tasks. I'm trying not to read too much
into the fact that you chose 'businessman' and 'janitor' as your example
skills. But your last claim sounds suspiciously like you are trying to
claim that the reason we don't discover that "some races are inferior"
is because we don't want to know.
The whole discussion might make more sense if it weren't so obvious that
you're trying to justify your own bigotry.
[...]
>Well you are talking about problems that arise when one tries to
>implement such tests. But I don't believe that we can hide behind
>implementation problems. It is possible to test genetic differences.
[...]
But it is impossible to make valid determinations of whether the
differences are 'good' or 'bad' in general.
the Nay Sayer
> the Nay Sayer wrote:
> >
> >
> > Has nothing to do with genetics, everything to do with environment.
> > In fact, on the genetic level, there is no such thing as 'race'. It
> > in reality doesn't exist.
>
> Obviously that is not true. White people, for example, are more
> sensitive to sun which makes them higher risk group for skin cancer. I
> don't see how that can possably be due to enviroment.
>
When human beings migrated to Europe they lost their ability to make
melanin. The reason why they lost this ability is because they
didn't need to make melanin because of the lack of intense sunlight in
Europe....
the Nay Sayer
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"the Nay Sayer" <Nay_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0fce696.0111...@posting.google.com...
No, it is about genetics.
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second world
are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict. It is
because the White race is on average much more intelligent than the Black
race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the people in
India.
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on the
tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses are
demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:
"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment was
conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I. D. Waldman.
All three were quite well-known for their environmental opinions. The study
analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted children in more than 100
White families in Minnesota. The study was an egalitarian's dream, because
the children's adoptive parents had prestigious levels of income and
education and were anti-racist enough to adopt a Black child into their own
family. Scarr is a strong defender of racial equality and maintained that
environment played an almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the
races. Scarr supports the importance of heredity in causing individual
differences within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences
are mostly environmental.
The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as well
as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the age of 7,
the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups including the Blacks
and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr and Weinberg published a
paper claiming to have proven the almost exclusive power of environment over
race in IQ, even though they had to admit that the White children, whether
adopted or not, scored well above the Black and Mulatto children and that
the Mulatto children scored above the Blacks. (88)
A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a follow-up
study was conducted that that again included IQ measurements. As they
matured, Black children had dropped back to an average of 89 in IQ, which is
the average IQ for Blacks in the region of the United States where the study
was done. The White adopted children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17
points higher than the Black children, which is consistant with traditional
studies of Black and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the
half-White, half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly
between the adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)
RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY
IQ
Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4
Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the follow up
survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost as if they were
embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured reasoning process,
they still argued that environment played a dominant role in IQ. But in
their follow-up survey, unlike their first paper, they also admitted that
genes had an important impact as well. Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin
effectively showed in their re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes
clearly comprise the dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted
children. (90) (91)"
(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739
(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The Minnesota
Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test Performance at
Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135
(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27
(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.
Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20
T. Max Devlin
[...]
> No, it is about genetics.
>
> The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
>nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second world
>are the Arabs and China.
That's not genetics; that's coincidence. Contingency, if you must.
Random and meaningless, if you are smart.
>It is just as racialists would predict.
Or rather as they would assume, and thus conclude. So I take it you are
a racist?
[...]
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
> >> >> >Sice we are on topic of race, let me ask a question. Are inequalities in
> >> >> >races in todays society result of biology or culture.
> >> >>
> >> >> The answer is both.
> >> >
> >> >Well how do you know?
> >>
> >> By verifying my presumption against the real world, the only true way of
> >> knowing. In this case, I know that it must be biology and culture,
> >> simply because there is no absolute method of distinguishing the two
> >> very inter-related things.
> >
> >Simply because there is no way to distiguish between the two, it does
> >not mean it is both, but it probably is Both.
>
> We are talking about what is or is not, and bothering with what
> 'probably is' is a waste of time. If you cannot distinguish between the
> two, it means you cannot use the two rigorously enough to support any
> valid conclusions. Therefore, anything you are describing with one
> might well be the other. In truth, 'culture' is merely a special case
> of 'biology', and what constitutes 'biology' is a {scientific} matter of
> culture.
Well I don't think it's correct to start from presumption that
Biological influence versus cultural influence is indistinguishable. I
think that is a conclusion that should come from discussion..
>
> >> The issue is whether you will apply one
> >> label or the other for some convenient purpose; in the real world, the
> >> difference between the two is not so precise as to make a difference.
> >
> >Not true. There would be more of a stigma atached for a members of a
> >grop that is in some way dsadvantaged if their disadvantage is
> >geneticaly coded, rather than cultural, and therefore corectable.
>
> Ah, the dreaded dangling teleology. And therefore?
>
> What does 'correct' mean? Are you going to be assuming the role of God,
> judging the correctness of someone else's actions? If so, it doesn't
> matter whether you call it genetics or culture; you might as well call
> it Evil, a more natural choice of word.
You are overanalysing the issue. There is a general basic agreement on
good and bad that is used every day. Health, for example, is good, and
sickness is bad. Prettyis good, and ugly is bad, etc.
>
> The fact is, a stigma is attached to anyone we wish to stigmatize, and
> trying to insist that there is some relationship between the excuse used
> and the "disadvantage" (read: difference) is silly, since neither has
> any validity to begin with. Biology and culture may be two distinct
> justifications for bigotry, but neither is a reason for bigotry.
Nooooo. When stigma is atached to some it is not a random ocurence. And
if there was a proven diffrence between races (or even perceved one),
people of one race would be stigmatized. That is just a reality of the
situation and it has nothing to do with bigotry. Even if everyone on the
planet was the nicest and politest person, there would still be stigma
attached in those situations.
>
> [...]
> >I am sory if you did not understand me first time. Let me try to restate
> >my position. Are there atributes that we can assign to a race of people
> >that would distinguis them in some good or bad way from some other race.
> >Can we say "all members of race X are good at Y".
>
> You'll have to define "good" and "bad" more clearly before your first
> question can be answered.
Well Good at something, or bad at something.
> Your second question has a definite answer,
> however, and it is "no". You cannot ever say that without it being
> simple bigotry. You may as well say "all people who are good at Y are
> members of race X".
No. If a statement that "all members of race X are good at Y", or even
"all members of race X aregeneticaly predisposed to be good at Y" was a
scientific fact. i don't see how that would qualify as bigotry.
>
> >> Then don't use it. It is a hidden teleology. There is no taboo that I
> >> know of that you could be referring to, unless you think racism is a
> >> 'taboo' rather than simply a reprehensibly soft-headed position.
> >
> >Well if scientist discovers and declares that all members of race X are
> >inferior than members of race Y in some characteristic Z, than I think
> >that scientist would certanly be proclaimed racist, even if he is not.
> >Wouldn't that create a taboo?
>
> No. That would be an error, not a taboo.
But that scientist would be reluctant to publish his finding out of fear
of being mislabeled as a racist.
> Now you've switched from
> 'bad' to 'inferior'. Any scientist using that term in the blank
> tautology you've provided *is* racist. There is no 'even if he is not'.
Even if he is saying a scientific truth?
>
> You have to be very careful about extracting terms from a scientific
> context. Scientists do not define things, they only use labels (as
> empty symbols lacking definition) to refer to things they measure.
> Every scientist who uses the term 'race' (if there are any left) uses it
> for a very particular referent, and anything the 'prove' about race with
> math only applies to their referent in their context, and cannot be
> generalizable without much more evidence. As for the fact that
> scientists don't use the word 'race', it is not because of any 'taboo'
> or political correctness. It is simply because the word is useless in a
> scientific context.
Dude, this is ridiculous. You are hiding behind ambiguity. If I was to
say "what a nice day", everybody would know what I mean, but you would
ask me to define "day" and "nice". Everybody knows what a "race" is and
what are races. Everybody knows what "good" and "bad" at something
means.
And when someone presents a hypothetical scientific study there is no
point in discussing why such scenario is possible or impossible.
>
> >Do we tolerate racism, or merely allow it to exist.
>
> Explain the difference.
When you tolerate something you don't act against it.
>
> >Don't we ostricize,
> >preasure, discurage and shun racism?
>
> Of course we do. Why wouldn't we? We tolerate racists (meaning being
> racist is all by itself not a punishable offense or mental disorder) but
> we don't pretend they aren't racists.
That is like wounding but not killing, and calling that tolerance.
>
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
> >the Nay Sayer wrote:
> >>
> >> Has nothing to do with genetics, everything to do with environment.
> >> In fact, on the genetic level, there is no such thing as 'race'. It
> >> in reality doesn't exist.
> >
> >Obviously that is not true. White people, for example, are more
> >sensitive to sun which makes them higher risk group for skin cancer. I
> >don't see how that can possably be due to enviroment.
>
> That is an issue of skin color, not race. Unless this is the only
> defining attribute between ALL races, it is not a valid support for the
> claim that it is race-based.
>
> Race is a family resemblance, and nothing else. As such, it cannot be
> reduced analytically to properly scientific terms, all of which must
> have concrete and fixed referents definable in mathematical terms.
It is more than just family resemblance. There are also many
socio-economic diffrences. The issue is are those diffrences caused by
genetic disposition or our curent enviroment. Older black people, for
example, are high risk group for heard desease. This could be because of
genetic disposition, or it could be cultural: perhaps blacks have more
stress in their life, or eat more greasy food.
>
> As for how low melanin levels can 'possibly be due to environment', the
> answer is natural selection.
Well natural selection really does not count as a factor in recent
humant human history.
Mirza Borogovac
that being the case, are there other diffrences between races which
would have a profound socio-economic inpact on our society.
Mirza Borogovac
Alex Vange wrote:
>
>
> The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
> nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second world
> are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict. It is
> because the White race is on average much more intelligent than the Black
> race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the people in
> India.
>
India is a nucler power and a software powerhouse. Arabs, china and
india had civilization much sooner than white europeans did, And those
europeans that had civilization were in the south of europe where people
are darker-skinned.
What about other diffrences in races. Other types of inteligence, such
as social intelingence, emotional inteligence, etc. What about physical
diffrences, why are there so many good african american athleets.
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> > The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
> >nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second world
> >are the Arabs and China.
>
> That's not genetics; that's coincidence. Contingency, if you must.
> Random and meaningless, if you are smart.
Well you both need to argue your case.
>
> >It is just as racialists would predict.
>
> Or rather as they would assume, and thus conclude. So I take it you are
> a racist?
>
Let us not throw acusations and deal only with arguments. Atack his
arguments, not him personaly.
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> >But you have hit an interesting point. The point is that different races
> >of dogs are good for different tasks. You will not use poodle for
> >herding sheep for example. Now that is fine for dogs, but what about
> >humans. Is it possible, for example, that members of race X make good
> >businessman, and members of race Y make good janitors. How would society
> >react to such a discovery. What would that mean to people of those
> >respective races. Would you personally be able to deal with such a
> >thing. Maybe we would be better off not knowing.
>
> We already do know. All you need to do is look at history to see how
> society reacts to such a discovery. As well as how valid such
> 'discoveries' actually are.
We are at the point in history that is unique in many respects than any
other, so looking back to less developed and enlightned times is futile.
> It is not possible, you see, that members
> of race X "make good" anything with sufficient mathematical validity to
> be called a scientific theory.
Reading news papers, I have read reports saying that Males are better in
math, and females are better in language skills, so obviousle we can do
such things. There is a nice branch of mathematics called statistics,
that allows us to make acurate predictions about a group of people from
a sufficiently sized sample with calculated degree of acuracy.
> Your point about dog breeds ignores the
> fact that wolves were purposefully bred by conscious effort.
But it demonstrates the fact that diffrent races might be sutable for
diffrent tasks.
>
> Your argument reduces to an argument from ignorance. Consider the idea
> that if eugenics were purposefully implemented, you would be creating,
> not discovering, the principle you are referring to, that some genetic
> families are better at certain tasks.
So maybe as a society, we are better of staying ignorant, even though
problems from such ignorance will always be there, it might be better
than knowing the truth.
> I'm trying not to read too much
> into the fact that you chose 'businessman' and 'janitor' as your example
> skills. But your last claim sounds suspiciously like you are trying to
> claim that the reason we don't discover that "some races are inferior"
> is because we don't want to know.
Well "businessman and janitor" does ilustrate my point of how
contraversial this stuff is.
And maybe we don't discover those things because we don't want to know.
>
> The whole discussion might make more sense if it weren't so obvious that
> you're trying to justify your own bigotry.
This is another point that needs to be adresed in race relations. A
person cannot say anything contravertial without being acused of racism.
That is why racism exists and tha is why so called "dialog on race" does
not adress important issues.
>
> [...]
> >Well you are talking about problems that arise when one tries to
> >implement such tests. But I don't believe that we can hide behind
> >implementation problems. It is possible to test genetic differences.
> [...]
>
> But it is impossible to make valid determinations of whether the
> differences are 'good' or 'bad' in general.
How is that? If research states that race X has on average a bigger
penis than race y, I think that most people would agree that members of
race X would be rather pleased with themselves, and members of race y
would be stigmatized.
>
a_blue_dream
there is scientific evidence and the evidence is people throughout the
world have the same kinds of brains with the same kinds of capacities.
not only are any such results (such as the iq scores) completely
social and cultural, but the latest out of the scientific community is
that even race itself is actually nothing more than a social
construct.
T. Max Devlin
I think you are mistaken about what is correct.
>I
>think that is a conclusion that should come from discussion..
Honestly, Mirza, have you ever had a conclusion come from discussion?
Feel free to refute the point. It is a proper and correct presumption,
indeed the only proper and correct presumption, to recognize that until
you can distinguish one thing from another, both are indistinguishable.
>> >> The issue is whether you will apply one
>> >> label or the other for some convenient purpose; in the real world, the
>> >> difference between the two is not so precise as to make a difference.
>> >
>> >Not true. There would be more of a stigma atached for a members of a
>> >grop that is in some way dsadvantaged if their disadvantage is
>> >geneticaly coded, rather than cultural, and therefore corectable.
>>
>> Ah, the dreaded dangling teleology. And therefore?
>>
>> What does 'correct' mean? Are you going to be assuming the role of God,
>> judging the correctness of someone else's actions? If so, it doesn't
>> matter whether you call it genetics or culture; you might as well call
>> it Evil, a more natural choice of word.
>
>You are overanalysing the issue.
How am I to tell the difference between analyzing and over-analyzing?
Whether you agree, perhaps?
>There is a general basic agreement on
>good and bad that is used every day.
Indeed. Unfortunately, there is no accurate, consistent, and practical
definition other than 'basic agreement', and your 'basic agreement' only
extends to your personal culture. Harkening back, no surprisingly, to
the original argument.
>Health, for example, is good, and
>sickness is bad. Prettyis good, and ugly is bad, etc.
Yes, but now you have to somehow define 'health' which in no way
whatsoever relies on the term 'good', and sickness which in no way
relies on 'bad'. You see the problem?
>> The fact is, a stigma is attached to anyone we wish to stigmatize, and
>> trying to insist that there is some relationship between the excuse used
>> and the "disadvantage" (read: difference) is silly, since neither has
>> any validity to begin with. Biology and culture may be two distinct
>> justifications for bigotry, but neither is a reason for bigotry.
>
>Nooooo. When stigma is atached to some it is not a random ocurence.
No, no, of course not. Nothing is ever a random occurrence, right? It
is a matter of opinion.
>And
>if there was a proven diffrence between races (or even perceved one),
>people of one race would be stigmatized.
Ah, but there is a proven difference between races. It just isn't the
same difference between all races.
>hat is just a reality of the
>situation and it has nothing to do with bigotry. Even if everyone on the
>planet was the nicest and politest person, there would still be stigma
>attached in those situations.
I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. You apparently find it
incomprehensible that anyone can think reasonably, but I can assure you
that is not the case. It has nothing to do with being nice or polite,
just knowledgable and honest.
>> [...]
>> >I am sory if you did not understand me first time. Let me try to restate
>> >my position. Are there atributes that we can assign to a race of people
>> >that would distinguis them in some good or bad way from some other race.
>> >Can we say "all members of race X are good at Y".
>>
>> You'll have to define "good" and "bad" more clearly before your first
>> question can be answered.
>
>Well Good at something, or bad at something.
'Nuf said.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
[...]
Love
- Max
T. Max Devlin
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
>> >the Nay Sayer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Has nothing to do with genetics, everything to do with environment.
>> >> In fact, on the genetic level, there is no such thing as 'race'. It
>> >> in reality doesn't exist.
>> >
>> >Obviously that is not true. White people, for example, are more
>> >sensitive to sun which makes them higher risk group for skin cancer. I
>> >don't see how that can possably be due to enviroment.
>>
>> That is an issue of skin color, not race. Unless this is the only
>> defining attribute between ALL races, it is not a valid support for the
>> claim that it is race-based.
>>
>> Race is a family resemblance, and nothing else. As such, it cannot be
>> reduced analytically to properly scientific terms, all of which must
>> have concrete and fixed referents definable in mathematical terms.
>
>It is more than just family resemblance. There are also many
>socio-economic diffrences.
I'm thinking you misunderstand the term 'family resemblance'. It means
that no singular distinction defines the category, that a variety of
characteristics, no one of which is universal in the family, are used to
define a category. A rhetorical group, not a mathematical definition.
>The issue is are those diffrences caused by
>genetic disposition or our curent enviroment.
And the fact that you insist the two are somehow magically distinct.
>Older black people, for
>example, are high risk group for heard desease. This could be because of
>genetic disposition, or it could be cultural: perhaps blacks have more
>stress in their life, or eat more greasy food.
I think you want to mean 'higher risk', rather than 'high risk'. The
fact is that all older people are high risk for heart disease. You
confuse statistical relevance for reality. A common occurrence in the
modern world, nothing to be ashamed of. Still, it is a mistaken
perspective.
>> As for how low melanin levels can 'possibly be due to environment', the
>> answer is natural selection.
>
>Well natural selection really does not count as a factor in recent
>humant human history.
Depends on what you mean by 'recent'. How 'recent' did whites diverge
from blacks. Do you know? Can you tell?
Any contemplation of reality which distinguishes between one 'race' and
another is simply delusional. That's all there is to it; it is a
scientific fact. Not a "I refuse to consider it false" fact; that's not
science. A "Sure, it is possible, but not a single fact you've provided
even suggests, let alone proves, that it is true" fact.
T. Max Devlin
There are an *infinite number* of differences, Mirza. You simply are
not comprehending the truth of the matter. *Races don't exist*.
Really! Outside of simple bigotry, you can't tell jack-shit about a
person from their genetic background.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"T. Max Devlin" <tm...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:unamvtoc2ceh6u7ub...@4ax.com...
> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Alex Vange say:
> [...]
> > No, it is about genetics.
> >
> > The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
> >nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second world
> >are the Arabs and China.
>
> That's not genetics; that's coincidence. Contingency, if you must.
> Random and meaningless, if you are smart.
I live in a White neighborhood that is therefore nice, clean, and safe.
If I drive to where a lot of Black people are I see run down buildings and
buildings with metal bars over the windows. Liberals wish these things were
all a coincidence. The facts are otherwise.
IQ
>
> Or rather as they would assume, and thus conclude. So I take it you are
> a racist?
>
I suppose so. Actually I think the word is meaningless drivel.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Mirza Borogovac" <ha...@hdmagazine.com> wrote in message
news:3BFB7577...@hdmagazine.com...
>
> India is a nucler power and a software powerhouse. Arabs, china and
> india had civilization much sooner than white europeans did,
Whites went to India a long time ago and started a civilzation. That is
how the caste system got started. Whites also went to China:
Indo-European: The Mummies of Xinjiang
The Mummies of Xinjiang
In the dry hills of this central Asian province, archeologist have
unearthed more than 100 corpses hat are as much s 4,000 years old.
Astonishingly well preserved - and Caucasian.
One glimpse of the corpses was enough to shock Victor Mair profoundly.
In 1987, Mair, a professor of Chinese at the University of Pennsylvania,
was leading a tour group through a museum in the Chinese city of Urumqi, in
the central Asian province of Xinjiang, when he accidentally strayed into
gloomy, newly opened room. There, under glass, lay the recently
discovered corpses of a family - a man, a woman, and a child of two or
three - each clad in long, dark purple woolen garments and felt boots. Even
today I get chills thinking about that first encounter," says Mair. "The
Chinese said they were 3,000 years old, yet the bodies looked as if they
were buried yesterday."
But the real shock came when Mair looked closely at their faces. In
contrast to most central Asian peoples,these corpses had obvious Caucasian,
or European, features - blond hair, long noses, deep-set eyes, and long
skulls."I was thunderstruck," Mair recalls. "Even though I was supposed
to be leading a tour group, I just couldn't leave that room. The questions
kept nagging at me: Who were these people? How did they get out here at
such an early date?"
The corpses Mair saw that day were just a few of more than 100 dug up by
Chinese archeologists over the past 16 years. All of them are astonishingly
well preserved.They come from four major burial sites scattered between
the arid foothills of the Tian Shan ("Celestial Mountains") in northwest
China and the fringes of the The Taklimakan Desert, some 150 miles due
south. All together, these bodies,dating from about 2000 B.C. to 300 B.C.,
constitute significant addition to the world's catalog of prehistoric
mummies. Unlike the roughly contemporaneous mummies of ancient Egypt, the
Xinjiang mummies were not ruler or nobles; they were not interred in
pyramids or other such monuments,nor were they subjected to deliberate
mummification procedures.
They were preserved merely by being buried in the parched, stony desert,
where daytime temperatures often soar over 100 degrees. In the heat the
bodies were quickly dried, with facial hair, skin, and other tissues
remaining largely intact.
Where exactly did these apparent Caucasians come from? And what were
they doing at remote desert oases in central Asia?
Any answers to these questions will most likely fuel a wide-ranging
debate about the role outsiders played in the rise of Chinese civilization.
As far back as the second century B.C., Chinese texts refer to alien
peoples called the Yuezhi and the Wusun, who lived on China's far western
borders; the texts make it clear that these people were regarded as
troublesome "barbarians." Until recently, scholars have tended to downplay
evidence of any early trade or contact between China and the West,
regarding the development of Chinese civilization as an essentially
homegrown affair scaled off from outside influences; indeed, this view is
still extremely congenial to the present Chinese regime. Yet some
archeologists have begun to argue that these supposed barbarians might have
been responsible for introducing into China such basic items as the wheel
and the first metal objects. Exactly who these central Asian outsiders
might have been, however what language they spoke and where they came from
- is a puzzle. No wonder, then, that scholars see the discovery of the
blond mummies as a sensational new clue...
Most researchers now think the birthplace of horsedrawn vehicles and horse
riding was in the steppes east and west of the Urals rather than in China
or the Near East. As archeologist David Anthony and his colleagues have
shown through microscopic study of ancient horse teeth, horses were already
being harnessed in the Ukraine 6,000 years ago. The Ukraine horses, Anthony
found, show a particular kind of tooth wear identical to that of modern
horses that "fight the bit." The world's earliest high-status vehicles also
seem to have originated in the steppes; recent discoveries of wooden
chariots with elaborate spoked wheels were reported by Anthony to date to
around 2000 B.C. Chariots do not seem to have appeared in China until some
800 years later...
had wagons and well-tailored clothes. Were they mere goat and
sheep farmers? Or did they profit from or even control prehistoric trade
along the route that later became the Silk Road? If so, they probably
helped spread the first wheels and certain metalworking skills into China.
"Ultimately I think our project may end up having tremendous implications
for the origins of Chinese civilization," Mair reflects. "For all their
incredible inventiveness, the ancient Chinese weren't cut off from the
rest of the world, and influences didn't just flow one way, from China
westward."
Unfortunately, economics dictates that answers will be slow in coming.
The Chinese have the money to spare for this work, and Wang and his team
continue to operate on a shoestring. Currently most of the corpses and
artifacts are stored in a damp, crowded basement room at the Institute
of Archeology in Urumqi, in conditions that threaten their continued
preservation. If Mair's plans for a museum can be financed with Western
help, perhaps the mummies can be moved. Then, finally, they'll receive
the study and attention that will ultimately unlock their secrets.
>And those
> europeans that had civilization were in the south of europe where people
> are darker-skinned.
The ancient Greeks were mainly blond and blue eyed. Things change over
time. Here is an example:
"Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops, the
builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs of her
tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a bright yellow
stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin is white."
Coon, Carleton Stevens. The Races of Europe. New York City, Macmillan. 1939,
p.98
The tomb of the wife of Zoser, the builder of the first pyramid in Egypt,
has a painting of her showing her with reddish-blond hair.
Heyerdahl, Thor, The Ra Expeditions, Garden City, Doubleday, 1971, p.249
The mummy of Rameses II has yellow hair.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books, Alexandria, VA 1992 p.8
"A funerary mask with the attributes of the goddess Isis shows a vivid
blue-green color of eyes.
A General Introduction to the Egyptian Collections in the the British
Museam. London, Harrison and Sons, 1930, p.49
The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair.
Carter, Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch, N.Y. 1972 p.68
Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida.
Tomkins, Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petries Collection of
Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt, Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII, 1889,
p.216
The mummy of Rameses II has fine silky yellow hair.
Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson, Warren R. Egyptian Mummies, London, George
Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924 p.99
A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored ones.
De Lapouge, G. Vacher, L'Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899, p.26
Amenhotep III's tomb painting shows him as having light red hair.
National Geographic Society, Ancient Egypt, Discovering its Splendors,1978
p.103
An Egyptian scribe named Sakkarah around 2500 B.C. has blue eyes.
Strouhal, Eugen, Life of the Ancient Egyptians, Norman, Oklahoma, University
of Oklahoma Press, 1992, p.53
A common good luck charm was the eye of Horus, the so-called Wedjat
Eye. The eye is always blue, and the word "wedjat" means "blue" in Egyptian.
Queen Thi is painted as having a rosy complexion, blue eyes and blond
hair.
Hamy, E.T., "Races Humaines de la Vallee du Nil" Bulletin de la Societe
d'Anthropologie de Paris, 1886, p.739
Paintings from the Third Dynasty show native Egyptians with red hair and
blue eyes.
Pijoan, Jose, Historia del Arte Vol III, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1932, plate
XI
The god Nuit was painted as white and blond.
Champollion, H., Le Nil et la Societe Egyptienne, Marseille, Musee Boreby,
1973 p.94
A painting from Iteti's tomb at Saqqara shows a very Nordic-looking man
with blond hair.
Westendorf, Wolfhart, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of Ancient Egypt.
New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1968 p.65
Time-Life books recently put out a volume called Rameses II The Great.
It has a good picture of the blond mummy of Rameses II. Another picture can
be found in the book X-Raying the Pharaohs, especially the picture on the
jacket cover. It shows his yellow hair.
A book called Chronicle of the Pharaohs was recently published showing
paintings,scuptures and mummies of 189 pharaohs and leading personalities of
Ancient Egypt. Of these, 102 appear European, 13 look black and the rest are
hard to classify. All nine mummies look European.
The very first pharaoh, Narmer, also known as Menes, looks very
European, The same can be said for Khufu's cousin Hemon, who designed the
Great Pyramid of Giza. A computer-generated reconstruction of the face of
the Sphinx shows a European-looking face.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books Alexandria, VA 1992 p.67
It was once painted sunburned red.
Silverberg, Robert, Before the Sphinx; Early Egypt N.Y., N.Y., T. Nelson
1971 p.168
The Egyptians often painted upper class men as red and upper class
women as white; this because the men became sunburned or tanned while
outside under the burning Egyptian sun.
The information above is part of the information compiled by Phillip
Bonner and was printed in The Barnes Review, 130 Third Street, SE,
Washington, D.C. 20003
>
> What about other diffrences in races.
Blacks are better basketball players.
Other types of inteligence, such
> as social intelingence, emotional inteligence, etc. What about physical
> diffrences, why are there so many good african american athleets.
They are genetically better at some sports than Whites.
T. Max Devlin
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> > The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
>> >nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second world
>> >are the Arabs and China.
>>
>> That's not genetics; that's coincidence. Contingency, if you must.
>> Random and meaningless, if you are smart.
>
>Well you both need to argue your case.
Not at all. My case is presumed true until someone can prove it false,
because it is scientific and supported by statistical truth. The fact
that 'black nations and India are the third world' is not in dispute
(thought it could be). It is the hidden teleology (black nations and
India are the third world because they are black or Indian) that needs
to be argued, so we can see whether it is false and consider the racist
sentiments that underlie it.
>> >It is just as racialists would predict.
>>
>> Or rather as they would assume, and thus conclude. So I take it you are
>> a racist?
>>
>Let us not throw acusations and deal only with arguments. Atack his
>arguments, not him personaly.
That is his argument. It is a question, and if he gets offended, then
the answer is probably "yes". Either way, I'm not passing judgement, or
trying to insult, just demanding honesty and a sound epistemological
basis for the argument. Otherwise it becomes simple circular reasoning,
such as the hidden teleology I pointed out above, unsupported by any
verifiable facts and unfalsifiable.
T. Max Devlin
>>
>> >But you have hit an interesting point. The point is that different races
>> >of dogs are good for different tasks. You will not use poodle for
>> >herding sheep for example. Now that is fine for dogs, but what about
>> >humans. Is it possible, for example, that members of race X make good
>> >businessman, and members of race Y make good janitors. How would society
>> >react to such a discovery. What would that mean to people of those
>> >respective races. Would you personally be able to deal with such a
>> >thing. Maybe we would be better off not knowing.
>>
>> We already do know. All you need to do is look at history to see how
>> society reacts to such a discovery. As well as how valid such
>> 'discoveries' actually are.
>
>We are at the point in history that is unique in many respects than any
>other, so looking back to less developed and enlightned times is futile.
Horse-hockey. Your argument is nothing more than simple intentional
ignorance. Any point in history is unique in almost all respects in
comparison to any other, and ignoring facts only leads to cultural
relativism, if not plain old bigotry. Consider that our own unique
'developed and enlightened' time is what makes it so unlikely as to be
effectively impossible that any 'revelation' of racial superiority could
occur. If you want to see how people would react if it did occur,
however, you need only look at the many examples where this has already
happened. Feel free to ignore the fact that it always turns out to be a
false claim, a quasi-scientific argument hiding simple racism; that
doesn't matter to those who are reacting to 'scientific evidence' of
racial distinctions.
>> It is not possible, you see, that members
>> of race X "make good" anything with sufficient mathematical validity to
>> be called a scientific theory.
>
>Reading news papers, I have read reports saying that Males are better in
>math, and females are better in language skills, so obviousle we can do
>such things.
Only statistically, and only very carefully. I am better at language
than math. Does that mean I'm female?
>There is a nice branch of mathematics called statistics,
>that allows us to make acurate predictions about a group of people from
>a sufficiently sized sample with calculated degree of acuracy.
Yes, but only about a *group* of people, not about ANY person, whether
included or excluded from the group. Male and female is a distinction
with absolute scientific undeniability. Race is most definitely not.
>> Your point about dog breeds ignores the
>> fact that wolves were purposefully bred by conscious effort.
>
>But it demonstrates the fact that diffrent races might be sutable for
>diffrent tasks.
No, it doesn't. It demonstrates the hypothesis that different dog
breeds are more or less suitable for different tasks. Humans aren't
dogs, and this fact is not as easily ignored as you would like to think.
>> Your argument reduces to an argument from ignorance. Consider the idea
>> that if eugenics were purposefully implemented, you would be creating,
>> not discovering, the principle you are referring to, that some genetic
>> families are better at certain tasks.
>
>So maybe as a society, we are better of staying ignorant, even though
>problems from such ignorance will always be there, it might be better
>than knowing the truth.
You are still presuming there is a truth there to know. The fact that
race has been validly eliminated as a scientific concept, the fact that
throughout history every single claim of racial superiority proves to be
false, the fact that there is no such thing as 'better off not knowing',
all of these you are willfully ignoring, intentionally staying ignorant
yourself. And wrapping it up with a bow by not-so-subtle suggesting
that anyone who knows the truth (that no such 'discovery' is possible)
is ignoring the truth.
>> I'm trying not to read too much
>> into the fact that you chose 'businessman' and 'janitor' as your example
>> skills. But your last claim sounds suspiciously like you are trying to
>> claim that the reason we don't discover that "some races are inferior"
>> is because we don't want to know.
>
>Well "businessman and janitor" does ilustrate my point of how
>contraversial this stuff is.
All they illustrate is your intention to make it seem controversial,
when really your whole argument is just simple bigotry.
>And maybe we don't discover those things because we don't want to know.
A stupid hypothesis, I have to say. We don't discover these things
because, despite countless efforts to discover these things, all we have
discovered is that there are no such things.
>> The whole discussion might make more sense if it weren't so obvious that
>> you're trying to justify your own bigotry.
>
>This is another point that needs to be adresed in race relations. A
>person cannot say anything contravertial without being acused of racism.
A person cannot say anything racist without being accused of racism.
Again, the 'controversy' is all in your head.
>That is why racism exists and tha is why so called "dialog on race" does
>not adress important issues.
Dialog on race does not address important issues because race is not a
supportable concept when considering important issues. The on-going
efforts to confuse statistics with causation is just soft-headed
thinking. DDTT
>> [...]
>> >Well you are talking about problems that arise when one tries to
>> >implement such tests. But I don't believe that we can hide behind
>> >implementation problems. It is possible to test genetic differences.
>> [...]
>>
>> But it is impossible to make valid determinations of whether the
>> differences are 'good' or 'bad' in general.
>
>How is that? If research states that race X has on average a bigger
>penis than race y, I think that most people would agree that members of
>race X would be rather pleased with themselves, and members of race y
>would be stigmatized.
So if I have a fourteen inch cock, that means I'm black? Your
homogenization of all individuals within the rhetorical group you call
'race' is what spoils your argument so completely. If research states
that race X has a bigger penis, statistically, then they have simply
defined 'race X' as "that genetic variation which has a bigger penis,
statistically". Do you think it is simple coincidence that all previous
research along these lines has FAILED to find any statistical
significance in such isolated and singular facts? Is this going to
result in yet another not-so-subtle claim that we "don't want to know"?
Mirza Borogovac
I don't quite understand how race can be a social construct. Can you
explain that to me. Obviously such thing as race exists as a biological
truth. Asian parents for example will have asian baby. That baby will be
more suceptible to some ailments than other babies, and less suceptible
to other ailments than other babies. So obviously there are diffrences
between what we call races. How can it be a social construct then?
I would also like to know how do inequalities in abilities and status
dveleops between social constructs that we call races. Where can I find
more information on that?
Mirza
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> There are an *infinite number* of differences, Mirza. You simply are
> not comprehending the truth of the matter. *Races don't exist*.
> Really! Outside of simple bigotry, you can't tell jack-shit about a
> person from their genetic background.
>
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
So you are telling me, for example, that asians could one day change as
people, start growing taller and dominating NBA, while their genetic
background did not change.
Mirza Borogovac
things? This seems like a pretty conclusive proof. What are
contra-arguments to your conclusion?
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >Health, for example, is good, and
> >sickness is bad. Prettyis good, and ugly is bad, etc.
>
> Yes, but now you have to somehow define 'health' which in no way
> whatsoever relies on the term 'good', and sickness which in no way
> relies on 'bad'. You see the problem?
You are complicating things beyond what is necesary. I am really not
interested in abstract discusion on what is exactly ment by words we
commonly use. Everybody knows what is meant by health and sickness.
Everybody knows what is good and what is bad.
Mirza Borogovac
is the time of belif in social darwinism. If you look at the mumies, and
hierogliphics, they are all dark skinned. maybe one of them is blond
(although I don't know how people could determine that back in 1939 from
mumified coprses). There is also no doubt that Cariers of chinese
civilization were chinese. Only parts of china were colonized, not the
entire country. i am afraid that you are grasping at straws.
As for greeks, how did homer desrcibe greeks? Did he ever mention blue
eyes and blond hair. It is obvious that those features come from
northern europe. There are blue eyed people in Balkans now, but those
came from russia back in 5th century (or was it 8th). Also for Romans,
well there are many paintings of romans and they do not look nordic or
aryan.
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> I'm thinking you misunderstand the term 'family resemblance'. It means
> that no singular distinction defines the category, that a variety of
> characteristics, no one of which is universal in the family, are used to
> define a category. A rhetorical group, not a mathematical definition.
OK if you wanna talk math, let me ilustrate by math. Lets say 0 is one
race, and 1 is another. You are telling me that there are no numbers 0
and 1. That might be true, but there is .1 and .9. Sometimes it is hard
to determine which race number .5 is, but there are definite ideal
categories that numbers "for the most part" can be rounded to. Now you
are telling me that races do not exist. Obviously they do. I saw them
with my own eyes. Obviously there are diffrences between them, and not
just superficial ones like color of the hair, but also the hight of the
person, sensitivity to sun, build, health issues, maybe even cognitive
abilities. Now if somene discovered that there is no corelation between
what is percived as race and hight of the person, or inteligence of the
person, that would be something. But nobody discovered that. I suspect
that qualifying race as a social phenomenon, rather than as a scientific
phenomenon might have some basic in logic, but then again it could be
just an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug.
>
> >The issue is are those diffrences caused by
> >genetic disposition or our curent enviroment.
>
> And the fact that you insist the two are somehow magically distinct.
I do not insist, but common sense does. Dog, for example, is geneticaly
predetermined to be a dog. No enviroment will make a human out of a dog.
Could races be genetically predetermined in the same way?
>
> >Older black people, for
> >example, are high risk group for heard desease. This could be because of
> >genetic disposition, or it could be cultural: perhaps blacks have more
> >stress in their life, or eat more greasy food.
>
> I think you want to mean 'higher risk', rather than 'high risk'. The
> fact is that all older people are high risk for heart disease. You
> confuse statistical relevance for reality. A common occurrence in the
> modern world, nothing to be ashamed of. Still, it is a mistaken
> perspective.
Still you are missing a point. Example is supposed to show the diffrence
between enviroment and heredity and how two can owerlap.
>
> >> As for how low melanin levels can 'possibly be due to environment', the
> >> answer is natural selection.
> >
> >Well natural selection really does not count as a factor in recent
> >humant human history.
>
> Depends on what you mean by 'recent'. How 'recent' did whites diverge
> from blacks. Do you know? Can you tell?
Does it mater? Fact is they did.
>
> Any contemplation of reality which distinguishes between one 'race' and
> another is simply delusional.
So that makes everybody delusional? You mean all this time entire
humanity was delusional? Whow this is such an eye opener.
This is bullshit! You are denying reality. Next thing you will tell me
is that there are no diffrences between sexes.
> That's all there is to it; it is a
> scientific fact. Not a "I refuse to consider it false" fact; that's not
> science. A "Sure, it is possible, but not a single fact you've provided
> even suggests, let alone proves, that it is true" fact.
Where is that fact stated? Where is it proven. How come it contradicts
reality? How can you rely on science over common sense. And if race does
not exit, how come scientists measure all kinds of statistics on
diffrent races. Are they dilusional too?
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >We are at the point in history that is unique in many respects than any
> >other, so looking back to less developed and enlightned times is futile.
>
> Horse-hockey. Your argument is nothing more than simple intentional
> ignorance.
It would be hard to find ignorace in my argument sice I make wery few
factual claims. If you do make a determination about me, I would
apreciate some examples in my arguments that you used to back up your
determination. For example, in this case you should say this to me: You
are ignorant because you said "so-and-so" when in fact it is
"this-and-that". Saying that I am ignorant without backing it up is just
an insult.
> Any point in history is unique in almost all respects in
> comparison to any other,
Any point in history is unique and people act diffrently and uniaquily
to same situations depending in what point in history we are talking
about. Consider that today france does not have a death penalty, which
is in stark contrast to public behadings just a few centuries ago.
> and ignoring facts only leads to cultural
> relativism, if not plain old bigotry.
What facts would those be?
> Consider that our own unique
> 'developed and enlightened' time is what makes it so unlikely as to be
> effectively impossible that any 'revelation' of racial superiority could
> occur.
I don't know if it's unlikely for something like that to occur because
scientific comunity is constanly doing research on diffrences between
races.
> If you want to see how people would react if it did occur,
> however, you need only look at the many examples where this has already
> happened. Feel free to ignore the fact that it always turns out to be a
> false claim, a quasi-scientific argument hiding simple racism; that
> doesn't matter to those who are reacting to 'scientific evidence' of
> racial distinctions.
I am interested in those many examples. When did they happen? Why were
they disputed? If you could point me to a site about it I would be
gratefull.
>
> Only statistically, and only very carefully. I am better at language
> than math. Does that mean I'm female?
>
No, but there is a higher probability that you are. Let me give you an
obvious example. Males are ON AVERAGE stronger than females. That means
that probability is that randomly picked male is stronger than randomly
pickes female. There could be women out there that can bench 400 lb, but
those are lonly bumps in the great planes left of the bell curve.
> >There is a nice branch of mathematics called statistics,
> >that allows us to make acurate predictions about a group of people from
> >a sufficiently sized sample with calculated degree of acuracy.
>
> Yes, but only about a *group* of people, not about ANY person, whether
> included or excluded from the group. Male and female is a distinction
> with absolute scientific undeniability. Race is most definitely not.
That is why you are better at language skills than math. While it's
might be hard to decide for some individuals what race they are, there
are many people that are undenyably black or undeniably asian.
>
> >> Your point about dog breeds ignores the
> >> fact that wolves were purposefully bred by conscious effort.
> >
> >But it demonstrates the fact that diffrent races might be sutable for
> >diffrent tasks.
>
> No, it doesn't. It demonstrates the hypothesis that different dog
> breeds are more or less suitable for different tasks. Humans aren't
> dogs, and this fact is not as easily ignored as you would like to think.
It is not hard to make a logical leap to my conclusion, but for you I
will use bears. Nobody bred bears for specific tasks, but brown bears
are better suited for climbing trees than polar bears, and polar bears
are better suited for swiming than brown bears. Are you happy now?
>
> >So maybe as a society, we are better of staying ignorant, even though
> >problems from such ignorance will always be there, it might be better
> >than knowing the truth.
>
> You are still presuming there is a truth there to know. The fact that
> race has been validly eliminated as a scientific concept,
No it has not. Diffrent races obviously exist. Science cannot claim
othervise. And there are obvious diffrences between members of a
diffrent races. I don't see how science can deny relity.
> the fact that
> throughout history every single claim of racial superiority proves to be
> false,
I would disagree with that. Lately claims of racial superiority have not
been proven wrong, it is just that an alternative explenation has been
found.
> the fact that there is no such thing as 'better off not knowing',
Don't you think that if certain truth was more likely to hurt society
than to help it, it should be kept secret?
> all of these you are willfully ignoring, intentionally staying ignorant
> yourself. And wrapping it up with a bow by not-so-subtle suggesting
> that anyone who knows the truth (that no such 'discovery' is possible)
> is ignoring the truth.
Well I am not ignorig anything, and I am up for any discussion, just
present your arguments.
>
> >> I'm trying not to read too much
> >> into the fact that you chose 'businessman' and 'janitor' as your example
> >> skills. But your last claim sounds suspiciously like you are trying to
> >> claim that the reason we don't discover that "some races are inferior"
> >> is because we don't want to know.
> >
> >Well "businessman and janitor" does ilustrate my point of how
> >contraversial this stuff is.
>
> All they illustrate is your intention to make it seem controversial,
> when really your whole argument is just simple bigotry.
You seem eager to draw unsuported conclusion about my argument, but you
have no problem asking me to precisely define "good" and "bad". Are you
avoiding the issue on purpose? Your demeanor as been as if I am
obviously wrong and bigoted, yet you insist on arguing with me. Why is
that? You also seem to invest a lot of yourself in the issue.
>
> >And maybe we don't discover those things because we don't want to know.
>
> A stupid hypothesis, I have to say. We don't discover these things
> because, despite countless efforts to discover these things, all we have
> discovered is that there are no such things.
There is no question that blacks, for example, do worse than whites in
college. The issue is if that is cause heredetary or enviromental. We
can discover an answer to that question.
>
> >This is another point that needs to be adresed in race relations. A
> >person cannot say anything contravertial without being acused of racism.
>
> A person cannot say anything racist without being accused of racism.
> Again, the 'controversy' is all in your head.
How can a search for truth, and an open discussion be racist? What is it
that I said that was racist?
>
> >That is why racism exists and tha is why so called "dialog on race" does
> >not adress important issues.
>
> Dialog on race does not address important issues because race is not a
> supportable concept when considering important issues. The on-going
> efforts to confuse statistics with causation is just soft-headed
> thinking. DDTT
Well I am not saying what the cause is between corelations, but I am
opening that question for discussion. Does that make me a racist?
>
> >> [...]
> >> >Well you are talking about problems that arise when one tries to
> >> >implement such tests. But I don't believe that we can hide behind
> >> >implementation problems. It is possible to test genetic differences.
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> But it is impossible to make valid determinations of whether the
> >> differences are 'good' or 'bad' in general.
> >
> >How is that? If research states that race X has on average a bigger
> >penis than race y, I think that most people would agree that members of
> >race X would be rather pleased with themselves, and members of race y
> >would be stigmatized.
>
> So if I have a fourteen inch cock, that means I'm black? Your
> homogenization of all individuals within the rhetorical group you call
> 'race' is what spoils your argument so completely. If research states
> that race X has a bigger penis, statistically, then they have simply
> defined 'race X' as "that genetic variation which has a bigger penis,
> statistically". Do you think it is simple coincidence that all previous
> research along these lines has FAILED to find any statistical
> significance in such isolated and singular facts? Is this going to
> result in yet another not-so-subtle claim that we "don't want to know"?
>
You are totaly missing the point of the example. Penis size would be an
example of hereditary diffrence that can be interprited in population as
"good" or "bad". That is what you asked for, and that is what I gave
you. Example was not representing any of my views or predjudices and it
has no value otside of serving as an example.
Tris
> Pretty air tight study. Why is there still discussion about this sort of
> things? This seems like a pretty conclusive proof. What are
> contra-arguments to your conclusion?
There are some very good arguments here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=1003831682.11001.0.nnrp-10.d4f
09842%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dalex%2Bvange%2Btris%2Biq%
26hl%3Den%26rnum%3D1%26selm%3D1003831682.11001.0.nnrp-10.d4f09842%2540news.d
emon.co.uk
This was a great paragraph (IMO) by @God.
"So often we forget that the economic and technical failings of other
peoples
and nations, were directly due to the often barbaric practices of the
alleged "civilized" peoples of the world. It was imperative, from the
imperialist's point of view, that Europeans not see the native people of the
new worlds as being in any way civilized. Sound familiar?"
I said in response to Alex Vange's post of the Scarr article:
Standard IQ tests are laughably unreliable. For a start, all the ones I've
seen assume the subject is literate. Other factors involved are of course
the education of the subject - for example, some IQ tests involve 'which
word is the odd one out' - and of course how many IQ tests the subject
has completed. Believe it or not, take a few 'standard' IQ tests and you
should find them progressively easier.
They should have studied the genealogy of each of the children. They did
not have enough data to reach any satisfactory conclusion. Scarr, Weinberg,
and Waldman, were wrong to test for environmental factors on only *one*
generation, and Lynn and Levin have taken advantage of that.
IMHO there is no way one could execute a satisfactory statistical analysis,
such as the one you described above, because of all the factors involved.
Did they measure their parents IQs, for example?
Genes are, without doubt, a large factor in the the intelligence levels of
humans. Intelligence also develops with education and nutrition. Were
the biological parents, and their parents, and their parents, tested using
IQ tests?
All you can conclude with this sort of analysis is that a child whose
parents had low IQs is likely to have a low IQ! I would like to see
follow-up tests on each of the subjects in the original, and then the
subjects' children, and their children. I suspect that the results of this
analysis would suggest environment is a big factor in IQ test scores over
*multiple* generations. I suspect that the IQs of all three groups would
begin to converge.
Did you know that since McDonalds was introduced to Japan, the average
height of the Japanese has increased by a few inches?! The Westernisation
of the Japanese diet -more dairy products, for example - has lead to
increases in height and bulk in the younger generations of Japanese.
Difference in diet leads to difference in height. Ask yourself whether the
average size of the brain would proportionately increase over generations,
and whether IQ would increase as a result - given the same levels of
education. Note: you would be unlikely to see a significant increase in IQ
over only one generation.
You might also like to look up studies of the Flynn effect.
T. Max Devlin
>
>> >Health, for example, is good, and
>> >sickness is bad. Prettyis good, and ugly is bad, etc.
>>
>> Yes, but now you have to somehow define 'health' which in no way
>> whatsoever relies on the term 'good', and sickness which in no way
>> relies on 'bad'. You see the problem?
>
>You are complicating things beyond what is necesary.
Given the choice between my very powerful results of philosophy (lack of
transcendental angst, persistent happiness, reason and tolerance and
patience) and the way most people go through life, I would say I am
complicating things precisely as much as necessary.
>I am really not
>interested in abstract discusion on what is exactly ment by words we
>commonly use.
Nor am I. I do not argue against the use of the terms 'good' and 'bad'
is any abstract way, nor bother with what is "exactly meant" when they
are commonly used. Just generally what is meant, and your use in this
concrete context.
>Everybody knows what is meant by health and sickness.
>Everybody knows what is good and what is bad.
Yes, but everyone disagrees on what referents are proper, even though
they know what the term means. "Good" becomes a handy synonym for "what
I want", and "bad" becomes interchangeable with "different than what I
want". In a philosophical context, those are terms you have to be very
careful with, or you just end up with a relative morality. "We're the
good guys and they're the bad guys and that is all you need to know."
I'm a reasonable person, so that is not good enough for me.
T. Max Devlin
>>
>> I'm thinking you misunderstand the term 'family resemblance'. It means
>> that no singular distinction defines the category, that a variety of
>> characteristics, no one of which is universal in the family, are used to
>> define a category. A rhetorical group, not a mathematical definition.
>
>OK if you wanna talk math, let me ilustrate by math.
I do not wish to talk math, if I did I'd be using math rather than
language.
>Lets say 0 is one
>race, and 1 is another. [...]
From that point on, you are assuming your conclusions. This is the
point; you cannot represent a rhetorical group with a mathematical
symbol. There will be some members in race '0' that will belong
properly in race '1', and vice versa, and some ambiguous examples which
may be both or may be neither. The genetic traits which you are basing
your concept of race are not singular and unitary, they are family
resemblance categories. That means no one genetic trait can define a
race, and so no assignment of a person to a convenient category based on
noticeable attributes will ever provide a statistically significant
correlation with their abilities and talents.
>> >The issue is are those diffrences caused by
>> >genetic disposition or our curent enviroment.
>>
>> And the fact that you insist the two are somehow magically distinct.
>
>I do not insist, but common sense does.
That would be you, insisting. Common sense has no bearing on scientific
concepts.
>Dog, for example, is geneticaly
>predetermined to be a dog.
Actually, that is not entirely true, since dogs are really genetically
predetermined to be wolves.
>No enviroment will make a human out of a dog.
That isn't necessarily true. Any environment and hundreds of millions
of years of natural selection and random mutation may well make a human
(that is, a sentient animal) out of a dog. Or a wolf, as it were. The
word 'will' is, of course, problematic, since contingency has no will,
and neither do biological species.
>Could races be genetically predetermined in the same way?
Not unless you practice eugenics for a large enough number of
generations in a short enough period of time. Without a cold brutal
program of killing all unfit infants, and breeding children at the age
of puberty, natural selection and the will of the subjects is going to
screw up your attempt to predetermine the predispositions in the way you
are imagining.
>> >Older black people, for
>> >example, are high risk group for heard desease. This could be because of
>> >genetic disposition, or it could be cultural: perhaps blacks have more
>> >stress in their life, or eat more greasy food.
>>
>> I think you want to mean 'higher risk', rather than 'high risk'. The
>> fact is that all older people are high risk for heart disease. You
>> confuse statistical relevance for reality. A common occurrence in the
>> modern world, nothing to be ashamed of. Still, it is a mistaken
>> perspective.
>
>Still you are missing a point. Example is supposed to show the diffrence
>between enviroment and heredity and how two can owerlap.
And you are missing the point, because it didn't show what it was
supposed to show. The two do not 'overlap', they are simply
indistinguishable, if you don't have a predefined method of
distinguishing them. You are using floating abstractions as if they
were analytical scientific terms, which is why your conception of race
is causing you to be a racist.
>> >> As for how low melanin levels can 'possibly be due to environment', the
>> >> answer is natural selection.
>> >
>> >Well natural selection really does not count as a factor in recent
>> >humant human history.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by 'recent'. How 'recent' did whites diverge
>> from blacks. Do you know? Can you tell?
>
>Does it mater? Fact is they did.
It matters because the question is not whether they did, but whether
natural selection 'counts as a factor' in recent human history. The
divergence need not have happened in recent history for the divergence
to count as a fact in recent history. But if you aren't using the terms
whites and blacks in a method with scientific integrity, as indicated by
the fact that you don't think it matters where or when you identify the
divergence to have occurred, then you are simply ignoring race and
talking about skin color. You can't actually believe that skin color
makes people "good at being janitors", could you?
>> Any contemplation of reality which distinguishes between one 'race' and
>> another is simply delusional.
>
>So that makes everybody delusional?
To some extent, in various ways, certainly. Humans are not omniscient.
>You mean all this time entire
>humanity was delusional?
"Entire humanity" has nothing to do with it.
>Whow this is such an eye opener.
>
>This is bullshit! You are denying reality.
What would that make me? Delusional, perhaps? Some people are more
delusional than others, and you are more delusional than most, since
most people understand why 'race' is no longer considered a valid
scientific concept.
>Next thing you will tell me
>is that there are no diffrences between sexes.
You see how easily delusion leads to more delusion? First you
misabstract my claim, then you turn it into a straw man, and now you've
got a whole 'argument from ignorance' thing going to make an even bigger
straw man. Next you'll be burning crosses on my front lawn.
>> That's all there is to it; it is a
>> scientific fact. Not a "I refuse to consider it false" fact; that's not
>> science. A "Sure, it is possible, but not a single fact you've provided
>> even suggests, let alone proves, that it is true" fact.
>
>Where is that fact stated? Where is it proven.
I don't know, precisely, it would require scientific learning to find
out. Go for it. Lord knows you need it.
>How come it contradicts
>reality?
Because you have a loose grasp on 'reality' and so your perception is
that the two are contradictory, when in fact they are not.
>How can you rely on science over common sense.
I understand both.
>And if race does
>not exit, how come scientists measure all kinds of statistics on
>diffrent races. Are they dilusional too?
No, because they are using the term properly, if they use it at all, to
mean a family resemblance category of genetic traits. It is those
scientists measuring those statistics that show that no single trait is
ever statistically significant for determining any other trait. The
black people in the mountains of Kenya are great runners because they
are from the mountains of Kenya, and the fact that they are black has
nothing much to do with it at all.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
>>
>> There are an *infinite number* of differences, Mirza. You simply are
>> not comprehending the truth of the matter. *Races don't exist*.
>> Really! Outside of simple bigotry, you can't tell jack-shit about a
>> person from their genetic background.
>>
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>So you are telling me, for example, that asians could one day change as
>people, start growing taller and dominating NBA, while their genetic
>background did not change.
No, Mirza, no ethnic group can ever "change as people". This is the
point. Individuals mutate, and natural selection does the rest. This
is the same as what you've described as "changing their genetic
background", and it is called evolution. The term 'asian' becomes a
floating abstraction for 'whatever genetic background is common in
asia', and is otherwise meaningless. Hence, race does not exist. You
see how that works?
Love
- Max
T. Max Devlin
>
>> >We are at the point in history that is unique in many respects than any
>> >other, so looking back to less developed and enlightned times is futile.
>>
>> Horse-hockey. Your argument is nothing more than simple intentional
>> ignorance.
>
>It would be hard to find ignorace in my argument sice I make wery few
>factual claims.
Guffaw. It is rather trivial to find ignorance in your arguments, since
you make very few factual claims. Get it?
>If you do make a determination about me, I would
>apreciate some examples in my arguments that you used to back up your
>determination.
I would think it would be more insulting if I were to lecture you than
it is to simply point out you've made a mistake or error. Simply look
at your text above my comment, and you should be able to figure out the
problem yourself, if you are reasonable and honest about it.
>For example, in this case you should say this to me: You
>are ignorant because you said "so-and-so" when in fact it is
>"this-and-that". Saying that I am ignorant without backing it up is just
>an insult.
Yea, so you claim. But I've enough experience with people who are
assuming their conclusions to know that you would simply bicker with my
abstraction of 'so-and-so', and would intentionally ignore
'this-and-that', as you have already been doing. You are ignorant
because you believe race is predetermination of ability, when in fact
race is not a concept with any real validity.
[...]
>> and ignoring facts only leads to cultural
>> relativism, if not plain old bigotry.
>
>What facts would those be?
"Huh? Facts? What facts? Show me these facts. Where is that
fact?..." ad nauseum. Intentional ignorance, like I said.
>> Consider that our own unique
>> 'developed and enlightened' time is what makes it so unlikely as to be
>> effectively impossible that any 'revelation' of racial superiority could
>> occur.
>
>I don't know if it's unlikely for something like that to occur because
>scientific comunity is constanly doing research on diffrences between
>races.
No, they are doing research on difference in genetic populations. There
is a great deal of value in there results, but none of it is supportive
of your delusions about race.
>> If you want to see how people would react if it did occur,
>> however, you need only look at the many examples where this has already
>> happened. Feel free to ignore the fact that it always turns out to be a
>> false claim, a quasi-scientific argument hiding simple racism; that
>> doesn't matter to those who are reacting to 'scientific evidence' of
>> racial distinctions.
>
>I am interested in those many examples. When did they happen? Why were
>they disputed? If you could point me to a site about it I would be
>gratefull.
You'll have to do your own research, I'm afraid. Go ask a biologist or
anthropologist or a recent text book on the subject.
>> Only statistically, and only very carefully. I am better at language
>> than math. Does that mean I'm female?
>
>No, but there is a higher probability that you are. Let me give you an
>obvious example. Males are ON AVERAGE stronger than females. That means
>that probability is that randomly picked male is stronger than randomly
>pickes female. There could be women out there that can bench 400 lb, but
>those are lonly bumps in the great planes left of the bell curve.
Ah, yes. We've been waiting for that term to come up, haven't we?
When you plot /one attribute/ against any normative group, you get a
bell curve. This is statistically *meaningless*, however. While you
can always invent a hypothetical average person who is 'better' at
something than some other hypothetical person, this says nothing about
biology all by itself, only your sampled group. And once again I will
remind you that flipping back to sex differences every time you run into
trouble justifying racial differences, you undermine your argument.
>> >There is a nice branch of mathematics called statistics,
>> >that allows us to make acurate predictions about a group of people from
>> >a sufficiently sized sample with calculated degree of acuracy.
>>
>> Yes, but only about a *group* of people, not about ANY person, whether
>> included or excluded from the group. Male and female is a distinction
>> with absolute scientific undeniability. Race is most definitely not.
>
>That is why you are better at language skills than math.
Why? Is it because "Math is hard" or because 'Reading is fun'? Is it
because I am female? Am I female?
>While it's
>might be hard to decide for some individuals what race they are, there
>are many people that are undenyably black or undeniably asian.
And however hard it might be to examine your reasoning honestly, there
are some people who are undeniably racist.
>>
>> >> Your point about dog breeds ignores the
>> >> fact that wolves were purposefully bred by conscious effort.
>> >
>> >But it demonstrates the fact that diffrent races might be sutable for
>> >diffrent tasks.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It demonstrates the hypothesis that different dog
>> breeds are more or less suitable for different tasks. Humans aren't
>> dogs, and this fact is not as easily ignored as you would like to think.
>
>It is not hard to make a logical leap to my conclusion,
It is never hard to make an error in reasoning, or an unsubstantiated
'logical leap'.
>but for you I
>will use bears. Nobody bred bears for specific tasks, but brown bears
>are better suited for climbing trees than polar bears, and polar bears
>are better suited for swiming than brown bears. Are you happy now?
No, I am not. These are different species which cannot interbreed,
whether through geography or genetics. Do you get it now? Hell, Mirza;
most scientists will tell you that *species* is a dubious concept, and
you're trying to hold onto backwards notions of race? Face it, it is
prejudice, and you are a bigot, not a person with a well thought out
hypothesis, but a delusional person that wants to ignore the evidence
because it refutes your assumed conclusions.
>> >So maybe as a society, we are better of staying ignorant, even though
>> >problems from such ignorance will always be there, it might be better
>> >than knowing the truth.
>>
>> You are still presuming there is a truth there to know. The fact that
>> race has been validly eliminated as a scientific concept,
>
>No it has not. Diffrent races obviously exist. Science cannot claim
>othervise. And there are obvious diffrences between members of a
>diffrent races. I don't see how science can deny relity.
Skin color exists. Genetic families exist. Rhetorical groups of traits
of family resemblance exist, and it is handy to refer to these as
'races'. None of those are the 'obviously existing' races that you
refer to, which is nothing more than the fact that some people are
better suited for doing different things. It is up to those people to
determine what those things are, for the most part, and even a person
who is a long distance runner from Kenya needs to train to be good at
it. There are NO statistically significant *racial attributes*. Only
bell curves plotting a single attribute against a genetic group, because
all genetic groups will produce bell curves when plotting single
attributes. To qualify as the 'obviously exist' kind of race you use to
support your bigoted notions there must be a statistically significant
correlation *between* attributes independent of genetic groups, and that
simply doesn't happen in the real world. You are the one denying
reality.
>> the fact that
>> throughout history every single claim of racial superiority proves to be
>> false,
>
>I would disagree with that. Lately claims of racial superiority have not
>been proven wrong, it is just that an alternative explenation has been
>found.
You don't understand much at all about science if you think those are
two different things.
>> the fact that there is no such thing as 'better off not knowing',
>
>Don't you think that if certain truth was more likely to hurt society
>than to help it, it should be kept secret?
I don't believe there is any such thing as a truth that would be likely
to hurt society. If we hypothesize such a thing is possible, then the
answer is "no". Ignorance may be bliss, but it is also unhelpful.
>> all of these you are willfully ignoring, intentionally staying ignorant
>> yourself. And wrapping it up with a bow by not-so-subtle suggesting
>> that anyone who knows the truth (that no such 'discovery' is possible)
>> is ignoring the truth.
>
>Well I am not ignorig anything, and I am up for any discussion, just
>present your arguments.
I have, and if you aren't already convinced, there is a good likelihood
you will never be.
>> >> I'm trying not to read too much
>> >> into the fact that you chose 'businessman' and 'janitor' as your example
>> >> skills. But your last claim sounds suspiciously like you are trying to
>> >> claim that the reason we don't discover that "some races are inferior"
>> >> is because we don't want to know.
>> >
>> >Well "businessman and janitor" does ilustrate my point of how
>> >contraversial this stuff is.
>>
>> All they illustrate is your intention to make it seem controversial,
>> when really your whole argument is just simple bigotry.
>
>You seem eager to draw unsuported conclusion about my argument,
Indeed, I am. I need to abstract your words properly, and I'm having
difficulty doing it since much of what you say sounds like nothing more
than ignorant bigotry.
>but you
>have no problem asking me to precisely define "good" and "bad".
That was a rhetorical question, and it should have been obvious that it
was meant to indicate that you don't have a proper definition, and were
waving the two terms around simply to maintain your ignorant conclusions
in the face of evidence.
>Are you
>avoiding the issue on purpose? Your demeanor as been as if I am
>obviously wrong and bigoted, yet you insist on arguing with me. Why is
>that?
Because you are obviously wrong and bigoted, and I know that no
reasonable person would willfully be wrong. So I'm trying to point out
how wrong your bigotry is, so that you can understand where you are
mistaken in your notions about race.
>You also seem to invest a lot of yourself in the issue.
I'm a poor black woman, maybe?
>> >And maybe we don't discover those things because we don't want to know.
>>
>> A stupid hypothesis, I have to say. We don't discover these things
>> because, despite countless efforts to discover these things, all we have
>> discovered is that there are no such things.
>
>There is no question that blacks, for example, do worse than whites in
>college. The issue is if that is cause heredetary or enviromental. We
>can discover an answer to that question.
No, you can only assume your conclusion on that question. You are
trying to treat a rhetorical group (a loosely defined thing with no
mathematical integrity at all) as if it were a deterministic causal
effect. You can make up an answer, perhaps, but there is certainly no
scientific way to predetermine whether someone will do good in college
based on genetic background. Stop looking at the average, Mirza, it is
confusing you greatly. In the real world, there are only individuals,
and none of them is average overall. Each human is unique, and an
individual representing only themselves, and you insult all humans (most
particularly yourself) when you forget that.
>> >This is another point that needs to be adresed in race relations. A
>> >person cannot say anything contravertial without being acused of racism.
>>
>> A person cannot say anything racist without being accused of racism.
>> Again, the 'controversy' is all in your head.
>
>How can a search for truth, and an open discussion be racist?
By being fatally flawed and an apparent attempt to assume your
conclusions.
>What is it
>that I said that was racist?
Just about everything, since it seems to be motivated by a desire to
scientifically justify your racial bias.
>> >That is why racism exists and tha is why so called "dialog on race" does
>> >not adress important issues.
>>
>> Dialog on race does not address important issues because race is not a
>> supportable concept when considering important issues. The on-going
>> efforts to confuse statistics with causation is just soft-headed
>> thinking. DDTT
>
>Well I am not saying what the cause is between corelations, but I am
>opening that question for discussion. Does that make me a racist?
If it were honest discussion, no. But it is not, since in science and
free inquiry, a correlation which is determined to be necessary and
sufficient is the definition of "cause". You are confusing cause with
mechanism. Certainly understandable, and these two terms may flip
concepts easily in various contexts. Nevertheless, you are saying that
the cause must be genetic or environment, and that is an
overly-simplistic and relatively stupid argument, since it has already
been conclusively disproved by more capable and open scientific
investigations than you are capable of performing.
>> >> [...]
>> >> >Well you are talking about problems that arise when one tries to
>> >> >implement such tests. But I don't believe that we can hide behind
>> >> >implementation problems. It is possible to test genetic differences.
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> But it is impossible to make valid determinations of whether the
>> >> differences are 'good' or 'bad' in general.
>> >
>> >How is that? If research states that race X has on average a bigger
>> >penis than race y, I think that most people would agree that members of
>> >race X would be rather pleased with themselves, and members of race y
>> >would be stigmatized.
>>
>> So if I have a fourteen inch cock, that means I'm black? Your
>> homogenization of all individuals within the rhetorical group you call
>> 'race' is what spoils your argument so completely. If research states
>> that race X has a bigger penis, statistically, then they have simply
>> defined 'race X' as "that genetic variation which has a bigger penis,
>> statistically". Do you think it is simple coincidence that all previous
>> research along these lines has FAILED to find any statistical
>> significance in such isolated and singular facts? Is this going to
>> result in yet another not-so-subtle claim that we "don't want to know"?
>>
>You are totaly missing the point of the example.
No, Mirza, you are.
>Penis size would be an
>example of hereditary diffrence that can be interprited in population as
>"good" or "bad".
What proof of this do you have? The "fact" that men or women 'want'
larger penises in themselves or their partners? I suppose you'll invent
some 'biological imperative' to explain this?
It is a silly example, a silly idea, and a silly theory.
>That is what you asked for, and that is what I gave
>you.
I asked for evidence, you gave me a hypothesis.
>Example was not representing any of my views or predjudices and it
>has no value otside of serving as an example.
It has no value within it, either, since it is, as always occurs in
racist rhetoric, a single attribute applied poorly to an ill-defined
genetic group. You will simply be unable to recognize the flaws in your
thinking until you consider the presumption that they are racist more
seriously than you already have.
T. Max Devlin
>>
>> Mirza Borogovac <ha...@hdmagazine.com> wrote in message news:<3BF64365...@hdmagazine.com>...
>> > Sice we are on topic of race, let me ask a question. Are inequalities in
>> > races in todays society result of biology or culture. Black people for
>> > example on average have 10 points smaller IQ (or so I heard), but they
>> > blacks excell better than whites in sports such as boxing or basketball.
>> > I do not know if there was any scientific evidence eather way, but if
>> > there was how would our society accept it?
>>
>> world have the same kinds of brains with the same kinds of capacities.
>> not only are any such results (such as the iq scores) completely
>> social and cultural, but the latest out of the scientific community is
>> that even race itself is actually nothing more than a social
>> construct.
>
>I don't quite understand how race can be a social construct. Can you
>explain that to me. Obviously such thing as race exists as a biological
>truth.
No, they exist as a biological appearance. In truth, there is no
deterministic correlation between the various attributes you
conglomerate into 'race'. Do all black people have big lips? Are there
no dark skinned whites with large penises and an affinity for jazz?
Now, here's the clincher to distinguish between your bigoted notion of
race and the real world effect of genetic families: if you met a swarthy
jazz musician with a big package, would you presume he had black
ancestors?
>Asian parents for example will have asian baby. That baby will be
>more suceptible to some ailments than other babies, and less suceptible
>to other ailments than other babies. So obviously there are diffrences
>between what we call races. How can it be a social construct then?
Those are difference between *people*, not races. You are getting
confused by rhetoric. "Asian baby" is an ambiguous term. It can mean
someone who fits a genetic profile. It can also mean a baby in asia.
Now, you are noticing that the two often go together. Which is fine,
and so this rhetorical idea of 'race' is fine and valid. But
*statistically*, it falls apart entirely when you try to use it
scientifically, and all it means is that parents have no genetic
material to contribute to their offspring except their own. There is
*no* inherent correlation between various genetic traits, and your
concept of race does not have any real validity because of that.
>I would also like to know how do inequalities in abilities and status
>dveleops between social constructs that we call races.
They don't. That is bigotry. Variations in aptitudes and abilities
develop between *individuals*, not the imaginary rhetorical groups you
call races. Ones race cannot _cause_ a person to have any single
specific genetic trait, though certainly some traits will be more common
in certain families of people and their descendants, since that's the
way genetics works.
>Where can I find
>more information on that?
Pretty much anywhere that genetic groups are used in a valid scientific
context.
a_blue_dream
> > not comprehending the truth of the matter. *Races don't exist*.
> > Really! Outside of simple bigotry, you can't tell jack-shit about a
> > person from their genetic background.
> >
> > Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
> So you are telling me, for example, that asians could one day change as
> people, start growing taller and dominating NBA, while their genetic
> background did not change.
> >
there are more differences of features between people than just those
designated by 'race', for example, big ears, little ears. how come
people aren't classified as big ear people, little ear people? the
point is when you get down to it, genetically humans are the same,
hydrogen based creatures, and similarly, there are differences,
regardless of race.
it's like, let's say we go to mars and discover martians. we do tests
on them and come to learn what makes up a martian. one day, in the
lab, we find two of these martians fighting. what's up, you guys, we
ask. we find out they are enemy 'races', because they are from
different hemispheres, and one has green tenticles, the other has
blue-green. they had come to separate themselves in this way. this is
culture. this is what brings into existence the concept of 'race'.
we notice, hm, some of these martians have square eyes, others have
triangle eyes. wonder if they are classified as different races? to
find out, we would need to become familiar with martian cultures.
a_blue_dream
> I don't quite understand how race can be a social construct. Can you
> explain that to me. Obviously such thing as race exists as a biological
> truth. Asian parents for example will have asian baby. That baby will be
> more suceptible to some ailments than other babies, and less suceptible
> to other ailments than other babies. So obviously there are diffrences
> between what we call races. How can it be a social construct then?
the 'ailments' are culturally defined. where the lines are drawn are
the social constructs. see my response to you and t max delvin, about
aliens.
>
> I would also like to know how do inequalities in abilities and status
> dveleops between social constructs that we call races.
conditioning. social, political, geographical circumstances. i can
think of a few examples. i may come back to elaborate..
Where can I find
> more information on that?
>
> Mirza
the psychology and culture class i'm taking has a great text. it's
'psychology and culture' by dr. matsumoto.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Mirza Borogovac" <ha...@hdmagazine.com> wrote in message
news:3BFCBEEA...@hdmagazine.com...
> Pretty air tight study. Why is there still discussion about this sort of
> things? This seems like a pretty conclusive proof. What are
> contra-arguments to your conclusion?
Those who refuse to face the facts say all sorts of nonsense but what
really motivates them is that they wish the races were equal. This is what
they deaply wish was true. Most people work with Blacks and see they are
usually nice people. They don't want to offend the Blacks. Actually this is
a reasonable thing.
But White neighborhoods are much better than Black neighborhoods. If we
aren't going to tell the truth, that it is because of the difference in
intelligence, then the only thing left is to blame the Whites for oppressing
the Blacks. This is what is happening and it is one of the main tenets of
America. The Whites are unjustly blamed and the Blacks go along with this
injustice. 92% of the Blacks voted for Gore.
Nationalists are for having a nation for White people. Most Nationalists
are not against the Blacks as such but against the anti-White system. We
don't wish harm on the Black race but want to live with our own kind in
White neighborhoods.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Tris" <nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:1006438901.10438....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> This was a great paragraph (IMO) by @God.
>
> "So often we forget that the economic and technical failings of other
> peoples
> and nations, were directly due to the often barbaric practices of the
> alleged "civilized" peoples of the world. It was imperative, from the
> imperialist's point of view, that Europeans not see the native people of
the
> new worlds as being in any way civilized. Sound familiar?"
>
Here are some quotes from "The Oregon Trail" written by Francis
Parkman. It is a true story about his experiences with Indians. He travelled
to Oregon in 1846 and lived with Indians.
"For the most part, a civilized white man can discover very few points
of sympathy between his own nature and that of an Indian. With every
disposition to do justice to their good qualitites, he must be conscious
that an impassable gulf lies between him and his red brethren. Nay, so alien
to himself do they appear, that, after breathing the air of the prairie for
a few months or weeks, he begins to look upon them as a troublesome and
dangerous species of wild beasts."
"Assume , in the presence of Indians, a bold bearing, self-confident yet
vigilant, and you will find them tolerably safe neighbors. But your safety
depends on the respect and fear you are able to inspire."
"Against most of the neighboring tribes they cherish a rancorous hatred...
This fierce spirit awakens their most eager aspirations, and calls forth
their greatest energies. It is chiefly this that saves them from lethargy
and utter abasement. Without its powerful stimulous they would be like the
unwarlike tribes beyond the mountains, scattered among the caves and rocks
like beasts, and living on roots and reptiles. These later have little of
humanity except the form"
"Their religion, superstitions and prejudices were the same handed down
to them from immemorial time. They fought with the weapons that their
fathers fought with, and wore the same garments of skins. They were living
representatives of the "stone age"; for though their lances and arrows were
tipped with iron procured from the traders, they still used the rude stone
mallet of the primeval world."
"The surrounding group of savages offered no very attractive spectacle
to a civilized eye. Some were cracking the huge thigh-bones and devouring
the marrow within; others were cutting away pieces of liver, and other
approved morsels, and swallowing them on the spot with the appetite of
wolves. The faces of most of them, besmeared with blood from ear to ear,
looked grim and horrible enough."
"few beings have more curiosity than Indians in regard to subjects within
the ordinary range of thought. As to other matters, indeed, they seem
utterly indifferent. They will not trouble to inquire into what they cannot
comprehend, but are quite contented to place their hands over their mouths
in token of wonder, and exclaim that it is "great medicine". With this
comprehensive solution, an Indian never is at a loss. He never launches into
speculation and conjecture; his reason moves in its beaten track. His soul
is dormant"
Whites on average score much higher on IQ tests than Blacks. Liberals
then say the tests are not reliable and the rest of it. An intelligent
person would do better on the test than an idiot though.
And they say the Whites had a better education. They don't explain what
stopped the Blacks in Africa from buildings schools before the Whites ever
went there.
Their arguements are refuted in the book "My Awakening" by David Duke.
T. Max Devlin
Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard a_blue_dream say:
Well said, if a bit derivative of several old "Star Trek" episodes. A
very nice explanation of how race is culturally derived. Thank you very
much.
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >OK if you wanna talk math, let me ilustrate by math.
>
> I do not wish to talk math, if I did I'd be using math rather than
> language.
Well you do not seem to understand the language.
>
> >Lets say 0 is one
> >race, and 1 is another. [...]
>
> From that point on, you are assuming your conclusions. This is the
> point; you cannot represent a rhetorical group with a mathematical
> symbol. There will be some members in race '0' that will belong
> properly in race '1', and vice versa, and some ambiguous examples which
> may be both or may be neither. The genetic traits which you are basing
> your concept of race are not singular and unitary, they are family
> resemblance categories. That means no one genetic trait can define a
> race, and so no assignment of a person to a convenient category based on
> noticeable attributes will ever provide a statistically significant
> correlation with their abilities and talents.
Interesting point. But the fact is that groups of traits tha define race
seem to go together in a person. truth is human society is not mixed
enough for you to clam that there is no such thing as race.
>
> >> >The issue is are those diffrences caused by
> >> >genetic disposition or our curent enviroment.
> >>
> >> And the fact that you insist the two are somehow magically distinct.
> >
> >I do not insist, but common sense does.
>
> That would be you, insisting. Common sense has no bearing on scientific
> concepts.
Again re-examine my dog example.
>
> >Dog, for example, is geneticaly
> >predetermined to be a dog.
>
> Actually, that is not entirely true, since dogs are really genetically
> predetermined to be wolves.
Not really. Wulves are diffrent species and they cannot be domesticated.
If you domesticate a wulf, they will kill you eventually. But that is an
unimportant point.
>
> >No enviroment will make a human out of a dog.
>
> That isn't necessarily true. Any environment and hundreds of millions
> of years of natural selection and random mutation may well make a human
> (that is, a sentient animal) out of a dog. Or a wolf, as it were. The
> word 'will' is, of course, problematic, since contingency has no will,
> and neither do biological species.
Well I am not talking about dogs in general, but about a single dog.
>
> >Could races be genetically predetermined in the same way?
>
> Not unless you practice eugenics for a large enough number of
> generations in a short enough period of time. Without a cold brutal
> program of killing all unfit infants, and breeding children at the age
> of puberty, natural selection and the will of the subjects is going to
> screw up your attempt to predetermine the predispositions in the way you
> are imagining.
The question is not if we can make races geneticaly predetermined., the
question is if they alredy are. Plus I am not dealing with milions of
years, that it would take to change human species. I am asking about
situation as it is now.
>
> >> >Older black people, for
> >> >example, are high risk group for heard desease. This could be because of
> >> >genetic disposition, or it could be cultural: perhaps blacks have more
> >> >stress in their life, or eat more greasy food.
> >>
> >> I think you want to mean 'higher risk', rather than 'high risk'. The
> >> fact is that all older people are high risk for heart disease. You
> >> confuse statistical relevance for reality. A common occurrence in the
> >> modern world, nothing to be ashamed of. Still, it is a mistaken
> >> perspective.
> >
> >Still you are missing a point. Example is supposed to show the diffrence
> >between enviroment and heredity and how two can owerlap.
>
> And you are missing the point, because it didn't show what it was
> supposed to show. The two do not 'overlap', they are simply
> indistinguishable, if you don't have a predefined method of
> distinguishing them. You are using floating abstractions as if they
> were analytical scientific terms, which is why your conception of race
> is causing you to be a racist.
Enviroment vs. genetic predisposition are distinguishable. It is
possible to design an experiment to determine what is an effect of
genetic predesposition and what is the effect of enviroment. Scientist
do that all the time in controled experiments.
>
> >> >> As for how low melanin levels can 'possibly be due to environment', the
> >> >> answer is natural selection.
> >> >
> >> >Well natural selection really does not count as a factor in recent
> >> >humant human history.
> >>
> >> Depends on what you mean by 'recent'. How 'recent' did whites diverge
> >> from blacks. Do you know? Can you tell?
> >
> >Does it mater? Fact is they did.
>
> It matters because the question is not whether they did, but whether
> natural selection 'counts as a factor' in recent human history. The
> divergence need not have happened in recent history for the divergence
> to count as a fact in recent history. But if you aren't using the terms
> whites and blacks in a method with scientific integrity, as indicated by
> the fact that you don't think it matters where or when you identify the
> divergence to have occurred, then you are simply ignoring race and
> talking about skin color. You can't actually believe that skin color
> makes people "good at being janitors", could you?
Changes in genetic code of humans have not occured in last few thousat
years of human history. fact is humans really did not chage last 100,000
years, so we can treat evolution as nonexistant in human history. I mean
honestly we are not fruit flies. It takes us a while to evolve.
As for what a race is, don't you think that races today differ in more
than just a skin colour?
.
>
> What would that make me? Delusional, perhaps? Some people are more
> delusional than others, and you are more delusional than most, since
> most people understand why 'race' is no longer considered a valid
> scientific concept.
Well I remember in my psychology book studies between races, various
charts and graphs, etc. But all that is a mute point coz I saw a black
person today, so they obviously exist. I also saw some asians too. How
can you deny reality? Obviously diffrent races exist, and scientist
study them.
>
> >Next thing you will tell me
> >is that there are no diffrences between sexes.
>
> You see how easily delusion leads to more delusion? First you
> misabstract my claim, then you turn it into a straw man, and now you've
> got a whole 'argument from ignorance' thing going to make an even bigger
> straw man. Next you'll be burning crosses on my front lawn.
So wait, are there diffrences between sexex or not? You ridiculed, but
not refuted my point.
I would also like to know why you consider me a racist. Obviously I
showed no hate or contempt toward other races. Or did I? How did you
come to a conclusion that I was gonna burn crosses on your lawn?
>
> >> That's all there is to it; it is a
> >> scientific fact. Not a "I refuse to consider it false" fact; that's not
> >> science. A "Sure, it is possible, but not a single fact you've provided
> >> even suggests, let alone proves, that it is true" fact.
> >
> >Where is that fact stated? Where is it proven.
>
> I don't know, precisely, it would require scientific learning to find
> out. Go for it. Lord knows you need it.
>
> >How come it contradicts
> >reality?
>
> Because you have a loose grasp on 'reality' and so your perception is
> that the two are contradictory, when in fact they are not.
Ok. I totaly lost what we were talking about here.
>
> >How can you rely on science over common sense.
>
> I understand both.
hardly. You seem to think that Races do not exist when they obviously
do.
>
> >And if race does
> >not exit, how come scientists measure all kinds of statistics on
> >diffrent races. Are they dilusional too?
>
> No, because they are using the term properly, if they use it at all, to
> mean a family resemblance category of genetic traits.
So when they say "african american" or Whites" how is that diffrent from
how I use the term race.
> It is those
> scientists measuring those statistics that show that no single trait is
> ever statistically significant for determining any other trait.
I would like to see that research. Most reseach I saw show correlation
between race and what ever is measured. Infact, you making a clam that
no single trait is statistically significant to determine any other
trait is unscientific because you cannot know that for sure unless you
test every trait with every other trait in extremely controled
experimets to tedermine that, and that has not been done. In fact I know
that you are wrong because it has been shown, for example, that people
with blue eyes have worse reaction time than people with brown eyes. So
it seems to me that you are making stuff up.
> The
> black people in the mountains of Kenya are great runners because they
> are from the mountains of Kenya, and the fact that they are black has
> nothing much to do with it at all.
has that been scientificaly proven? I doubt it.
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> There are an *infinite number* of differences, Mirza. You simply are
> >> not comprehending the truth of the matter. *Races don't exist*.
> >> Really! Outside of simple bigotry, you can't tell jack-shit about a
> >> person from their genetic background.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
> >
> >So you are telling me, for example, that asians could one day change as
> >people, start growing taller and dominating NBA, while their genetic
> >background did not change.
>
> No, Mirza, no ethnic group can ever "change as people". This is the
> point. Individuals mutate, and natural selection does the rest. This
> is the same as what you've described as "changing their genetic
> background", and it is called evolution. The term 'asian' becomes a
> floating abstraction for 'whatever genetic background is common in
> asia', and is otherwise meaningless. Hence, race does not exist. You
> see how that works?
>
To acomplish change you are talking about, it would take milions of
years. Written history is only 6 thousant years old. That is why
evolution is not a factor in human history. To say that races don't
exist because people are constantly evolving it ludicrous. Common
genetic background in asia will be there for a looooong time, unless
races mix, and even that will take some time and it is irrelevant to
here and now. Let's call people with common asian genetic background
asian race. Let's call people with common europen background white, etc.
Mirza Borogovac
a_blue_dream wrote:
>
> there are more differences of features between people than just those
> designated by 'race', for example, big ears, little ears. how come
> people aren't classified as big ear people, little ear people? the
> point is when you get down to it, genetically humans are the same,
> hydrogen based creatures, and similarly, there are differences,
> regardless of race.
>
That is not disputed.
> it's like, let's say we go to mars and discover martians. we do tests
> on them and come to learn what makes up a martian. one day, in the
> lab, we find two of these martians fighting. what's up, you guys, we
> ask. we find out they are enemy 'races', because they are from
> different hemispheres, and one has green tenticles, the other has
> blue-green. they had come to separate themselves in this way. this is
> culture. this is what brings into existence the concept of 'race'.
>
> we notice, hm, some of these martians have square eyes, others have
> triangle eyes. wonder if they are classified as different races? to
> find out, we would need to become familiar with martian cultures.
All that is true. But what if there is more to race than just looks. If
there is a diffrence in apperance, could there be a diffrence in
physicall ability, behavior, mental stability, etc.
Mirza Borogovac
And since you are willing to accept the diffrence in outward aperance,
why not accept the possability that there might be other diffrences as
well?
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> > The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
> >> >nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second world
> >> >are the Arabs and China.
> >>
> >> That's not genetics; that's coincidence. Contingency, if you must.
> >> Random and meaningless, if you are smart.
> >
> >Well you both need to argue your case.
>
> Not at all. My case is presumed true until someone can prove it false,
> because it is scientific and supported by statistical truth. The fact
> that 'black nations and India are the third world' is not in dispute
> (thought it could be). It is the hidden teleology (black nations and
> India are the third world because they are black or Indian) that needs
> to be argued, so we can see whether it is false and consider the racist
> sentiments that underlie it.
not true. You did not merely deny his implied point, you made a
statement that diffrences that arrouse between cultures are a
coincidence. There is no way you or anyone can know that, so you need to
back up your claim with some argument, and he needs to back up his claim
too.. Your case is not scientific because you offer explanation and have
no proof.
>
> >> >It is just as racialists would predict.
> >>
> >> Or rather as they would assume, and thus conclude. So I take it you are
> >> a racist?
> >>
> >Let us not throw acusations and deal only with arguments. Atack his
> >arguments, not him personaly.
>
> That is his argument. It is a question, and if he gets offended, then
> the answer is probably "yes".
Maybe so. Point is you are talking about him personaly, and not about
his arguments. Stick to the topic of discussion.
> Either way, I'm not passing judgement, or
> trying to insult, just demanding honesty and a sound epistemological
> basis for the argument.
Well you are judging and insulting regardless of your intentions.
Calling people Racist is insulting, and it dwarfs the possability of
having any civilised discussion. Again use your common sense when
dealing with people. If you don't like his epistemological basis, than
ask a question, but not to the point of questioning the nature of good
and bad. Othervise any discussion is impossible.
> Otherwise it becomes simple circular reasoning,
> such as the hidden teleology I pointed out above, unsupported by any
> verifiable facts and unfalsifiable.
>
Again, question his assumptions, and his conclusions. he started out
from some facts we can agree upon. If you don't like his comcluions,
don't automatically throw mud in his face.
Mirza Borogovac
Tris wrote:
>
>
> This was a great paragraph (IMO) by @God.
>
> "So often we forget that the economic and technical failings of other
> peoples
> and nations, were directly due to the often barbaric practices of the
> alleged "civilized" peoples of the world. It was imperative, from the
> imperialist's point of view, that Europeans not see the native people of the
> new worlds as being in any way civilized. Sound familiar?"
>
I would also add to that, that western nation keep 3rd world countries
in dependence on foreign loans, trough exports of culture, and also a
lot of times trough meddling in internal afairs of the country. (US
supports various 3rd world dictatorships while trying to topple others)
> I said in response to Alex Vange's post of the Scarr article:
>
> Standard IQ tests are laughably unreliable. For a start, all the ones I've
> seen assume the subject is literate. Other factors involved are of course
> the education of the subject - for example, some IQ tests involve 'which
> word is the odd one out' - and of course how many IQ tests the subject
> has completed. Believe it or not, take a few 'standard' IQ tests and you
> should find them progressively easier.
Well that is why a well design experiment or study needs to minimise
those factors such as lewel of education, or cultural diffrences. In
this study all of the children were adopted into well educated white
families, so one can assume that level of education as well as cultural
diffrences were minimal.
Another point would be the question of exactly what do IQ tests measure.
But we can conclude that they measure "something"
>
> They should have studied the genealogy of each of the children. They did
> not have enough data to reach any satisfactory conclusion. Scarr, Weinberg,
> and Waldman, were wrong to test for environmental factors on only *one*
> generation, and Lynn and Levin have taken advantage of that.
>
> IMHO there is no way one could execute a satisfactory statistical analysis,
> such as the one you described above, because of all the factors involved.
> Did they measure their parents IQs, for example?
>
> Genes are, without doubt, a large factor in the the intelligence levels of
> humans. Intelligence also develops with education and nutrition. Were
> the biological parents, and their parents, and their parents, tested using
> IQ tests?
>
> All you can conclude with this sort of analysis is that a child whose
> parents had low IQs is likely to have a low IQ! I would like to see
> follow-up tests on each of the subjects in the original, and then the
> subjects' children, and their children. I suspect that the results of this
> analysis would suggest environment is a big factor in IQ test scores over
> *multiple* generations. I suspect that the IQs of all three groups would
> begin to converge.
>
All this you wrote is wrong. researchers should NOT have done any of
those things, Point is to have a RANDOM sample, and if sample is big
anough, one can caonclude that it represents population fairly
acurately.
> Did you know that since McDonalds was introduced to Japan, the average
> height of the Japanese has increased by a few inches?! The Westernisation
> of the Japanese diet -more dairy products, for example - has lead to
> increases in height and bulk in the younger generations of Japanese.
Yes, but genetic make up of Japanese did not change, so change came in a
single generation, unless it makes a diffrence if Mother ate burgers
during pregnancy.
>
> Difference in diet leads to difference in height. Ask yourself whether the
> average size of the brain would proportionately increase over generations,
> and whether IQ would increase as a result - given the same levels of
> education. Note: you would be unlikely to see a significant increase in IQ
> over only one generation.
>
The average size of a brain will increase ower generations only if diet
changes over generations. It has been proven that there is no "memory"
between generations and genetic make up is the only thing you get from
your parents. I find it doubtfull that McDonalds burgers can change
genetic make up.
> You might also like to look up studies of the Flynn effect.
Thanks. I am reading it now.
Mirza Borogovac
Alex Vange wrote:
> Whites on average score much higher on IQ tests than Blacks. Liberals
> then say the tests are not reliable and the rest of it. An intelligent
> person would do better on the test than an idiot though.
>
> And they say the Whites had a better education. They don't explain what
> stopped the Blacks in Africa from buildings schools before the Whites ever
> went there.
>
> Their arguements are refuted in the book "My Awakening" by David Duke.
Once upon a time darkness ruled the europe while civilisations were
being built in mediteranen and asia. White people actually belived that
bathing removed shield from the skin that protects people from deseases.
As a result White europe called itself "the land of christianity" but
everyone else called them "the land of people who do not bathe". Because
of that Europeans were killed by plaques that would ravage europe. It
was not untill invetion of printing press and Better sailing ships,
combined with the fact that Ottoman empire took over Byzantin empire, so
a new route to India neede to be found, that Europe started improving
and getting a civilization.
Mirza Borogovac
Alex Vange wrote:
> Those who refuse to face the facts say all sorts of nonsense but what
> really motivates them is that they wish the races were equal. This is what
> they deaply wish was true. Most people work with Blacks and see they are
> usually nice people. They don't want to offend the Blacks. Actually this is
> a reasonable thing.
I can agree with that.
>
> But White neighborhoods are much better than Black neighborhoods. If we
> aren't going to tell the truth, that it is because of the difference in
> intelligence, then the only thing left is to blame the Whites for oppressing
> the Blacks. This is what is happening and it is one of the main tenets of
> America. The Whites are unjustly blamed and the Blacks go along with this
> injustice.
I do think that whites deserve some blame for slavery and segregation,
but they also deserve some praise for ending the slavery and
segregation. I don't know if whites are unfairly criticised or not.
> 92% of the Blacks voted for Gore.
Which is a shame because Bush put more minorities into his cabinet than
Clinton ever did. Democrats are trying to buy votes with social
programs, but they don't seem to give them any real power. If that trend
continues, black race will, not only have no power, but it will be
dependant on state for survival.
>
> Nationalists are for having a nation for White people. Most Nationalists
> are not against the Blacks as such but against the anti-White system. We
> don't wish harm on the Black race but want to live with our own kind in
> White neighborhoods.
Well honestly withes do rule this country. I see afirmative action
actually hurting blacks because it treats them as "people who need
assistance". If someone were to see a black student at harward, one will
probably think "afirmative action" right away.
There are still black scientist and intelectuals. There is no question
that black individuals can make it in this society.
Mirza Borogovac
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Guffaw. It is rather trivial to find ignorance in your arguments, since
> you make very few factual claims. Get it?
No. Since I make few claims, You cannot be sure of my level of
knowledge.
>
> >If you do make a determination about me, I would
> >apreciate some examples in my arguments that you used to back up your
> >determination.
>
> I would think it would be more insulting if I were to lecture you than
> it is to simply point out you've made a mistake or error. Simply look
> at your text above my comment, and you should be able to figure out the
> problem yourself, if you are reasonable and honest about it.
You cannot be more insulting than calling me a racist and a bigot.
Noteice that I did not ever insult you or jump to conclusiona about you.
But I will therefore conclude that I am nicer and more polite person
than you are.
You do point out that I make an error, you just fail to adequatly
explain what the error is.
>
> Yea, so you claim. But I've enough experience with people who are
> assuming their conclusions to know that you would simply bicker with my
> abstraction of 'so-and-so', and would intentionally ignore
> 'this-and-that', as you have already been doing.
Well let's try again then from the beginning.
> You are ignorant
> because you believe race is predetermination of ability, when in fact
> race is not a concept with any real validity.
And why do you think that I belive that race is predetermination of
ability. I have been merely arguing the possability of race being
predetermination of ability.
>
> >I don't know if it's unlikely for something like that to occur because
> >scientific comunity is constanly doing research on diffrences between
> >races.
>
> No, they are doing research on difference in genetic populations.
well how ever you label it, race or genetic populations, makes no
diffrence.
> There
> is a great deal of value in there results, but none of it is supportive
> of your delusions about race.
What are my delusions about race?
> >> Only statistically, and only very carefully. I am better at language
> >> than math. Does that mean I'm female?
> >
> >No, but there is a higher probability that you are. Let me give you an
> >obvious example. Males are ON AVERAGE stronger than females. That means
> >that probability is that randomly picked male is stronger than randomly
> >pickes female. There could be women out there that can bench 400 lb, but
> >those are lonly bumps in the great planes left of the bell curve.
>
> Ah, yes. We've been waiting for that term to come up, haven't we?
Bell curve is more than a name for a contravesrial book. Do you know
what normal distribution is? Did you ever take probability and
statistics?
>
> When you plot /one attribute/ against any normative group, you get a
> bell curve.
This is vague. When you plot some measured quality vs. the number of
people that have a specific measurement you USALLY (not always) get a
"bell-curve" or normal distribution.
> This is statistically *meaningless*, however. While you
> can always invent a hypothetical average person who is 'better' at
> something than some other hypothetical person, this says nothing about
> biology all by itself, only your sampled group.
Not true. It has a meaning, not just in calculatin what the average is,
but to find out deviation from average, and from this you can draw all
kinds of conclusions. If you have two groups, and you wanna compare
them, you can make their bell curves owerlap and then you can graphicaly
see a diffrence. If you take a large enough random sample, you can
extend the bell curve to entire population.
> And once again I will
> remind you that flipping back to sex differences every time you run into
> trouble justifying racial differences, you undermine your argument.
That is because you do not understand what an analogy is.
>
> >> >There is a nice branch of mathematics called statistics,
> >> >that allows us to make acurate predictions about a group of people from
> >> >a sufficiently sized sample with calculated degree of acuracy.
> >>
> >> Yes, but only about a *group* of people, not about ANY person, whether
> >> included or excluded from the group. Male and female is a distinction
> >> with absolute scientific undeniability. Race is most definitely not.
> >
> >That is why you are better at language skills than math.
>
> Why? Is it because "Math is hard" or because 'Reading is fun'? Is it
> because I am female? Am I female?
I don't know. But if you are trully better at language skills than math,
than there is a slightly greater possability that you are a female
rather than male.
>
> >While it's
> >might be hard to decide for some individuals what race they are, there
> >are many people that are undenyably black or undeniably asian.
>
> And however hard it might be to examine your reasoning honestly, there
> are some people who are undeniably racist.
How is what I said above racist?
> >but for you I
> >will use bears. Nobody bred bears for specific tasks, but brown bears
> >are better suited for climbing trees than polar bears, and polar bears
> >are better suited for swiming than brown bears. Are you happy now?
>
> No, I am not. These are different species which cannot interbreed,
> whether through geography or genetics.
> Do you get it now? Hell, Mirza;
> most scientists will tell you that *species* is a dubious concept, and
> you're trying to hold onto backwards notions of race? Face it, it is
> prejudice, and you are a bigot, not a person with a well thought out
> hypothesis, but a delusional person that wants to ignore the evidence
> because it refutes your assumed conclusions.
I am pretty sure they can interbreed genetis vise, As for geography,
well diffrent human races come from diffrent places on earth.
Anywayz, we did not get to argue about race, and I did not present a
hypothesis, so you have no reason to call me a bigot. You do that coz
you are predjudiced agains me.
>
> >No it has not. Diffrent races obviously exist. Science cannot claim
> >othervise. And there are obvious diffrences between members of a
> >diffrent races. I don't see how science can deny relity.
>
> Skin color exists. Genetic families exist. Rhetorical groups of traits
> of family resemblance exist, and it is handy to refer to these as
> 'races'.
Well that is how most people refer to them, but I am glad that you agree
that diffrences exist.
> None of those are the 'obviously existing' races that you
> refer to, which is nothing more than the fact that some people are
> better suited for doing different things. It is up to those people to
> determine what those things are, for the most part,
Since for example brown skin usally goes with thick lips, could those
diffrent things for people to do somehow be grouped with those physicall
characteristics?
> and even a person
> who is a long distance runner from Kenya needs to train to be good at
> it. There are NO statistically significant *racial attributes*.
Making such absolute claim is unscientific.
> Only
> bell curves plotting a single attribute against a genetic group, because
> all genetic groups will produce bell curves when plotting single
> attributes.
But contraversy comes when you compare two bell curves
> To qualify as the 'obviously exist' kind of race you use to
> support your bigoted notions there must be a statistically significant
> correlation *between* attributes independent of genetic groups, and that
> simply doesn't happen in the real world. You are the one denying
> reality.
I did not say "there must be" I said that there could be. And there IS a
correlation between atributes of diffrent genetic groups. The question
is if those correlations are genetically predetermined or not.
>
> >> the fact that
> >> throughout history every single claim of racial superiority proves to be
> >> false,
> >
> >I would disagree with that. Lately claims of racial superiority have not
> >been proven wrong, it is just that an alternative explenation has been
> >found.
>
> You don't understand much at all about science if you think those are
> two different things.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. Finding alternative
explanation does not negate the first one. Both are possible
explanations in that case.
> [...]
>
> >but you
> >have no problem asking me to precisely define "good" and "bad".
>
> That was a rhetorical question, and it should have been obvious that it
> was meant to indicate that you don't have a proper definition, and were
> waving the two terms around simply to maintain your ignorant conclusions
> in the face of evidence.
No. It was not a conclusion, it was a question at the beginig of
discussion.
>
> Because you are obviously wrong and bigoted, and I know that no
> reasonable person would willfully be wrong. So I'm trying to point out
> how wrong your bigotry is, so that you can understand where you are
> mistaken in your notions about race.
nah. You are just being stubborn, coz I think that I am winning this
argument:)
>
> >> A stupid hypothesis, I have to say. We don't discover these things
> >> because, despite countless efforts to discover these things, all we have
> >> discovered is that there are no such things.
> >
> >There is no question that blacks, for example, do worse than whites in
> >college. The issue is if that is cause heredetary or enviromental. We
> >can discover an answer to that question.
>
> No, you can only assume your conclusion on that question.
Huh?
> You are
> trying to treat a rhetorical group (a loosely defined thing with no
> mathematical integrity at all) as if it were a deterministic causal
> effect.
Rhetorical? you yourself agreed that groups that share character traits
exist, you just refuse to use the term "race".
> You can make up an answer, perhaps, but there is certainly no
> scientific way to predetermine whether someone will do good in college
> based on genetic background.
But you can calculate the probability of how well that person will do
well in college.
> Stop looking at the average, Mirza, it is
> confusing you greatly. In the real world, there are only individuals,
> and none of them is average overall. Each human is unique, and an
> individual representing only themselves, and you insult all humans (most
> particularly yourself) when you forget that.
Each individual is unique, but they fit inside the curve. You can make
predictions about individuals, and also about groups of people.
>
> >> >This is another point that needs to be adresed in race relations. A
> >> >person cannot say anything contravertial without being acused of racism.
> >>
> >> A person cannot say anything racist without being accused of racism.
> >> Again, the 'controversy' is all in your head.
> >
> >How can a search for truth, and an open discussion be racist?
>
> By being fatally flawed and an apparent attempt to assume your
> conclusions.
I presented no conclusions, just asked questions.
>
> >What is it
> >that I said that was racist?
>
> Just about everything, since it seems to be motivated by a desire to
> scientifically justify your racial bias.
Well can you name something specific. Anything?
>
> >Well I am not saying what the cause is between corelations, but I am
> >opening that question for discussion. Does that make me a racist?
>
> If it were honest discussion, no. But it is not, since in science and
> free inquiry, a correlation which is determined to be necessary and
> sufficient is the definition of "cause".
No. Causation is not same as correlation.
> You are confusing cause with
> mechanism. Certainly understandable, and these two terms may flip
> concepts easily in various contexts. Nevertheless, you are saying that
> the cause must be genetic or environment, and that is an
> overly-simplistic and relatively stupid argument,
What else could it be other than genetis predisposition or enviroment?
Act of god?
> since it has already
> been conclusively disproved by more capable and open scientific
> investigations than you are capable of performing.
What has been conclusively disproved by more capable and open scientific
investigations than I am capable of performing? You are missing an
object in your sentence.
>
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >Well you are talking about problems that arise when one tries to
> >> >> >implement such tests. But I don't believe that we can hide behind
> >> >> >implementation problems. It is possible to test genetic differences.
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> But it is impossible to make valid determinations of whether the
> >> >> differences are 'good' or 'bad' in general.
> >> >
> >> >How is that? If research states that race X has on average a bigger
> >> >penis than race y, I think that most people would agree that members of
> >> >race X would be rather pleased with themselves, and members of race y
> >> >would be stigmatized.
> >>
> >> So if I have a fourteen inch cock, that means I'm black? Your
> >> homogenization of all individuals within the rhetorical group you call
> >> 'race' is what spoils your argument so completely. If research states
> >> that race X has a bigger penis, statistically, then they have simply
> >> defined 'race X' as "that genetic variation which has a bigger penis,
> >> statistically". Do you think it is simple coincidence that all previous
> >> research along these lines has FAILED to find any statistical
> >> significance in such isolated and singular facts? Is this going to
> >> result in yet another not-so-subtle claim that we "don't want to know"?
> >>
> >You are totaly missing the point of the example.
>
> No, Mirza, you are.
How can I miss the point of example? It's my example!
>
> >Penis size would be an
> >example of hereditary diffrence that can be interprited in population as
> >"good" or "bad".
>
> What proof of this do you have? The "fact" that men or women 'want'
> larger penises in themselves or their partners? I suppose you'll invent
> some 'biological imperative' to explain this?
I know what guys talk about. I know human nature. Penis size is
important.
Tris
Alex Vange <va...@i1.net> wrote in message
news:3bfd6...@news.newsgroups.com...
>
>
> http://stormfront.org
> www.spearhead-uk.com
> "Tris" <nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:1006438901.10438....@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > This was a great paragraph (IMO) by @God.
> >
> > "So often we forget that the economic and technical failings of other
> > peoples
> > and nations, were directly due to the often barbaric practices of the
> > alleged "civilized" peoples of the world. It was imperative, from the
> > imperialist's point of view, that Europeans not see the native people of
> the
> > new worlds as being in any way civilized. Sound familiar?"
> >
>
> Here are some quotes from "The Oregon Trail" written by Francis
> Parkman. It is a true story about his experiences with Indians. He
travelled
> to Oregon in 1846 and lived with Indians.
<snip>
You've proved @God's point.
Perhaps schools weren't important to the African people.
Tris
>
>
> Tris wrote:
> >
> >
> > This was a great paragraph (IMO) by @God.
> >
> > "So often we forget that the economic and technical failings of other
> > peoples
> > and nations, were directly due to the often barbaric practices of the
> > alleged "civilized" peoples of the world. It was imperative, from the
> > imperialist's point of view, that Europeans not see the native people of
the
> > new worlds as being in any way civilized. Sound familiar?"
> >
> I would also add to that, that western nation keep 3rd world countries
> in dependence on foreign loans, trough exports of culture, and also a
> lot of times trough meddling in internal afairs of the country. (US
> supports various 3rd world dictatorships while trying to topple others)
I agree, FWIW.
> > I said in response to Alex Vange's post of the Scarr article:
> >
> > Standard IQ tests are laughably unreliable. For a start, all the ones
I've
> > seen assume the subject is literate. Other factors involved are of
course
> > the education of the subject - for example, some IQ tests involve 'which
> > word is the odd one out' - and of course how many IQ tests the subject
> > has completed. Believe it or not, take a few 'standard' IQ tests and
you
> > should find them progressively easier.
>
> Well that is why a well design experiment or study needs to minimise
> those factors such as lewel of education, or cultural diffrences. In
> this study all of the children were adopted into well educated white
> families, so one can assume that level of education as well as cultural
> diffrences were minimal.
At what age were they adopted? What level of education did the children
have before the adoption?
> Another point would be the question of exactly what do IQ tests measure.
> But we can conclude that they measure "something"
Oh right, so if they measure 'something' that's ok. We might not know what
'something' is, but we can use it to conclude things about people?
Puhlease.
That's why I only talk about scoring on IQ tests. I don't conclude that IQ
tests have anything to do with intelligence.
No, one must also do follow-up studies. It isn't enough to test a few
children and never test them or anyone else again.
> > Did you know that since McDonalds was introduced to Japan, the average
> > height of the Japanese has increased by a few inches?! The
Westernisation
> > of the Japanese diet -more dairy products, for example - has lead to
> > increases in height and bulk in the younger generations of Japanese.
>
> Yes, but genetic make up of Japanese did not change, so change came in a
> single generation, unless it makes a diffrence if Mother ate burgers
> during pregnancy.
I didn't say the genetic make-up changed.
> > Difference in diet leads to difference in height. Ask yourself whether
the
> > average size of the brain would proportionately increase over
generations,
> > and whether IQ would increase as a result - given the same levels of
> > education. Note: you would be unlikely to see a significant increase in
IQ
> > over only one generation.
> >
> The average size of a brain will increase ower generations only if diet
> changes over generations. It has been proven that there is no "memory"
> between generations and genetic make up is the only thing you get from
> your parents. I find it doubtfull that McDonalds burgers can change
> genetic make up.
I didn't say they would. The genetic make-up, or genotype, changes
gradually. It is the phenotype - the result of the environment - which can
change abruptly.
T. Max Devlin
>
>> >OK if you wanna talk math, let me ilustrate by math.
>>
>> I do not wish to talk math, if I did I'd be using math rather than
>> language.
>
>Well you do not seem to understand the language.
Your perceptions are skewed, then.
[...]
>Interesting point. But the fact is that groups of traits tha define race
>seem to go together in a person.
"Seem to"? And on this you sand you will build your delusions?
>truth is human society is not mixed
>enough for you to clam that there is no such thing as race.
Truth is you are utterly mistaken, although I never said the word was
worthless. It just isn't sufficiently meaningful to be useful for much
more than bigotry. Genetics will never allow a mix of human traits that
will prevent you from imagining whatever bigoted notions of inferiority
you want, nor will culture become sufficiently homogeneous that you will
have any need to give up fearing people who are different.
>Again re-examine my dog example.
[...]
>Not really. Wulves are diffrent species and they cannot be domesticated.
I'm afraid you are mistaken; wolves and domesticated dogs can
interbreed, and so they are the same species, by some reckoning.
>If you domesticate a wulf, they will kill you eventually. But that is an
>unimportant point.
Rather, it is an imaginary point, as are most of your theories.
>Well I am not talking about dogs in general, but about a single dog.
No, you are talking about a single breed, as if there were no variation
in aptitude because all the dogs in the breed look similar.
[...]
>The question is not if we can make races geneticaly predetermined.,
Yes, it is.
>the
>question is if they alredy are.
It is already proven they are not, so the question returns to whether
you can recreate a once-disproved theory by making races genetically
predetermined.
>Plus I am not dealing with milions of
>years, that it would take to change human species. I am asking about
>situation as it is now.
The situation as it is now is that over millions of years, different
geographical areas have developed distinctive traits through natural
selection. You wish to premise bigotry on these traits, when in fact
there is no statistical relevance to your attempt to link obvious traits
like skin color to less obvious aptitudes such as 'business savvy' or
'talent at janitorial services' or whatever other prejudices you try to
use. It doesn't matter how many times you've gone over these things in
your head Mirza, your bigotry is not a supportable basis for any valid
theory or hypothesis.
[...]
>Enviroment vs. genetic predisposition are distinguishable.
Not at all. "Genetic predisposition" labels aptitude for some
environment in your formulation, and so it and environment are not
easily distinguishable, or even necessarily distinct.
>It is
>possible to design an experiment to determine what is an effect of
>genetic predesposition and what is the effect of enviroment. Scientist
>do that all the time in controled experiments.
You are using the terms incorrectly if you think this is a valid
description of anything scientists do. Scientists study genetics, not
genetic predisposition. They are seeking to correlate genetic code to
biological processes when they do that, not race to aptitude.
[...]
>Changes in genetic code of humans have not occured in last few thousat
>years of human history.
What makes you say that?
>fact is humans really did not chage last 100,000
>years, so we can treat evolution as nonexistant in human history. I mean
>honestly we are not fruit flies. It takes us a while to evolve.
We evolve at the same 'rate' as any other species, which is based on a
predictable frequency of genetic mutations (which we still undergo) and
the rate of change in contingencies of the environment (which varies
widely). That last makes it impossible to predict the actual rate of
evolution, since it is an essentially random influence. Whether you
believe humans' ability to change our environment increases or decreases
the rate of evolution in humans is debatable, and certainly any such
change is dwarfed by our more direct manipulations. But these
manipulations, too, can be considered contingent. (And if I'm not
mistaken, fruit flies have been around far longer than humans.)
>As for what a race is, don't you think that races today differ in more
>than just a skin colour?
I know that there is, indeed, NO statistically significant correlation
between race and anything but the most obvious racial traits such as
skin color. In other words, you are only assuming your conclusions when
you think that races themselves (rather than certain genetic families,
which are *not* linked to any concept of race) differ in any significant
way. When you can apply the term 'race' entirely independently of skin
color, you may try to argue that it isn't simple bigotry.
[...]
>Well I remember in my psychology book studies between races, various
>charts and graphs, etc. But all that is a mute point coz I saw a black
>person today, so they obviously exist. I also saw some asians too. How
>can you deny reality? Obviously diffrent races exist, and scientist
>study them.
Another block of wood heard from. It's been fun, but you are way to
intent on remaining stupid and ignorant for me to help you.
[...]
>> The
>> black people in the mountains of Kenya are great runners because they
>> are from the mountains of Kenya, and the fact that they are black has
>> nothing much to do with it at all.
>
>has that been scientificaly proven? I doubt it.
Feel free to check, Mirza. You can doubt it all you want, but that is
what I've been trying to tell you all along. Yes, they have
scientifically proven that visible 'racial characteristics' have NO
statistically significant correlation to intellectual aptitude. You are
just trying to inculcate your cultural bias by pretending it has
biological influence.
T. Max Devlin
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There are an *infinite number* of differences, Mirza. You simply are
>> >> not comprehending the truth of the matter. *Races don't exist*.
>> >> Really! Outside of simple bigotry, you can't tell jack-shit about a
>> >> person from their genetic background.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>> >
>> >So you are telling me, for example, that asians could one day change as
>> >people, start growing taller and dominating NBA, while their genetic
>> >background did not change.
>>
>> No, Mirza, no ethnic group can ever "change as people". This is the
>> point. Individuals mutate, and natural selection does the rest. This
>> is the same as what you've described as "changing their genetic
>> background", and it is called evolution. The term 'asian' becomes a
>> floating abstraction for 'whatever genetic background is common in
>> asia', and is otherwise meaningless. Hence, race does not exist. You
>> see how that works?
>
>To acomplish change you are talking about, it would take milions of
>years.
It may. It can also happen somewhat cataclysmically, when a precipitous
change in environment follows a long period of static contingencies.
This is the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium'.
> Written history is only 6 thousant years old. That is why
>evolution is not a factor in human history.
That may be why it is not a factor in your reasoning, but this is merely
because you wish to ignore facts, not because evolution suddenly doesn't
exist if you maintain a narrow enough span of observation.
>To say that races don't
>exist because people are constantly evolving it ludicrous.
To say that races exist because people from different areas of the world
look different is not ludicrous, but it is ignorant.
>Common
>genetic background in asia will be there for a looooong time, unless
>races mix,
Woops.
>and even that will take some time and it is irrelevant to
>here and now.
Only if your intention is to maintain your bigotry rather than to
recognize that there is no genetic predetermination of ability linked to
visible characteristics of race.
>Let's call people with common asian genetic background
>asian race. Let's call people with common europen background white, etc.
Fine. Just doesn't try to claim that labeling has anything to do with
identifying their capabilities or abilities, and you won't be a bigot
who misuses the term to fuel your prejudice.
T. Max Devlin
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>And since you are willing to accept the diffrence in outward aperance,
>why not accept the possability that there might be other diffrences as
>well?
Because science has proven that such theories have no validity, that's
why. Some people are good at some things. Some people look certain
ways. There is NO correlation whatsoever between the two. Get it?
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>> we notice, hm, some of these martians have square eyes, others have
>> triangle eyes. wonder if they are classified as different races? to
>> find out, we would need to become familiar with martian cultures.
>
>All that is true. But what if there is more to race than just looks. If
>there is a diffrence in apperance, could there be a diffrence in
>physicall ability, behavior, mental stability, etc.
Only if those traits are somehow linked to the ones for looks. People
have tried before to verify that these other things correlate with
appearance due to genetic backgrounds. They succeeded in conclusively
proving that there is no such thing. Why are you having trouble
understanding this? I guess all those blacks in the NBA just make it
too hard for you to believe that it is true? Well, it is still true,
but you have to stop assuming your conclusions before you will be
capable of understanding how the two are not contradictory.
T. Max Devlin
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
>> >> >nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second world
>> >> >are the Arabs and China.
>> >>
>> >> That's not genetics; that's coincidence. Contingency, if you must.
>> >> Random and meaningless, if you are smart.
>> >
>> >Well you both need to argue your case.
>>
>> Not at all. My case is presumed true until someone can prove it false,
>> because it is scientific and supported by statistical truth. The fact
>> that 'black nations and India are the third world' is not in dispute
>> (thought it could be). It is the hidden teleology (black nations and
>> India are the third world because they are black or Indian) that needs
>> to be argued, so we can see whether it is false and consider the racist
>> sentiments that underlie it.
>
>not true. You did not merely deny his implied point, you made a
>statement that diffrences that arrouse between cultures are a
>coincidence.
I don't think I'd have ever said such a thing. But which specific
traits are used to distinguish cultures are certainly nothing more than
coincidental, if not circumstantial.
>There is no way you or anyone can know that, so you need to
>back up your claim with some argument, and he needs to back up his claim
>too.. Your case is not scientific because you offer explanation and have
>no proof.
My case is scientific because scientists have already done these things.
I need not and cannot repeat their efforts here, and you're going to
have to come up with something better than an argument from ignorance to
refute the scientific findings.
[...]
T. Max Devlin
>
>> Guffaw. It is rather trivial to find ignorance in your arguments, since
>> you make very few factual claims. Get it?
>
>No. Since I make few claims, You cannot be sure of my level of
>knowledge.
I can be sure of nothing; I am not working on blind faith or bigotry. I
can make a reasonable if inferential assessment of the level of
ignorance it would take before someone could be stupid enough to make
claims like you are making. That is more than sufficient to find
ignorance rampant throughout your arguments, since you make so few
claims which can be used to verify the possibility that you have any
knowledge to speak of at all.
[...]
>You cannot be more insulting than calling me a racist and a bigot.
Those are meant as descriptions, not insults. If you find them
insulting, then I presume you think they are bad things to be. Which
only furthers my consternation as to why you are being a racist and a
bigot.
>Noteice that I did not ever insult you or jump to conclusiona about you.
You insult my intelligence, Mirza, by simply presenting these silly
issues as if they should be taken seriously.
>But I will therefore conclude that I am nicer and more polite person
>than you are.
Using the context of your trolling on Usenet, I'll be happy to give you
the honor of being the nicest and most polite racist bigot around.
>You do point out that I make an error, you just fail to adequatly
>explain what the error is.
I've tried, Mirza, believe me. You seem to have trouble grasping the
explanation.
[...]
>And why do you think that I belive that race is predetermination of
>ability. I have been merely arguing the possability of race being
>predetermination of ability.
Quibbling will not help you, because BOTH cases have been scientifically
disproved.
[...]
>well how ever you label it, race or genetic populations, makes no
>diffrence.
If that is so, I would expect you to cease using 'race' altogether when
discussing any of these issues, since it makes you look like an ignorant
bigot.
>> There
>> is a great deal of value in there results, but none of it is supportive
>> of your delusions about race.
>
>What are my delusions about race?
Your delusions about race are that there is *the possibility of* some
correlative link between visible attributes and aptitudes.
[...]
>Bell curve is more than a name for a contravesrial book. Do you know
>what normal distribution is? Did you ever take probability and
>statistics?
When you plot any /one attribute/ against a normative group, you get a
bell curve.
>> When you plot /one attribute/ against any normative group, you get a
>> bell curve.
>
>This is vague. When you plot some measured quality vs. the number of
>people that have a specific measurement you USALLY (not always) get a
>"bell-curve" or normal distribution.
<>
>> This is statistically *meaningless*, however. While you
>> can always invent a hypothetical average person who is 'better' at
>> something than some other hypothetical person, this says nothing about
>> biology all by itself, only your sampled group.
>
>Not true. It has a meaning, not just in calculatin what the average is,
>but to find out deviation from average, and from this you can draw all
>kinds of conclusions.
Most of them false, apparently.
>If you have two groups, and you wanna compare
>them, you can make their bell curves owerlap and then you can graphicaly
>see a diffrence. If you take a large enough random sample, you can
>extend the bell curve to entire population.
You are not comparing the groups or the entire population, though. You
are comparing the averages or the means or the deviation or whatever
other abstracted statistic you wish to compare. This STILL doesn't
provide the kind of correlations you think "might" be found, and in fact
studious efforts have attempted to find them, and concluded that they
are not there to be found.
>> And once again I will
>> remind you that flipping back to sex differences every time you run into
>> trouble justifying racial differences, you undermine your argument.
>
>That is because you do not understand what an analogy is.
No, it is because you do not have an argument, so you are trying to
claim that one biological distinction between individuals is only an
"analogy" for an entirely separate biological distinction.
[...]
Litheum
> the Nay Sayer wrote:
> >
> >
> > Has nothing to do with genetics, everything to do with environment.
> > In fact, on the genetic level, there is no such thing as 'race'. It
> > in reality doesn't exist.
>
> Obviously that is not true. White people, for example, are more
> sensitive to sun which makes them higher risk group for skin cancer. I
> don't see how that can possably be due to enviroment.
How did white people become white, through the process of evolution
that takes place because of your environment. Everything that involves
race or variations of the species involves race. You should say Nature
and Nurture.
> > Most human beings are more likely to be
> > genetically similar to someone outside of thier 'race' than someone
> > who's part of their 'race'.....
> >
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Mirza Borogovac" <ha...@hdmagazine.com> wrote in message
news:3BFE42B5...@hdmagazine.com...
>
>
> Once upon a time darkness ruled the europe
No, never happened.
while civilisations were
> being built in mediteranen and asia. White people actually belived that
> bathing removed shield from the skin that protects people from deseases.
> As a result White europe called itself "the land of christianity" but
> everyone else called them "the land of people who do not bathe". Because
> of that Europeans were killed by plaques that would ravage europe. It
> was not untill invetion of printing press and Better sailing ships,
> combined with the fact that Ottoman empire took over Byzantin empire, so
> a new route to India neede to be found, that Europe started improving
> and getting a civilization.
Orwell said that he who controls the present controls the past. The Jews
control the present and therefore they control the "history" books.
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of Their
Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment". It is
subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are from the Aug
1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power
and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential
pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a
heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a
gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic attitudes, now
features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner. On
studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to undermine the
unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and all Jewish -
management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media and Rule
America"
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting System
(CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these three has been
under the absolute control of a single man over a long enough period of
time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff the corporation at every
level with officers of his choosing and then to place his imprint indelibly
upon it. In each case that man has been a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities Communications,
Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer
(CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a Jew...In an interview in
the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek, Goldenson boasted 'I built this company
(ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than half
a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the Jewish
"profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the contrary, new
Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at CBS is
Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two men....nearly
all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of reality, of good and
evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior are Jews. In particular,
Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only
Gentile who has had a significant role in TV entertainment programming in
recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment companies
and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross, Jew) Walt Disney
Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top entertainment CEOs listed
above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a lack of
real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also illustrates the
insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of opinion... The
Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several large and important
ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the
New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's largest trade book publishing
conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsideries; Newhouse
Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87
cable-TV systems, including some of the countries largest cable networks-
the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million
copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker,
Vogue, Madamoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's
Quarterly, Self, Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and
management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.
These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines for nearly
all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn't, at
national and international levels. They originate the news; the others
merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands...The Suzberger
family also owns, through the New York Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve
magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the Daily
News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish real-estate developer
Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern,
the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the United
States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO of Time
Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post
Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real estate
developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon & Schuster
, and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled by Jews...The
CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the president is Jeremy
Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens books, with
more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard
Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted Turner
isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our
political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving
them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Mirza Borogovac" <ha...@hdmagazine.com> wrote in message
news:3BFE463C...@hdmagazine.com...
>
>
>
> I can agree with that.
> >
> I do think that whites deserve some blame for slavery and segregation,
> but they also deserve some praise for ending the slavery and
> segregation. I don't know if whites are unfairly criticised or not.
Here is proof that the media is biased against Whites:
"A month ago I told you about the murder of two White girls, Tracy
Lambert and Susan Moore, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, as part of
the initiation of new members into the Black and Hispanic Crips gang.
I'm still receiving comments about that program. Apparently many
listeners -- especially those with Internet access -- checked out the
facts as reported in the Fayetteville newspaper, and they were shocked
that, just as I said, there was no media coverage of these terrible
murders outside the Fayetteville area. They were shocked that
virtually all of the mainstream media around the country would
deliberately hide the news of these racially motivated murders from
the White public -- and these were the same media which had made such
a sensation about the killing of a convicted Black drug dealer and his
girlfriend in Fayetteville by a White soldier, James Burmeister, in
December 1995.
But really, no one who has been listening to my broadcasts should have
been shocked. I have commented over and over again about the virtual
control of all of America's mass media by the Jews, and I have pointed
out many times that the Jews' policy is to disarm the White population
morally as well as physically by deliberately creating the false
impression that Whites are oppressors and victimizers, and non-Whites
are our innocent victims. They want us to feel guilty. They want us to
feel that it would be immoral for us to resist any of their schemes
for more non-White immigration, for more so-called "diversity" and
That is what the Jewish media bosses are deliberately pushing: the
destruction of our people through racial mixing, and they don't want
us to put up any resistance. And I am sorry to say, their program is
succeeding. When they send their step'n'fetchit Bill Clinton around
the country making speeches about how much he is looking forward to an
America with a non-White majority, about how any resistance to the
government's programs for the darkening of America would be
un-American, he is applauded by brainwashed young Whites who have been
deceived by this deliberately falsified media impression of Whites as
oppressors.
Now you know, I am making a pretty serious accusation. I am accusing
the Jewish population as a whole -- and the Jewish media bosses in
particular -- of planning our annihilation as a race, of planning to
commit genocide against us. And I don't want anyone to think that I am
basing my accusation on only the few instances of racially motivated
killings I already have cited: their suppression of the news of the
Fayetteville murders of two White girls by the Crips and their
sensationalizing of the news of the Fayetteville shooting of a Black
drug dealer and his girlfriend by a White soldier and of the dragging
death of another convicted Black criminal in Teaxas by three Whites.
Jewish media have deliberately covered up. The details aren't pleasant
-- in fact, they are shocking -- but I believe that many listeners
need to be shocked.
Let's begin with another crime which occurred in Fayetteville. This is
timely because the trial of the criminals began just last week. Here's
what happened: Donald Lange, a 25-year-old White soldier at Fort Bragg
accidentally bumped into a group of seven Black soldiers who were
going in. The Blacks began punching Lange while shouting racial
insults at him. They dragged him into the adjacent parking lot and
stomped and kicked him while continuing to shout racial epithets.
A witness in the trial of the Blacks, Tracye Cochran, was in the
parking lot where the assault took place. She told the court last
week, -- quote -- "The Black person who threw the first punch was the
one who knocked him down. . . . It dropped him down to his knees. He
got back up and got hit again. . . . I was walking toward the fight
screaming and hollering for them to leave him alone. . . . By then he
was just getting hit by people left and right." Another witness, Gina
Perez, testified that she saw eight or ten Blacks kicking and stomping
Lange as he lay on the pavement. She told of seeing one Black kicking
Lange in the face, causing his head to slam into the pavement and
bounce back. The Black would then kick him again, over and over. Perez
said, "They just kicked him to death. I remember him being on his
side, being kicked over and over again."
an example of why we must do something about "race hate." But
Mr. Clinton has responded to the stomping of Donald Lange with
silence.
If Donald Lange had been Black and his attackers White, the media
bosses would have had Janet Reno on television announcing that she was
sending in the FBI. The media would have been interviewing every
professional hate merchant: the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Morris Dees and his Southern
Poverty Law Center, and all the rest. The media would have made a real
circus of it, and the whole world would have had it drummed into their
consciousness: another hate crime against a poor, innocent Black by
White racists in Fayetteville.
In order to convince the media bosses that he was doing something to
"end hate" after the Burmeister shooting of the Black drug dealer, the
commanding general of Fort Bragg ordered a witch hunt among the White
soldiers on the base. Every White soldier was checked for tattoos that
might suggest a skinhead affiliation. As the media frenzy continued,
the witch hunt for White racists in the Army eventually spread to
other bases. Now, don't hold your breath waiting for the general at
beliefs and their gang affiliations because of what Blacks from the
there, and the general has better things to do with his time.
Last month a Black mob in Alton, Illinois, which is a suburb of St.
into their neighborhood looking for his stolen television set. As they
were beating and kicking 48-year-old Richard Skelton to death on
August 10, the Blacks hooted, laughed, and shouted racial insults,
according to a number of eye-witnesses.
Now, it's possible that you may have read a few words about this
racially motivated murder -- if you're a careful reader of the small
news items in the back pages of your newspaper. But you certainly
didn't see anything about it on television or read any detailed news
accounts, unless you live in the immediate vicinity of Alton. Even the
news accounts in Alton tried to excuse the Black murderers by
suggesting that Skelton may have precipitated the attack on himself by
using racially insensitive language in asking about his stolen
beating the unarmed White man. Black bystanders watched and shouted
encouragement to the attackers. Others joined in the attack, and soon
as many as 25 Blacks were beating and kicking Skelton. They continued
kicking him until he was dead.
Again, imagine the response of the controlled mass media if the races
of the victim and the killers had been reversed: a Black wanders into
a White neighborhood and is beaten to death by a mob of 25 Whites who
laugh and shout racial insults as the Black dies. My god, the media
would be apoplectic! They would be calling for martial law and a
roundup of all heterosexual White males who weren't registered
over and over and over again, along with sermons against White racism.
But as it is, most of my listeners are now hearing about last month's
racially motivated mob murder of Richard Skelton for the first time.
Here's another one that you may have read a few words about if you're
a news hound or if you live in eastern New York state. Earlier this
month in Poughkeepsie, New York, a town on the Hudson River about 70
miles north of New York City, police discovered the decomposing
corpses of seven White women and one Black woman in the house of
Kendall Francois. The women had been murdered over a two-year period,
with the latest being killed just a month ago. Francois is a
27-year-old Black man who works as a hall monitor in a nearby high
school. Affirmative action got him the school job even though he had a
previous arrest record. Francois was living with his mother and father
and younger sister -- and eight decaying corpses. Police found the
dead women lying on beds and in the midst of piles of rotting garbage
in various rooms of his house. Francois's parents and his sister, who
is employed as a nurse at a nearby hospital, said that they hadn't
was the odor of the garbage which had been allowed to accumulate in
the house. Francois had picked up the women, one at a time, taken them
to his house, had sex with them, and then strangled them.
Now, in a sense the murders of these women may not have been race
crimes. The women were all prostitutes, and aside from the fact that
Francois had a preference for killing White prostitutes, we don't
really know what his motive was for killing them...
The real racial angle to these killings is the media response -- or
lack thereof. Do you remember John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer? I'm
sure you do, even though Gacy was arrested 20 years ago and Dahmer
more than seven years ago. Both of them also were serial killers who
stashed the bodies of their victims in or under their houses. Both
received enormous publicity when police caught them -- so much that we
still remember them many years later. But they were both White...
Earlier this month a court in Colorado convicted Francisco Martinez of
participating in the abduction, gang rape, torture, and murder of a
14-year-old White girl, Brandy Duvall. Martinez and six other members
of the Black and Hispanic Bloods gang grabbed Brandy from a bus stop
girl to the house of one of the gang members and spent several hours
raping her and then sexually torturing her with a knife and a
broomstick. During the trial one of the gang members told the court
how Martinez laughed as he repeatedly rammed a broomstick into the
body of the bleeding girl while she screamed and pleaded for her life.
Later they stabbed the 14-year-old girl 28 times and dumped her body
in a ditch. Then they went home and disposed of the bloody mattress on
which she had been raped and tortured.
Four of the Bloods gang members have pleaded guilty, one other besides
Martinez has been tried and convicted, and one is still awaiting
trial. This case is reminiscent of the Fayetteville murders last month
of two White girls by members of the Crips. The Crips and the Bloods
are the two largest non-White gangs in the United States. Like the
Fayetteville murders, Brandy Duvall's murder and the subsequent trials
have received virtually no national news coverage, although
Denver-area newspapers did report them.
Once again, imagine the reaction of the television networks and all of
the other national media if instead of the Bloods raping, sexually
torturing, and murdering a 14-year-old White girl, seven Ku Klux Klan
members had done that to a Black girl or a Mexican girl. The gruesome
details would be on every television screen in America night after
night after night, and there would be no end to the parade of
politicians and preachers and professional hate merchants telling us
about the evils of White racism. We know that's what would happen,
recently in the dragging death of the Black convict in Jasper, Texas,
this summer.
Now, all of the Black-on-White crimes I've just mentioned -- the
became a mindless vegetable; the kicking of Richard Skelton to death
by a Black mob in Alton, Illinois, when he tried to retrieve his
stolen television set; the murder of seven White prostitutes by a
torture, and murder of 14-year-old Brandy Duvall by members of the
Bloods gang in the Denver area after they had snatched her from a bus
stop -- all of these either occurred during the past month or came to
trial during the past month. And I could have given you twenty more
recent examples of horrible race crimes committed by non-Whites
against Whites which have received the silent treatment by the media,
except in the areas where they occurred. And these are all crimes
which would have received extensive national publicity if they had
been White-on-Black crimes.
Anyway, I hope that I've made my point. And my point is that the
controlled media are far more likely to publicize White-on-Black
crimes than Black-on-White crimes. And this is not just a fluke. It's
not that I have carefully selected a few Black-on-White crimes which
somehow escaped the attention of the media. No, their way of dealing
with interracial crime is systematic. It is consistent. We all
understand that. If the Ku Klux Klan does something, the Jewish media
act as if the sky is falling. If the Bloods or the Crips do something,
they ignore it. There is no denying that. We know it's true.
So why do they do it? If I ask a non-Jewish newspaper writer or
television reporter or magazine editor: "Why do you and your
colleagues minimize the news of Black-on-White crime? Why are you
protective of non-White organizations such as the Bloods and the
Crips? Don't you believe that you have a responsibility to warn the
White public about the dangers posed for us by non-White crime in
general and by non-White gangs such as the Bloods and the Crips in
particular?
"And why do your colleagues maximize the news of any White-on-Black
crime? Why do you go ballistic if there's any possibility of a White
organizational connection, even if some racially oriented literature
is found in the White offender's possession? Don't you understand that
the Bloods and the Crips are essentially anti-White criminal
organizations, while the Klan can only be accused of having members
who sometimes do stupid things? Why do you deliberately create the
false impression in the public mind that White-on-Black crime --
that's what you call "hate crime" -- is a big problem in our society,
and at the same time you hide from the public the truly horrendous and
dangerous problem of Black-on-White crime? Why do you do it?"
I've never gotten really clear and honest answers to these questions.
But what is clear is that they all know how they're expected to report
the news. They know what the party line is. They know which side their
bread is buttered on. It's clear that the top media bosses have set
the fashion for reporting interracial crime, and no one who works for
them is willing to depart from the fashion.
That fashion, which is almost never stated explicitly, which is only
implied, is this: White people are evil -- especially heterosexual
White males. They have persecuted non-Whites for hundreds of years.
White people really shouldn't complain if non-Whites sometimes strike
back at them. That's only justice. When Blacks and Mexicans organize
in gangs, it's only to protect themselves from Whites. But when Whites
organize, it's to oppress non-Whites. Whites need to be reminded that
they are oppressors. That's why White crimes against non-Whites should
be emphasized. And if we're to have a happy and prosperous
multicultural society with lots of diversity, which is of course a
wonderful thing, then Whites need to mix more with non-Whites . . . so
we shouldn't give them any news which might make them reluctant to
mix. We shouldn't tell them about Black crimes against Whites, because
that might frighten White women away from Black men. It might even
lead Whites to organize against non-Whites. In the long run the only
sure way to have a peaceful society, in which everyone gets along with
everyone else, is to get rid of the White majority: to replace the
present White majority with a non-White majority. A lot of racial
mixing and racial intermarriage will help to achieve that, and we
should report the news with that aim in mind.
That is the prevailing fashion in the controlled mass media today,
whether the media people will admit it or not. That fashion has been
set deliberately by the media bosses. And I, curious and inquisitive
person that I am, have looked at where that fashion is taking us, and
when I have done that I have looked into the face of death: racial
death, racial extinction. And I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have
decided that the Jewish media bosses who designed the current fashion
in reporting the news have in fact designed it with that aim in mind.
And I also have decided that it is our responsibility to ourselves, to
our posterity, to our ancestors, and to the God of Nature which made
us what we are to use any and all means -- any and all means -- to
combat these Jewish media bosses and their collaborators in the
government, in the schools, in the churches, and wherever else we find
them."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com.
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
or e-mail: nati...@NatVan.com please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.
>
> > 92% of the Blacks voted for Gore.
>
> Which is a shame because Bush put more minorities into his cabinet than
> Clinton ever did. Democrats are trying to buy votes with social
> programs, but they don't seem to give them any real power. If that trend
> continues, black race will, not only have no power, but it will be
> dependant on state for survival.
> >
>
> Well honestly withes do rule this country. I see afirmative action
> actually hurting blacks because it treats them as "people who need
> assistance". If someone were to see a black student at harward, one will
> probably think "afirmative action" right away.
>
Jews rule the country and they intend to destroy the White race.
"Hello!
Last week I gave an interview to an English-language radio station in
Teheran. The program was "The Islamic Voice of Iran." We talked about a
number of things, including Ariel Sharon's visit to the White House,
which was taking place at the time, and about President Bush's
popularity ratings. The Iranian interviewer asked me whether Bush would
take a more sensible, pro-American policy in the Middle East or would
continue taking orders from Israel, to the detriment of American
interests, the way the Clinton administration had.
Of course, I explained to him that there was really no difference
between Republicans and Democrats in that regard. They both dance to
whatever tune the Jews are playing at the moment, and that George Bush
would no more dare to disobey the Jews than Bill Clinton would. I told
the Iranian interviewer that there are minor differences between the
Republican Party and the Democratic Party, with the Democrats pandering
a bit more to the welfare class and the Republicans paying a bit more
lip service to things such as military preparedness and energy
production, but that on the really essential issues -- immigration,
racial policy, media control, foreign policy -- both parties do what
they're told and don't give the Jews any back talk.
The Iranian had a hard time understanding this. If one party -- the
Democrats, say -- were controlled by Jews and supported Jewish
interests, then surely there would be another party -- presumably the
Republicans -- representing the interests of the American people. He
couldn't understand how the Jews, making up only 2.5 per cent of the
U.S. population, could have the whole political process under their
control and in particular could dictate U.S. foreign policy in the
Middle East, regardless of who is in the White House and which party
controls the Congress. What about the other 97.5 per cent of the
population? They also have interests, and they can vote. Why aren't
their interests supported by some political party?
The difficulty my Iranian interviewer had in understanding how politics
works in America has two facets. One of these is the dominant influence
the mass media of news and entertainment, which are largely in the hands
of the country's very small Jewish minority, have on public opinion and
attitudes, on the mass culture, and on the political process. In Iran
tradition is much more important in determining public opinion. And Iran
is a much more homogeneous country, at least in a cultural and religious
sense, than is the United States. In America the media have to a large
extent weaned the people away from their traditions and from their
cultural and religious roots and substituted a made-in-Hollywood
trash-culture with ersatz traditions in their place. The media are
increasingly important in influencing public opinion everywhere in the
developed countries -- even in Iran, no doubt -- but nowhere has the
process been as thorough and as destructive as it has been in the United
States.
A second barrier to understanding is the subtlety and indirection which
is used by the media bosses in achieving their aims. They almost never
make a head-on attack against the traditions or values of the host
population. They look for conflict, for inconsistency, for vice or
hypocrisy or weakness, and they exploit it to gain a foothold. Then they
use one facet of popular belief or tradition to undermine another. For
example, they will proclaim themselves champions of "fair play," and
then they will persuade the public that fair play requires that no
distinction be made between Asians and Europeans in setting immigration
policy. If we let Englishmen and Germans and Swedes into America, then
it wouldn't be fair to keep out Vietnamese and Chinese and Pakistanis,
they tell us.
Or they will play on the average American's resentment of governmental
interference in his private affairs to promote the idea that
homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality and that neither the
government nor individuals should make a distinction between the two.
What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else's
business, therefore the government should require landlords, employers,
Boy Scout troops, and everyone else to treat homosexuals just like
heterosexuals: a bit of a non sequitur, but the media have been
remarkably successful at using such illogical arguments to shift public
opinion on a number of issues.
And because the media are able to influence public opinion so strongly,
all the politicians, Republicans as well as Democrats, dance to their
tune. The politicians understand that the tiny Jewish minority, only 2.5
per cent of the population, through their control of the media are the
single most important influence on the public's perception of issues, of
government policies, and of the politicians themselves -- and
consequently are the single most important influence on the outcome of
elections. And it is for this reason that everyone can safely count on
George Bush's policy toward Israel being whatever the Jews want it to
be.
Anyway, although I explained this as clearly as I could to my Iranian
interrogator, I think he didn't really believe me. He was ready to
accept the fact that the Jews are a very bad influence on American
policy in the Middle East, but he couldn't accept the fact that through
their control of the mass media of news and entertainment they have made
irrelevant and meaningless the whole idea of mass democracy. He couldn't
assimilate the idea that party politics in America has become just a
shell game to keep the rubes confused about what's really happening and
who's running the country. He knew that Jews are bad news, but he
couldn't grasp the fact that the most powerful country in the world,
economically and militarily, is so totally in their malign grip.
And really, when I try to put myself in the Iranian's shoes, it's hard
for me to believe it myself: a mere 2.5 per cent of the population, a
historically despised and hated group who have been kicked out of every
country in Europe, and there's not a single mainstream American
politician brave enough to defy them; a tiny, clannish group who have a
stranglehold on the mighty American nation; a case of the tail wagging
the dog. How do they do it? It doesn't seem possible.
Well, of course, it is possible, and I'll tell you how they do it: they
do it with images and myths. They do it by controlling the perceptions
that most people have of the world around themselves. The Jews create
myths about what the world is like and then generate false images to
match the myths. And they project these myths and false images of the
world into the minds of their hosts.
I'll give you a specific example of this. There is a new film out by
Universal Pictures. It's called The Fast and the Furious. It's a film
directed at White teenagers, a film designed to give them a particular
image of the world and instill in them a myth about the way the world
works. It's a film about modern, urban teenagers -- specifically street
gangs in Los Angeles -- and cars and street racing. That might seem
harmless enough, but the street racing is just a gimmick on which to
hang the message, and that message is that the world is multicultural,
and it's good that it's multicultural. It's good not to live in a White
world, with White friends and White role models and White values and
White standards and traditions. That's boring. That's not cool.
The message is that there's nothing special about being White. The
message is that if one is White, then one should hang out with Blacks
and Asians and mestizos. One should behave like non-Whites, talk like
them, dress like them, be like them. That's what's cool. That's what's
sexy. That's what everybody who's really cool is doing. And when you
feel like having some sex, you just reach for whoever is nearest. It
doesn't matter at all what race the other person is. If you're a White
girl, it's especially cool to have sex with a Black or Asian or mestizo
male.
That's the most obvious message of the film, but actually it's more than
that. It's not really that the film says race doesn't matter, that we're
really all the same; that culture doesn't matter, that all cultures are
equivalent. The film says that Whites should become non-White, because
non-White is better. The cultural milieu of the film is not raceless or
a little of this and a little of that. The cultural milieu is Black. The
culture is hip-hop. The music is hip-hop. The clothing style, with the
baggy shorts and the rest, is hip-hop. It's Black. That is the world
into which White teenagers should blend, the world to which they should
subordinate themselves.
Surely, White teenagers aren't actually absorbing that message. Are
they? Yes, unfortunately, many of them are. The Fast and the Furious is
drawing bigger crowds than any other film produced by Hollywood this
season. It grossed $78 million in its first ten days. White teenagers
are flocking to it more than to any other movie. The attraction, of
course, is the action, the street racing, the exciting car stunts.
That's the gimmick that pulls them in. But that's not the message. The
message -- which of course, is subliminal: that is, which is intended to
change the kids' perception of the world at a subconscious level -- is
exactly what I just described: it's cool to be part of the hip-hop
culture; it's cool to be multicultural; it's cool not to act White,
think White, or be White.
That's the message, and it's a Jewish message: Jewish in its conception,
Jewish in its promotion, Jewish in its genocidal intent.
You think I'm imagining things? I'll read to you from a story about the
film in last Saturday's edition of the Los Angeles Times. I quote:
"Hollywood was stunned when the youth-oriented action film The Fast and
the Furious streaked past the competition to become the number-one movie
. . . With its relatively unknown cast of Latinos, Asians, and
African-Americans, heavy doses of high-speed chases, and a driving
hip-hop soundtrack, the movie defied expectations . . . . But the
teen-oriented movie's success isn't so surprising when one glimpses the
youthful crowds flocking to theaters . . . . With their ultra-baggy
cargo shorts, doo-rags wrapped around their heads, and bodies festooned
with tattoos and piercings, the look of these young moviegoers mirrors
the multiethnic melange of actors on the screen. . . .
"Hollywood likes to pride itself on being ahead of the cultural curve,
but with last summer's sassy white-versus-black cheerleading comedy
Bring It On grossing $68.4 million domestically and this winter's Save
the Last Dance, with its once-taboo interracial dating, raking in more
than $90 million in North America alone, the studios have only begun to
catch up with the colorblind nature of today's MTV generation.
"Rob Cohen, who directed The Fast and the Furious, said the film not
only reflects today's "multiculti" youth culture without purposely
drawing attention to it, but depicts what is really going on. When the
movie opened, it drew a cross-section of races, Cohen said. Surveys
taken at theaters where The Fast and the Furious played showed that 50
per cent of moviegoers were white, 24 per cent were Hispanic, 10 per
cent were black, and 11 per cent were Asian. "I look at this and go,
'This is exactly what I'm talking about,'" Cohen said. . . . Attracting
a young audience across the country -- a mainstay of big summer popcorn
hits -- The Fast and the Furious has grossed an estimated $78 million in
less than two weeks and is on track to make well over $100 million." --
end of quote --
I want to emphasize a couple of things in what I just read to you,
besides the fact that the director of the film is the Jew Rob Cohen and
the studio is Universal Pictures, owned by the Jew Edgar Bronfman.
First, note that Mr. Cohen is very much aware of the racial angle in his
film. That's all he talks about, not the racing stunts. And note that he
says he put the racial propaganda into his film in way that would not
"draw attention to it": that is, he put it in as subliminal propaganda.
One other thing: the story in the Los Angeles Times implies that this
film and other films like it are imitating society, not the other way
around. But that's not true. These Jewish films are propaganda
deliberately designed to move society in the direction the Jews want it
to go. White kids didn't start wearing baggy shorts and backward
baseball caps and listening to rap music and using jive talk just
because that's what young Blacks were doing: it was Jewish films and
Jewish television and Jewish advertising that pushed them in this
direction, that persuaded them it is cool to imitate Blacks.
The Times story refers to the studios catching up with "today's MTV
generation." But really, how did it become the "MTV generation"? That
name is appropriate just because it is MTV which has been the single
largest influence on White teenagers in moving them away from their
roots in their own race and making rootless cosmopolitans out of them.
MTV has been the foremost promoter of the hip-hop lifestyle among young
Whites. And I hardly need to remind you that it is the very Jewish
Sumner Redstone, originally known as Murray Rothstein to his parents,
who owns MTV. Redstone's MTV and his Paramount Pictures studio may be a
little ahead of the other Hollywood studios, but they're all pushing in
the same direction as hard as they can.
This is an essential point: namely, that the Jewish media are pushing
our society, and not the other way around, and the Jews are
understandably reluctant to admit that. Last Saturday's Los Angeles
Times story interviewed another Jewish film producer in this regard, and
I quote from the story: "Marc Abraham, one of the producers of Bring It
On, noted: 'There is a much more interracial aspect in today's culture
than the way this country used to be. Any movie that reflects that --
and it doesn't mean they'll all be hits like The Fast and the Furious --
will ring true with the audience.'" -- end of quote --
As I indicated, that is deliberate misdirection. And there's more
misdirection in the Times story. It also interviews the Black director
of Sumner Redstone's racemixing film Save the Last Dance, and I quote:
"'The movie business is certainly catching up with what's happening in
society,' said Thomas Carter, who directed Save the Last Dance. 'Youth
culture has been shifting a long time . . . . Places like MTV are right
on the edge and totally involved in the change. In filmmaking we lag
behind.'" -- end of quote -- But of course, Redstone's MTV, which as
Carter notes is "totally involved in the change," is into filmmaking
too. Anyway, it's really an artificial distinction to contrast Jewish
television with Jewish cinema. Redsone isn't the only Jewish media boss
who is deeply involved in both media.
One of Bronfman's subordinates, the Jew Marc Shmuger, says it a little
more plainly, and again I quote from last Saturday's Los Angeles Times
story: "'I think the segregated groupings are breaking down in today's
America, and I think today's movie audience is a complex mix,' said Marc
Shmuger, vice chairman of Universal Pictures, which released The Fast
and the Furious. But Shmuger warned that if the movie industry starts
making multiethnic movies 'in a calculating and cynical fashion,' the
audience will sense that and stay away." -- end of quote -- In other
words, keep the propaganda subtle, keep it subliminal, so that we don't
tip off the goyim that it's really propaganda.
I'll read one more section from the Los Angeles Times story. I quote:
"Just as The Fast and the Furious shows young people of all races
gathered in large groups unmindful of their racial differences and not
hung up on sex, Gary Scott Thompson, one of the film's writers, said
today's young movie audiences also are that way. 'It used to be that a
boy and a girl would go on a date,' he said. 'Now what's happening is
groups of kids who are friends -- multiracial boys and girls -- all move
in date packs together. It's like a date, but they don't consider it
dating. Some of them might neck; some of them might not. None of them
think anything much about it. They are much more open when talking about
sex . . . . They've broken down the cultural barriers.' . . . Rob
Friedman, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures Motion Picture Group, said
the studio began noticing the colorblind nature of young audiences with
its 1999 high school pigskin drama Varsity Blues. 'It's really about
their peers, regardless of race, and to a certain extent gender as
well,' Friedman said. 'When it came to Save the Last Dance, it became
more and more apparent young people don't care whether the relationship
is interracial. The music is great, the story is great.'" -- end of
quote --
As I've already mentioned, Paramount Pictures belongs to Sumner
Redstone, and I hardly need to tell you that his employee Rob Friedman
is a Jew, like nearly all the other executives at Paramount Pictures.
This new development of White teenagers running in "date packs," as the
scriptwriter put it, with Blacks, Asians, and mestizos and having very
casual and very interracial sex did not evolve spontaneously, as the
media bosses and their employees would have us believe. It has been
promoted deliberately by Hollywood and by television and by Madison
Avenue. Sumner Redstone's MTV may be a bit bolder in this regard than
the other Jewish media, but all of them have been working together for
decades toward the same goal, and that goal is the annihilation of our
people. They say, "Oh, we're just reflecting with our films and our TV
shows and our magazine ads what your society has become all by itself,"
but that is a conscious, calculated lie. They know exactly what they
have done and are doing, and one can easily sense them gloating over it
when one reads their remarks in the Los Angeles Times.
I've said this a thousand times already in different words, but when we
permitted the Jews to come into our society and take over our mass media
of news and entertainment -- our newspapers and our radio broadcasting
networks and our motion picture and advertising industries and then
television broadcasting -- we handed them the weapons with which they
intended from the beginning to destroy us and now are destroying us.
This program of theirs to corrupt and destroy us didn't begin with the
Second World War and the so-called "Holocaust." It is a consequence of
their nature. The "Holocaust" was not the cause of their destructive
behavior, but rather a consequence.
If you believe that I am hallucinating when I say that, see for yourself
what Jews such as Edgar Bronfman and Sumner Redstone are producing for
the entertainment of our children, and you try to explain it in any
other way. I know that the majority of our own people, lemmings that
they are, are dancing to the Jews' tune now, along with the politicians.
That is a shame, but it in no way excuses us from our task. Many of
those who have become blinded by the Jews and have become collaborators
of the Jews will unavoidably become "collateral damage" in the struggle
and the chaos which lie ahead, but we must do whatever is necessary to
free our people from the spell cast over them by the Jews. To that task
I have consecrated my life, and I invite each of you to do likewise.
Thanks for being with me again today."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADVlist.
To subscribe to ADVlist send an e-mail message to:
ADVli...@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)
For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com
==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. This
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to be
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup posting.
To contact us, write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
or e-mail: nati...@NatVan.com please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.
==> TO BE REMOVED from ADVlist, send an e-mail message to:
ADVli...@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)
(c) 2001 National Vanguard Books
> There are still black scientist and intelectuals. There is no question
> that black individuals can make it in this society.
Black scientists are usually not very dark.
T. Max Devlin
>Mirza Borogovac <ha...@hdmagazine.com> wrote in message news:<3BFA2BAE...@hdmagazine.com>...
>> the Nay Sayer wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Has nothing to do with genetics, everything to do with environment.
>> > In fact, on the genetic level, there is no such thing as 'race'. It
>> > in reality doesn't exist.
>>
>> Obviously that is not true. White people, for example, are more
>> sensitive to sun which makes them higher risk group for skin cancer. I
>> don't see how that can possably be due to enviroment.
>
>How did white people become white, through the process of evolution
>that takes place because of your environment. Everything that involves
>race or variations of the species involves race. You should say Nature
>and Nurture.
Unfortunately, that ultimately suffers from the same problems. It is
our nature to nurture, and the nurtured can't tell the difference
between the two.
What you should do is stop trying to figure out why people do what they
do, and start trying to understand what they do more completely in a way
that doesn't denigrate their dignity. We don't need *logical* reasons,
for as Mirza has pointed out, evolution does not determine our actions.
We need *good* reasons, and for that reason evolution as a scientific
fact _causes_ the kind of bigoted notions of race that Mirza propounds.
a_blue_dream
> Well said, if a bit derivative of several old "Star Trek" episodes. A
> very nice explanation of how race is culturally derived. Thank you very
> much.
really? i've never seen an episode of star trek.. sounds like i need to start!:>
a_blue_dream
> >All that is true. But what if there is more to race than just looks. If
> >there is a diffrence in apperance, could there be a diffrence in
> >physicall ability, behavior, mental stability, etc.
>
> Only if those traits are somehow linked to the ones for looks. People
> have tried before to verify that these other things correlate with
> appearance due to genetic backgrounds. They succeeded in conclusively
> proving that there is no such thing. Why are you having trouble
> understanding this? I guess all those blacks in the NBA just make it
> too hard for you to believe that it is true? Well, it is still true,
> but you have to stop assuming your conclusions before you will be
> capable of understanding how the two are not contradictory.
*nods*
i would listen to this guy, mirza, he's right.. but i understand your
being curious about this, i once asked the same question..
on the other hand, all that having been said, what i speculate is if
there ARE possibly any differences, (and they just havent yet found
the correlations?), they are minute, at best, and not really worth
anyone's time thinking about what it may mean.
T. Max Devlin
>>
There was one notable episode where the last two survivors of a
planet-wide war were on the ship and trying to kill each other. They
were identical but for their coloring. They were both black and white,
but one had his left side all black and his right side all white, while
the other was left-side white/right-side black. They were utterly
convinced that the other way was the "wrong" way to be and signified all
sorts of horrible moral characteristics. "It is his nature to be
blood-thirsty so I must kill him."
rtavi
need for vitamin D. In the tropics you get enough vitamin D from the sun so
your skin is heavily pigmented to resist damaging ultraviolet.
When humans migrated north a shortage of vitamin D in their frequently
cloudy new home with its short winter days would have resulted in rickets
due to vitamin D shortage. A low-melanin skin mutation would have insured
better survival for the mutations offspring.
In addition Northern Europeans are much less likely to be lactose intolerant
as adults than are those from sunnier climes. Most of the world does not
use Cows milk in their foods due to high numbers of lactose intolerant
adults-Little cheese in Chinese food. Goat milk is a suitable substitute
that avoids the high lactose in Cows milk. An ability to drink cow milk as
an adult and thus gain vitamin D was an advantage to those from northern
climes.
"Litheum" <lit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53279943.01112...@posting.google.com...
a_blue_dream
> There was one notable episode where the last two survivors of a
> planet-wide war were on the ship and trying to kill each other. They
> were identical but for their coloring. They were both black and white,
> but one had his left side all black and his right side all white, while
> the other was left-side white/right-side black. They were utterly
> convinced that the other way was the "wrong" way to be and signified all
> sorts of horrible moral characteristics. "It is his nature to be
> blood-thirsty so I must kill him."
interesting.. and they are mirror images of eachother, no less..
a_blue_dream
> there ARE possibly any differences, (and they just havent yet found
> the correlations?), they are minute, at best, and not really worth
> anyone's time thinking about what it may mean.
erm, of course that's my own value judgement..
but the point is the most up to date scientific view concludes otherwise.
T. Max Devlin
>>
Yes. It is just the kind of late-sixties parable that was the backbone
of the original Star Trek. It was a famous actor who played the two
'last survivors', too, though I don't recall his name. And the
apocalyptic imagery used to show how their never-ending battle had
devastated their planet was quite disturbing. Very much a "black and
white" issue, as it were.
People wonder about Trekkies, and ridicule them for their almost-slavish
devotion to the show(s). But really, it is the only moral education
(beyond political ideology) that most young Americans get, and it is
quite effective at that level. I don't find it surprising at all that
it is a sort of 'instant mythology' in modern culture.
T. Max Devlin
The real problem is that most people tend to see any difference as
"better/worse", as if they can know what contingencies will determine
"fitness" in an existential way. People are just *different*; aptitude
is simply preference.
Tris
>
>
> > There are still black scientist and intelectuals. There is no question
> > that black individuals can make it in this society.
>
> Black scientists are usually not very dark.
ROFLMAO!
Anyway,
Tris
> www.spearhead-uk.com
> "Mirza Borogovac" <ha...@hdmagazine.com> wrote in message
> news:3BFE42B5...@hdmagazine.com...
> >
> >
> > Once upon a time darkness ruled the europe
>
> No, never happened.
>
> while civilisations were
> > being built in mediteranen and asia. White people actually belived that
> > bathing removed shield from the skin that protects people from deseases.
> > As a result White europe called itself "the land of christianity" but
> > everyone else called them "the land of people who do not bathe". Because
> > of that Europeans were killed by plaques that would ravage europe. It
> > was not untill invetion of printing press and Better sailing ships,
> > combined with the fact that Ottoman empire took over Byzantin empire, so
> > a new route to India neede to be found, that Europe started improving
> > and getting a civilization.
>
> Orwell said that he who controls the present controls the past. The
Jews
> control the present and therefore they control the "history" books.
Then how do *you* know what happened, Alex?
I love paranoia like yours. Eventually the onion skins get stripped off and
you can't help but make paradoxical statements.
Tris
> > that black individuals can make it in this society.
>
> Black scientists are usually not very dark.
I am amazed that you appear to think the darker your skin the less
intelligent you are. That is absolutely incredible.
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/General/9609/x00019d.html
Who was the first black scientist?
This is almost an impossible question to answer for several reasons. How do
you define a scientist? Do we want to know who was the first modern
scientist, similar to those we have today, or who was the first ancient
scientist who's lab was the land he/she lived in and who's aims were to find
out what fire was? The word scientist wasn't used until the seventeenth
century so we could find out who the first black scientist since then was.
But again there are problems: do we just look at those who were qualified,
which would exclude a vast majority of the population who had little or no
access to education, or do we also take into account those who worked in
their attics, sheds and back gardens? It might be safer to ask who was the
most famous black scientist, then how history is recorded would not matter.
Looking back to try and find out who the first ancient black scientist was
is difficult. Although we are taught that history is a collection of facts,
it rarely reflects the true nature of events, especially if they occurred
hundreds of years ago. The evidence that remains to tell us what happened
say thousands of years ago is scarce and very selective. What remains and
what is told, depends very much on the culture in which the events happened.
While the Greeks were very scholastic, writing many books and recording
events from their point of view, the Africans were not. This isn't to say
that the Africans weren't as equally scholastic, it's just that they didn't
place as much importance in writing down what happened as the Greeks did.
Thus while there is a fair amount of early Greek literature to read, there
is very little African. There are other sources of information though and
from these sources we can identify several important black scientists.
Today, modern medicine claims as its hero Hippocrates of Cos who lived from
460-377 BC. It was he who separated the superstition from medicine and
established medicine on a scientific basis. Or was it? Imoteph, an Egyptian
who lived during the reign of Pharaoh Zoser, around 2980 BC, was an
accomplished architect, scribe, priest and physician. It is generally
acknowledged that by the time of Hippocrates, Egyptians' knowledge of
medicine was more advanced than any other nation's, chiefly as a result of
Imoteph's work. Shrines were erected in his honour to which people flocked
to be healed, much as they do today in Lourdes. Athens, amongst others, used
to import Egyptian physicians and Homer, an ancient writer who lived in the
ninth century BC, wrote "In medical knowledge, Egypt leaves the rest of the
world behind." There are ten surviving medical textbooks from Imoteph's
period (written 5000 years ago). They demonstrate a level of knowledge that
European physicians would not have for thousands of years. So while
traditional medical history acknowledges Hippocrates as the 'father' of
modern medicine, early medical history realises the importance of Egyptian,
and specifically Imoteph's, medical knowledge.
A more recent black scientist was George Washington Carver. Carver was born
into slavery and could not enter education until the age of 14 because of
racial segregation in America. Despite this he achieved a B.Sc. by the age
of 33. As a botanist, he soon began to develop crops that produced yields
six times that of usual harvests. He revolutionised the black farming
industry that for years had concentrated on producing cotton. After a
particularly poor harvest due to a plague of boll weevil, he convinced many
farmers to grow peanuts. At the time, however, peanuts had no specific use
and weren't particularly popular. Carver, in order to develop a market for
the new crop, tried to find uses for the peanut. From the shells he made
soil conditioner, insulating board and fuel briquettes. By binding
derivatives from peanuts with an adhesive he made a light, weatherproof
material and in doing so developed the science of agricultural chemistry.
Never before had anyone thought of using agricultural products for anything
but food and clothing. By the time Carver died, there were over 300
by-products from the humble peanut. But it wasn't just peanuts that Carver
worked with. He is also responsible for producing the first powdered food,
the introduction of plastics into the manufacture of cars and took the first
step along the road to finding a synthetic rubber. There is little in the
modern world that does not owe its origins in some way to Carver's work.
Finding individual examples of important black scientists is not difficult.
But we have to ask ourselves, is finding the odd example of black genius
important or is it more important to acknowledge the contribution to society
of the black races in general? The human race originated in Africa - Africa
is our birthplace and yet we have come to regard its history, culture and
civilisation as being beneath ours in the west. In the west we are used to
using our own standards as a measuring stick and beating the less developed
countries over the heads with the results. Even how we categorise more than
half of the world's countries as less developed displays our bias.
Ken Parkes
>The a likely answer is that white people became pale skinned through the
>need for vitamin D. In the tropics you get enough vitamin D from the sun so
>your skin is heavily pigmented to resist damaging ultraviolet.
>
>When humans migrated north a shortage of vitamin D in their frequently
>cloudy new home with its short winter days would have resulted in rickets
>due to vitamin D shortage. A low-melanin skin mutation would have insured
>better survival for the mutations offspring.
Has it ever occurred to you that the movement may have been the other way - from
naturally unpigmented to pigmented as a result of moving into tropical zones ?
Contrary to popular belief there is nothing to indicate that primates as a
group are hot steamy jungle dwellers which struggle to survive elsewhere. No
one suggests that cats are tropical animals, since they are found everywhere,
just like we. Why should we discount the idea that primates moved up
into the trees rather than down from them ? As for ricketts, have you really
never seen pictures of African and Indian children suffering just such a
scourge ?
X-Trace: 5322381d547a826057568010016620227c6c404893cc350568618f003c02cf60
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:25:20 GMT
Lines: 0
T. Max Devlin
Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Ken Parkes say:
>On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, rtavi wrote:
>>The a likely answer is that white people became pale skinned through the
>>need for vitamin D. In the tropics you get enough vitamin D from the sun so
>>your skin is heavily pigmented to resist damaging ultraviolet.
>>
>>When humans migrated north a shortage of vitamin D in their frequently
>>cloudy new home with its short winter days would have resulted in rickets
>>due to vitamin D shortage. A low-melanin skin mutation would have insured
>>better survival for the mutations offspring.
>
>Has it ever occurred to you that the movement may have been the other way - from
>naturally unpigmented to pigmented as a result of moving into tropical zones ?
But we didn't; we moved out of tropical zones. True, we can't know for
sure what the pigmentation was in tropical zones, but there's no reason
at all to think that pigmentation is the original characteristic.
> Contrary to popular belief there is nothing to indicate that primates as a
>group are hot steamy jungle dwellers which struggle to survive elsewhere.
Contrary to your believe, there is a great deal of scientifically valid
and convincing evidence that humans, regardless of the history of
primates as a whole, arose in Africa.
>No
>one suggests that cats are tropical animals, since they are found everywhere,
>just like we.
No, that is not why. Nor do 'we' consider ourselves tropical animals,
regardless of your awareness of the anthropological fact that the first
humans arose in Africa. It was more of a savanna than a jungle, but the
difference is moot.
>Why should we discount the idea that primates moved up
>into the trees rather than down from them ?
Because there is no reason to do so, and some evidence not to do so. A
great deal of evidence, in fact. Is there something about the fact that
the ancestral primates of man were not tree dwellers, but their
ancestors were, that bothers you?
>As for ricketts, have you really
>never seen pictures of African and Indian children suffering just such a
>scourge ?
Do you really believe that means anything?
anthonyberet
Ken Parkes <cbu...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:100681683...@news.clara.net...
the Nay Sayer
> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
> >a_blue_dream wrote:
> Why are you having trouble
> understanding this? I guess all those blacks in the NBA just make it
> too hard for you to believe that it is true? Well, it is still true,
> but you have to stop assuming your conclusions before you will be
> capable of understanding how the two are not contradictory.
Actually the dominance of Blacks in the NBA proves that it has NOTHING
to do with genetics and everything to do with environment. If you
were to examine the background of your typical Black NBA player it
would probably look like: Inner city, working class, broken home, etc.
This EVIRONMENT is not conducive to getting a good education but it
is conducive to learning how to cross someone over and score the
lay-up.....
the Nay Sayer
T. Max Devlin
>T. Max Devlin <tm...@voicenet.com> wrote in message news:<440tvt07nfokpd0c7...@4ax.com>...
>> Strolling through alt.philosophy, I heard Mirza Borogovac say:
>> >a_blue_dream wrote:
>> Why are you having trouble
>> understanding this? I guess all those blacks in the NBA just make it
>> too hard for you to believe that it is true? Well, it is still true,
>> but you have to stop assuming your conclusions before you will be
>> capable of understanding how the two are not contradictory.
>
>Actually the dominance of Blacks in the NBA proves that it has NOTHING
>to do with genetics and everything to do with environment. If you
>were to examine the background of your typical Black NBA player it
>would probably look like: Inner city, working class, broken home, etc.
That doesn't really prove anything any more than that blacks make good
basketball players.
> This EVIRONMENT is not conducive to getting a good education but it
>is conducive to learning how to cross someone over and score the
>lay-up.....
That's something of a negative argument, and is therefore overdone in
the telling. It is genetics as much as environment, which is to say it
isn't any one thing and is all many things, and you shouldn't try to
reduce human beings to numbers, because it doesn't work and they don't
like it. You might as well say it is reverse discrimination against
white players because of marketing demographics. Whites get hockey,
blacks get basketball?
--
_oo-.=. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
'^^/_ `-. & I am Tyrantasauris Max. &
`""-'`_ `-_.- & Trolls skitter from my &
. . _o/,-'(('"" & path like cockroaches. &
& Fear me. &
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Tris" <nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:1006774081.1224.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Alex Vange <va...@i1.net> wrote in message
> news:3bfef...@news.newsgroups.com...
.
>
> I am amazed that you appear to think the darker your skin the less
> intelligent you are. That is absolutely incredible.
Whites are on average much more intelligent than Blacks. Even with
affirmative action most Black scientists are 90% White. They look like they
have a tan.
Also the Blacks were primitive naked head hunters.
> Thus while there is a fair amount of early Greek literature to read, there
> is very little African. There are other sources of information though and
> from these sources we can identify several important black scientists.
>
> Today, modern medicine claims as its hero Hippocrates of Cos who lived
from
> 460-377 BC. It was he who separated the superstition from medicine and
> established medicine on a scientific basis. Or was it? Imoteph, an
Egyptian
> who lived during the reign of Pharaoh Zoser, around 2980 BC, was an
> accomplished architect, scribe, priest and physician. It is generally
> acknowledged that by the time of Hippocrates, Egyptians' knowledge of
"Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops, the
builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs of her
tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a bright yellow
stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin is white."
Coon, Carleton Stevens. The Races of Europe. New York City, Macmillan. 1939,
p.98
The tomb of the wife of Zoser, the builder of the first pyramid in Egypt,
has a painting of her showing her with reddish-blond hair.
Heyerdahl, Thor, The Ra Expeditions, Garden City, Doubleday, 1971, p.249
The mummy of Rameses II has yellow hair.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books, Alexandria, VA 1992 p.8
"A funerary mask with the attributes of the goddess Isis shows a vivid
blue-green color of eyes.
A General Introduction to the Egyptian Collections in the the British
Museam. London, Harrison and Sons, 1930, p.49
The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair.
Carter, Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch, N.Y. 1972 p.68
Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida.
Tomkins, Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petries Collection of
Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt, Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII, 1889,
p.216
The mummy of Rameses II has fine silky yellow hair.
Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson, Warren R. Egyptian Mummies, London, George
Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924 p.99
A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored ones.
De Lapouge, G. Vacher, L'Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899, p.26
Amenhotep III's tomb painting shows him as having light red hair.
National Geographic Society, Ancient Egypt, Discovering its Splendors,1978
p.103
An Egyptian scribe named Sakkarah around 2500 B.C. has blue eyes.
Strouhal, Eugen, Life of the Ancient Egyptians, Norman, Oklahoma, University
of Oklahoma Press, 1992, p.53
A common good luck charm was the eye of Horus, the so-called Wedjat
Eye. The eye is always blue, and the word "wedjat" means "blue" in Egyptian.
Queen Thi is painted as having a rosy complexion, blue eyes and blond
hair.
Hamy, E.T., "Races Humaines de la Vallee du Nil" Bulletin de la Societe
d'Anthropologie de Paris, 1886, p.739
Paintings from the Third Dynasty show native Egyptians with red hair and
blue eyes.
Pijoan, Jose, Historia del Arte Vol III, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1932, plate
XI
The god Nuit was painted as white and blond.
Champollion, H., Le Nil et la Societe Egyptienne, Marseille, Musee Boreby,
1973 p.94
A painting from Iteti's tomb at Saqqara shows a very Nordic-looking man
with blond hair.
Westendorf, Wolfhart, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of Ancient Egypt.
New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1968 p.65
Time-Life books recently put out a volume called Rameses II The Great.
It has a good picture of the blond mummy of Rameses II. Another picture can
be found in the book X-Raying the Pharaohs, especially the picture on the
jacket cover. It shows his yellow hair.
A book called Chronicle of the Pharaohs was recently published showing
paintings,scuptures and mummies of 189 pharaohs and leading personalities of
Ancient Egypt. Of these, 102 appear European, 13 look black and the rest are
hard to classify. All nine mummies look European.
The very first pharaoh, Narmer, also known as Menes, looks very
European, The same can be said for Khufu's cousin Hemon, who designed the
Great Pyramid of Giza. A computer-generated reconstruction of the face of
the Sphinx shows a European-looking face.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books Alexandria, VA 1992 p.67
It was once painted sunburned red.
Silverberg, Robert, Before the Sphinx; Early Egypt N.Y., N.Y., T. Nelson
1971 p.168
The Egyptians often painted upper class men as red and upper class
women as white; this because the men became sunburned or tanned while
outside under the burning Egyptian sun.
The information above is part of the information compiled by Phillip
Bonner and was printed in The Barnes Review, 130 Third Street, SE,
Washington, D.C. 20003
Ken Parkes
>Ken Parkes <cbu...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>-The oldest hominid fossils are from Africa...
There are no hominid fossils in my garden; a glacier passed this way ten
thousand years ago. Now where was the equator when those African fossils began
to mineralize? If you get my "drift".
Ken Parkes.
X-Trace: 60384c03300801c0d660602054307b0b62c00c0058078a12656101673c0428c6
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 23:59:02 GMT
Lines: 0
Ken Parkes
>-The oldest hominid fossils are from Africa...
There are no hominid fossils in my garden; a glacier passed this way ten
thousand years ago. Now where was the equator when those African fossils began
to mineralize? If you get my "drift".
Ken Parkes.
X-Trace: 36660006d08082510640700160210200c6676450345a0a35d78a20723c0428c3
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 23:58:59 GMT
Lines: 0
T. Max Devlin
>On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, anthonyberet wrote:
>>Ken Parkes <cbu...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>>-The oldest hominid fossils are from Africa...
>
>There are no hominid fossils in my garden; a glacier passed this way ten
>thousand years ago. Now where was the equator when those African fossils began
>to mineralize? If you get my "drift".
Yes, your drift is you think somebody cares if it was hot steamy jungle
or a temperate savannah. But it doesn't. Your questions don't make any
sense. Do you think that if black Africans are older genetically they
are better? You haven't been paying attention, son! Skin color doesn't
have jack-squat to do with anything but skin color.
rtavi
mutation rate and the variety of niches contribute to radiation of species.
Usually tropical areas have small numbers of myriad species while cooler
regions have large numbers of fewer species (as an aside body size usually
increases as you examine a species' more northerly members, in cool climates
more volume per surface area keeps you warmer)
It is fairly well accepted that primates originated in the old world
tropics-probably Africa but possibly Indochina. So far the best fossil
evidence is from Africa ,but that could change. You find fossils where
conditions are suitable for fossil formation. I don't think glaciation
would have selectively removed all primate fossil evidence from the north
since it did not remove the evidence for other species.
We have very good evidence of early hominids from Africa-primarily the
savannah not the jungle.
As to whether its good or bad that I think early humans were dark skinned
that's immaterial. The only interesting question is where we came from and
how we got the way we are today. I only advance a theory to explain loss of
pigmentation.
As Heinlein said "What are the Facts, and to how many decimal places"
"Ken Parkes" <cbu...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message .
Bernard
> > This EVIRONMENT is not conducive to getting a good education but it
> >is conducive to learning how to cross someone over and score the
> >lay-up.....
>
> That's something of a negative argument, and is therefore overdone in
> the telling. It is genetics as much as environment, which is to say it
> isn't any one thing and is all many things, and you shouldn't try to
> reduce human beings to numbers, because it doesn't work and they don't
> like it. You might as well say it is reverse discrimination against
> white players because of marketing demographics. Whites get hockey,
> blacks get basketball?
Perhaps it's that a basketball hoop is cheap to set up in an abandoned piece
of land whereas an ice rink or a golf course tend to require more money
which the white patriachal elitist bastards who own all the money are
prepared to spend on a bunch of sub-human ex-slaves...
don't flame for the rhetoric, just the ideas...
B.
Bernard
> Yes, your drift is you think somebody cares if it was hot steamy jungle
> or a temperate savannah. But it doesn't. Your questions don't make any
> sense. Do you think that if black Africans are older genetically they
> are better? You haven't been paying attention, son! Skin color doesn't
> have jack-squat to do with anything but skin color.
Well, it does, it affects the rate of vit-D intake and susceptibility to
skin cancers, also there is evidence to suggest that many of the black
african genomes code for longer and denser long muscles... I'm sure there
are people out there who know about this stuff better than me...
B.
genein
"rtavi" <rt...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:wwZM7.25019$py4.15...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...
> Most species originate in the tropics. Solar radiation increases the
> mutation rate and the variety of niches contribute to radiation of species.
> Usually tropical areas have small numbers of myriad species while cooler
> regions have large numbers of fewer species (as an aside body size usually
> increases as you examine a species' more northerly members, in cool climates
> more volume per surface area keeps you warmer)
> It is fairly well accepted that primates originated in the old world
> tropics-probably Africa but possibly Indochina. So far the best fossil
> evidence is from Africa ,but that could change. You find fossils where
> conditions are suitable for fossil formation. I don't think glaciation
> would have selectively removed all primate fossil evidence from the north
> since it did not remove the evidence for other species.
there is one problem.....where are the tropics? alaska for instance was once
situated as far south as los angeles.....continents move.
> As Heinlein said "What are the Facts, and to how many decimal places"
the last decimal has yet to be placed however..