THE TRUTH about blacks!!
Susan Cohen
Todd Jackson wrote:
> In article <350B8BD3...@smart.net> you wrote:
>
> : Matt Benic wrote:
>
> : > > Anonymous wrote:
> : > >
> : > > > Now, the Bell Curve proved
> : > > > beyond the shodaow of a doubt that blacks have at most only 85% of the
> : > > > intellectual firepower of Whites.
> : >
> : > Intellectual firepower ? What a bloody idiot....
> : >
> : > Susan, it may be fun seeing someone make such a fool of himself, but you
> : > gotta feel sorry for him...he doesn't even have the guts to give a name.
>
> : What I referred to as "fun" was hoisting him on his own petard (i.e., that his
> : beloved "Bell Curve" proved him inferior to those he obviously despised).
> : Actually, I do pity these people - but I pity the rest of us more, as we must
> : suffer them in our communities.
>
> Being a black teenager myself, I must say that what you are getting at
> really ticks me off.
Excuse me, but you obviously have no idea "what I'm getting at", as I didn't *hint*
at anything, but expressed myself quite clearly.
> There's no reason to pity us.
As far as pitying *you* (collectively or individually), I never said any such thing,
but that I pitied *us* - i.e., everyone who isn't like the jerk who was so enamoured
of "The Bell Curve." - and who are forced to live with these jerks.
But, now that I re-read it, I see where you might have been mislead. However, if you
had taken care to read the entire post (quotations included), you might have been
able to guess just who I thought was pitiable.
> I'm assuming that
> you're white (since only racist whites make this kind of comment
> publicly).
Normally, I would be furious at this accusation, but, since I will assume you were
mistaken, will just give you a chance to re-read what I wrote - & how the
misunderstanding occured.
> Bur you should realise this: if you add up all the minorities
> in the world, I'm pretty sure that that would turn out into one hell of a
> majority.
I've always been aware of this, & think I've even pointed it out once or twice. But
it does bear repeating.
Kenya Kawanee Hemingway
Not to be rude or anything. I don't know any of you but what is the point
of the initial statement. I'm sure you've heard that you can't believe
everything that you read. Also haven't any of you ever come across a
black person that you thought was intelligent? Or do you just resent
blacks altogether which would therefore allow you to justify any negative
statement about blacks? I have to say,in america, asians are supposed to
be known for being good in math, science and anything with computers. I
have come across quite a few who are haven't a clue. I have also come
across many whites who are at first resentful at the fact that I am in
"their" classrooms but after they find out that I have aced the exam, they
want to get to know me. As far as intelligence goes, I really do not
think you can determine someone's intelligence by a test. Besides most
people who can afford to pay to have someone else take these type of exams
for them do. It happens all the time. So again what exactly is your
point for stating these results and just where did you get them, who were
they tested on, how reliable is your source?
Susan Cohen
Kenya Kawanee Hemingway wrote:
Since you appended this to my post, I have to say that the original post was
some white racist trying to "prove" his "superiority" by quoting the Bell
Curve - so I naturally threw it back in his face that that self-same book said
that Jews & Asains were superior to "whites", so, if he was going to crow
about being "smarter" than "blacks," he would have to admit to being inferior
to two groups he obviously hates as well.
I enjoy it when idiots like him trip up. I enjoy it immensely.
Susan Cohen
Kenya Kawanee Hemingway wrote:
to two groups he most likely hates as well.
I enjoy it when idiots like him trip up. I enjoy it immensely.
(Though I can't say that my answer had much to do with your post, I guess
that's because your post didn't have much to do with mine! :-) )
Susan Cohen
Alexander Baron
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98031...@icarus.cc.uic.edu>
khe...@uic.edu "Kenya Kawanee Hemingway" writes:
> Not to be rude or anything. I don't know any of you but what is the point
> of the initial statement. I'm sure you've heard that you can't believe
> everything that you read. Also haven't any of you ever come across a
> black person that you thought was intelligent?
Most of them can't even read themselves.
--
Alexander Baron,
93c Venner Road,
Sydenham,
London SE26 5HU.
England.
+44 (0)181 659 7713
E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
Richard G. Philllips
Kenya Kawanee Hemingway wrote:
>
> Not to be rude or anything. I don't know any of you but what is the point
> of the initial statement. I'm sure you've heard that you can't believe
> everything that you read. Also haven't any of you ever come across a
> blacks altogether which would therefore allow you to justify any negative
> statement about blacks? I have to say,in america, asians are supposed to
> be known for being good in math, science and anything with computers. I
> have come across quite a few who are haven't a clue. I have also come
> across many whites who are at first resentful at the fact that I am in
> "their" classrooms but after they find out that I have aced the exam, they
> want to get to know me. As far as intelligence goes, I really do not
> think you can determine someone's intelligence by a test. Besides most
> people who can afford to pay to have someone else take these type of exams
> for them do. It happens all the time. So again what exactly is your
> point for stating these results and just where did you get them, who were
> they tested on, how reliable is your source?
=========================================
Phillips
Virtually all investigations made into the matter demonstrate, in a very
consistent
way, that black intelligence averages about 15 points below that of
whites. The
best known case of this research was the book "The Bell Curve" but it is
far from
the only one. Hundreds of other such studies have been made. The
conclusions are
remarkably similar.
Of course, if the results of such research are politically unpalatable,
it is always possible to
find a way to shoot down the researcher's methodology. what is NOT so
easy is to
come up with reliable data that supports the opposite conclusions. Of
that I have
seen very little.
This was far less of a problem 100 years ago when occupations such as
carpenter, black-
smith, machinist, janitor, potter, etc were common. Many black persons
filled these occupations and were fully
competent at them. The tragedy today is that a number of factors have
acted to
eliminate these roles. the net result is that the black male has become
redundant in our society.
Alexander Baron
In article <3512D1...@earthlink.net>
rgp...@earthlink.net "Richard G. Philllips" writes:
> Kenya Kawanee Hemingway wrote:
>
> Virtually all investigations made into the matter demonstrate, in a very
> consistent
> way, that black intelligence averages about 15 points below that of
> whites.
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the whites have higher IQ than blacks -
purely on the evidence - the fact is that intelligence is a lot more complex
than this. Civilisation progresses as much by the creative minority as by
people with high IQ, and many people who are extremely creative - inventors
for example - aren't necessarily geniuses. Furthermore, the world would have
been a much better place if a lot of highly intelligent people had never
existed, and I have no objection to including Hitler in that crowd along with
Stalin, Churchill and most of bureaucracy.
Niklas Löfdahl
Richard G. Philllips wrote:
>
> Kenya Kawanee Hemingway wrote:
> >
> > Not to be rude or anything. I don't know any of you but what is the point
> > of the initial statement. I'm sure you've heard that you can't believe
> > everything that you read. Also haven't any of you ever come across a
> > black person that you thought was intelligent? Or do you just resent
> > blacks altogether which would therefore allow you to justify any negative
> > statement about blacks? I have to say,in america, asians are supposed to
> > be known for being good in math, science and anything with computers. I
> > have come across quite a few who are haven't a clue. I have also come
> > across many whites who are at first resentful at the fact that I am in
> > "their" classrooms but after they find out that I have aced the exam, they
> > want to get to know me. As far as intelligence goes, I really do not
> > think you can determine someone's intelligence by a test. Besides most
> > people who can afford to pay to have someone else take these type of exams
> > for them do. It happens all the time. So again what exactly is your
> > point for stating these results and just where did you get them, who were
> > they tested on, how reliable is your source?
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> consistent
> way, that black intelligence averages about 15 points below that of
> best known case of this research was the book "The Bell Curve" but it is
> far from
> the only one. Hundreds of other such studies have been made. The
> conclusions are
> remarkably similar.
>
> Of course, if the results of such research are politically unpalatable,
> it is always possible to
> find a way to shoot down the researcher's methodology. what is NOT so
> easy is to
> come up with reliable data that supports the opposite conclusions. Of
> that I have
> seen very little.
>
> This was far less of a problem 100 years ago when occupations such as
> carpenter, black-
> smith, machinist, janitor, potter, etc were common. Many black persons
> filled these occupations and were fully
> competent at them. The tragedy today is that a number of factors have
> acted to
> eliminate these roles. the net result is that the black male has become
> redundant in our society.
The White female obviously disagrees!!
The Vegamite Sandwich
How can you judge a person by IQ? How can you rate character by how smart
they are?
--
|---The Vegamite Sandwich thanks you for reading---|
| Reply address: vegamite at geocities.com |
| visit my homepage at |
|http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Haven/9783 |
| Spamfood: TOS...@aol.com ab...@msn.com |
| ab...@hotmail.com ab...@juno.com |
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Alexander Baron wrote in message <890441...@abaron.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <3512D1...@earthlink.net>
> rgp...@earthlink.net "Richard G. Philllips" writes:
>
>> Kenya Kawanee Hemingway wrote:
>>
>> Virtually all investigations made into the matter demonstrate, in a very
>> consistent
>> way, that black intelligence averages about 15 points below that of
>> whites.
>
>
occupant
The Vegamite Sandwich wrote:
> How can you judge a person by IQ? How can you rate character by how
> smart
> they are?
>
heck, peple tested me and said i was a genius, but i flunked out of
community college.....
fuz
Susan Cohen wrote:
> Since you appended this to my post, I have to say that the original post was
> some white racist trying to "prove" his "superiority" by quoting the Bell
> Curve - so I naturally threw it back in his face that that self-same book said
> that Jews & Asains were superior to "whites", so, if he was going to crow
> about being "smarter" than "blacks," he would have to admit to being inferior
> to two groups he most likely hates as well.
The difference is that jews and asians don't have institutionalized
racial
preferences to land them promotions and university admissions with their
skin color as a criterion. Nor do they have racial "leaders" who cry
racism or cultural bias to excuse academic underperformance. (wouldn't
over-
achieving asians suffer far more from cultural bias?) See
http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Lynn/lynn-race-iq.html
and
http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/test.htm#satincome
From the second:
\doc\96\06\satinc.wk1
Source: 1995 College Board SAT Profiles
Test scores
white |black |mexican |asian
income verbamath |v m |v m |v m
x$10,000 | | |
under 10 409 460| 320 315| 330 386| 343 482
10-20 418 459| 337 369| 349 403| 363 500
20-30 428 471| 352 382| 369 420| 497 518
30-40 433 478| 362 393| 384 431| 415 528
40-50 439 488| 375 405| 399 446| 432 537
50-60 446 498| 382 414| 409 456| 444 549
60-70 453 506| 385 415| 415 458| 453 558
over 70 475 533| 407 442| 430 478| 476 595
Kevin Pope
The Vegamite Sandwich wrote:
> How can you judge a person by IQ? How can you rate character by how smart
> they are?
An excellent point. Out of five tests, my IQ averages about 150. They tell me
it's border-line genius. I've made no great contribution to society; I have, in
fact, wronged society. In my old life as a theif and drug dealer, I watched my
friends go to prison time and again because they were dumb enough to get caught.
High intelligence isn't always a great thing for the rest of us...sometimes it's
a threat.
Billy Leung
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:12:39 -0500, fuz <f...@news.nit> wrote:
Some racial preferences are justified, especially in regards to the
African Americans and native Indian Americans. You cannot draw a
meaningful comparison with that of the recent immigrants, since the
latter has not inherited any such baneful baggage and cultural
disintegration suffered in the likes of the African American
communities. To rebuild their strength and confidence, not only do
they need the most help from their own successful members but also
ours. Instead, this society has constantly lumped a shitload of media
negativity on their backs. How do you expect such an underclass to
react in times of depression and to this daily humiliation? Not
that I totally agree with an unexamined policy of affirmative action,
but to discourage a channel of opportunity to them is amount to saying
"we don't care if you die or not". Such irresponsible and selfish
attitudes would only boomerang and knock us all out.
Thank god Asians were not brought to this country en mass in the early
settlement days. Doubly thankful that we have not lived through such
a long process of cultural genocide in the land of the "free".
Tom Clasener
>How can you judge a person by IQ? How can you rate character by how smart
>they are?
IQ is not the best way to determine intelligence. It is a culturally
skewed method at best. A person from deepest, darkest Africa may have
an extremely high intelligence level but he would fail any western
derived IQ test. This is in part proven by the fact that we do better
on IQ tests as we get older and, if we're lucky, more educated. You
see, we get more exposure to the symbolism of western society. All the
IQ tests I have seen rely heavily on western style symbolism.
Tom
Todd Jackson
Richard G. Philllips (rgp...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Kenya Kawanee Hemingway wrote:
: >
: > Not to be rude or anything. I don't know any of you but what is the point
: > of the initial statement. I'm sure you've heard that you can't believe
: > everything that you read. Also haven't any of you ever come across a
: > black person that you thought was intelligent? Or do you just resent
: > blacks altogether which would therefore allow you to justify any negative
: > statement about blacks? I have to say,in america, asians are supposed to
: > be known for being good in math, science and anything with computers. I
: > have come across quite a few who are haven't a clue. I have also come
: > across many whites who are at first resentful at the fact that I am in
: > "their" classrooms but after they find out that I have aced the exam, they
: > want to get to know me. As far as intelligence goes, I really do not
: > think you can determine someone's intelligence by a test. Besides most
: > people who can afford to pay to have someone else take these type of exams
: > for them do. It happens all the time. So again what exactly is your
: > point for stating these results and just where did you get them, who were
: > they tested on, how reliable is your source?
: =========================================
: Phillips
: Virtually all investigations made into the matter demonstrate, in a very
: consistent
: way, that black intelligence averages about 15 points below that of
: whites. The
: best known case of this research was the book "The Bell Curve" but it is
: far from
: the only one. Hundreds of other such studies have been made. The
: conclusions are
: remarkably similar.
: Of course, if the results of such research are politically unpalatable,
: it is always possible to
: find a way to shoot down the researcher's methodology. what is NOT so
: easy is to
: come up with reliable data that supports the opposite conclusions. Of
: that I have
: seen very little.
: This was far less of a problem 100 years ago when occupations such as
: carpenter, black-
: smith, machinist, janitor, potter, etc were common. Many black persons
: filled these occupations and were fully
: competent at them. The tragedy today is that a number of factors have
: acted to
: eliminate these roles. the net result is that the black male has become
: redundant in our society.
--
RWhita8200
>ubject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>From: tom...@metva.com.au (Tom Clasener)
>Date: Mon, Mar 23, 1998 08:54 EST
>Message-id: <35162ded...@news.metva.com.au>
>
>On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 06:58:39 -0500, "The Vegamite Sandwich"
><re...@message.com> wrote:
>
>>How can you judge a person by IQ? How can you rate character by how smart
>>they are?
>
>IQ is not the best way to determine intelligence. It is a culturally
>skewed method at best. A person from deepest, darkest Africa may have
>an extremely high intelligence level but he would fail any western
>derived IQ test.
Sorry, they tried that.
They tried culturally African testing in the US, soul food , etc.
Turned out whites did better on that, too.
Western civilization is all that counts, anyway. Nobody in Africa lives
like Africans unles they have to.
Bob Whitaker
RWhita8200
>Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>From: tom...@metva.com.au (Tom Clasener)
>Date: Mon, Mar 23, 1998 08:54 EST
>Message-id: <35162ded...@news.metva.com.au>
>
>On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 06:58:39 -0500, "The Vegamite Sandwich"
><re...@message.com> wrote:
>
>>How can you judge a person by IQ? How can you rate character by how smart
>>they are?
>
>IQ is not the best way to determine intelligence. It is a culturally
>skewed method at best. A person from deepest, darkest Africa may have
>an extremely high intelligence level but he would fail any western
>derived IQ test.
Sorry, it's been tried.
Some years back they came up with a "soul" type IQ test to show blacks
would do better.
Guess what?
Whites did better on that, too.
In the real world, only western culture counts. Nobody lkives like an
African in Africa anymore unless he HAS to, and even then as little as
possible.
As the establishment position, anti-white statements are represented as the
opposite of Hate. They take the form of a pretense of objective non-racism.
Anti-white racism is called "anti-racism", just as the hate ministry in
*1984* was called the Ministry of Love.
My problem with so-called "objective non-racism" is that its advocates are
only interested in pushing it in white majority countries. The false question
they ask is "Will there be RACES in a hundred years?", as if we were speaking
objectively about RACE.
If "objective non-racism" goes according to present plans, there will be
Asiatic races in a hundred years, there will be blacks in a hundred years.
Nobody is talking about integrating Asia, Africa, or any other non-white
country.
However rich it may be, no one is pushing third world immigration into
Japan, because it is not white.
This is not about all races. "Objective non-racists" demand massive third
world immigration into EVERY white majority country -- which they call
"promoting diversity" -- and ONLY into white majority countries.
They demand so-called "race" mixing, which is actually only *white*
mixing, and they
use public money for busing and "low-cost"(black) housing to chase down any
white escapees.
Their "solution to the race problem" -- miscegenation -- is actually
only The Final Solution to the White Problem.
Bob Whitaker
Mark Van Alstine
In article <EqA2CK.A...@torfree.net>, cu...@torfree.net (Todd
Jackson) wrote:
> Richard G. Philllips (rgp...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : Kenya Kawanee Hemingway wrote:
> : >
> : > Not to be rude or anything. I don't know any of you but what is the point
> : > of the initial statement. I'm sure you've heard that you can't believe
> : > everything that you read. Also haven't any of you ever come across a
> : > black person that you thought was intelligent? Or do you just resent
> : > blacks altogether which would therefore allow you to justify any negative
> : > statement about blacks? I have to say,in america, asians are supposed to
> : > be known for being good in math, science and anything with computers. I
> : > have come across quite a few who are haven't a clue. I have also come
> : > across many whites who are at first resentful at the fact that I am in
> : > "their" classrooms but after they find out that I have aced the exam, they
> : > want to get to know me. As far as intelligence goes, I really do not
> : > think you can determine someone's intelligence by a test. Besides most
> : > people who can afford to pay to have someone else take these type of exams
> : > for them do. It happens all the time. So again what exactly is your
> : > point for stating these results and just where did you get them, who were
> : > they tested on, how reliable is your source?
>
> : =========================================
> : Phillips
>
> : Virtually all investigations made into the matter demonstrate, in a very
> : consistent way, that black intelligence averages about 15 points below that
> : of whites.
According to Nisbett:
<begin quote>
To simplify the reporting of the academic skills data, I will present the
average degree of convergence for the five data sources the book [_The
Bell Curve_] presents in the form of degree of improvement in composite
scores (verbal or reading plus math, or reading plus math and science).
The best data sources is the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NEAP), based on a random smple of thousands of American students of age
nine, thirteen, and seventeen. The reduction in B/W gap for the composite
score over a period of about twenty years ending in 1990 was equal to .28
standard deviations, or 4.2 IQ points. Another long-duration study the
authors report is the change in B/W gap in SAT scores over a sventeen-year
period ending in 1993. This was a reduction of almost a third of a
standard deviation, equivalent to five IQ points for a two-decade period.
There are also three shorter term studies lasting about a decade. The
National High School Studies showed a reduction in B/W gap of about .15
standard deviations over a ten year period ending in 1982, which is
equivalent to a 4.5 point reduction for a two-decade period. The B?W gap
in American College TEst scores decreased by .16 standard deviations ove
ra nine-year period ending in 1988, which is equivalent to a 5.7 reduction
over a two-decade period. Each of these results is compatable with the
following generalization: the B/W gap has been decreasing by about 2.5 IQ
points per decade. This would indicate that, assuming the gap was fifteen
points two decades prior to around 1990, the gap in 1990 was only around
ten points.
<end quote>
Source: Fraser, _The Bell Curve Wars_, p.49.
And of course, by extrapolation, around 2010 there will be a zero B/W IQ gap.
> : The best known case of this research was the book "The Bell Curve" but it is
> : far from the only one.
According to Nisbett:
<begin quote>
...There are a total of seven studies providing direct evidence on the
question of a genetic basis for the B/W IQ gap. Six of them are consistant
with a zero genetic contribution to the gap (or with a slight African
superiority) based just on the raw IQ numbers, and though all of these six
suffer from interpretive difficulties, they mostly boil down to a single
objection. If it was very low IQ
whites who mated with blacks (or very high IQ blacks who mated with
whites), the result could be explained away. (One study, which compared
blacks and whites in the same institutional environment, is free from this
objection.) The self-selection factor would have to be implausibly great,
however, and would have to be present under a variety of circumstances, in
several very different locales, at several different time periods. The
remaining study- the only one that the authors write about at any length
-is at least on the face of it consistent with a model assumng a
substantial genetic contribution to the B/W gap. But that study has as
many intereptive problem as the other, including the two studies which the
authors mention only to dismiss. Any reader would surely reach very
different conclusions about the likely degree of genetic contribution to
the B/W gap by virtue of knowing the facts just presented than by reading
the highly selected review presented in _The Bell Curve_.
<end quote>
Source: Fraser, _The Bell Curve Wars_, pp.41-41.
> : Hundreds of other such studies have been made. The
> : conclusions are remarkably similar.
Hundreds? Really? Cite a mere one hundred of them then. What? You can't?
[Phillips' self-exculpating drivel snipped]
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ejercito
In article <35151C...@news.nit>, f...@news.nit wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> > Since you appended this to my post, I have to say that the original post was
> > some white racist trying to "prove" his "superiority" by quoting the Bell
> > Curve - so I naturally threw it back in his face that that self-same
book said
> > that Jews & Asains were superior to "whites", so, if he was going to crow
> > about being "smarter" than "blacks," he would have to admit to being
inferior
> > to two groups he most likely hates as well.
>
> The difference is that jews and asians don't have institutionalized
> racial
> preferences to land them promotions and university admissions with their
> skin color as a criterion. Nor do they have racial "leaders" who cry
> racism or cultural bias to excuse academic underperformance. (wouldn't
> over-
> achieving asians suffer far more from cultural bias?) See
Of course Jews would not support affirmative action based on
religion;such a policy will result in discrimination against Jews in favor
of Christians.
Michael
Richard G. Philllips
Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> In article <35151C...@news.nit>, f...@news.nit wrote:
>
> > Susan Cohen wrote:
> >
> > > Since you appended this to my post, I have to say that the original post was
> > > some white racist trying to "prove" his "superiority" by quoting the Bell
> > > Curve - so I naturally threw it back in his face that that self-same
> book said
> > > that Jews & Asains were superior to "whites", so, if he was going to crow
> > > about being "smarter" than "blacks," he would have to admit to being
> inferior
> > > to two groups he most likely hates as well.
=========================================
Phillips
"The Bell Curve" did not claim that whites (or even Aryan whites) are
the smartest people in the world. It claimed only that their IQs average
15 points higher than those of American blacks. That and nothing else.
Now if you want to talk about that --and nothing else-- and are prepared
to do in a reasoned and rational way, then fine. But if all you want to
do is climb up on your soapbox and make speeches, then youll have to do
it alone.
================================================================
> >
Niklas Löfdahl
If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
Susan Cohen
Richard G. Philllips wrote:
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> Virtually all investigations made into the matter demonstrate, in a very
> consistent
> way, that black intelligence averages about 15 points below that of
> whites.
Well, if you beliberately set out to prove a lie, you can do so in a variety of
ways. Big deal.
> The
> best known case of this research was the book "The Bell Curve" but it is
> far from the only one.
So if you accept these results, then you must accept that Jews & Asians are your
superiors. (& I find it both hilarious & pathetic that not one of you boneheads
has had the guts to address this fact.)
> Hundreds of other such studies have been made. The
> conclusions are
> remarkably similar.
I say again:
If you accept these results, then you must accept that Jews & Asians are your
superiors. (& I find it both hilarious & pathetic that not one of you boneheads
has had the guts to address this fact.)
> Of course, if the results of such research are politically unpalatable,
> it is always possible to
> find a way to shoot down the researcher's methodology. what is NOT so
> easy is to
> come up with reliable data that supports the opposite conclusions. Of
> that I have
> seen very little.
Of course not - a closed eye sees nothing!
> This was far less of a problem 100 years ago when occupations such as
> carpenter, black-
> smith, machinist, janitor, potter, etc were common. Many black persons
> filled these occupations and were fully
> competent at them. The tragedy today is that a number of factors have
> acted to
> eliminate these roles. the net result is that the black male has become
> redundant in our society.
This is almost amusing. Tell me, do you wear shoes? Ever been in a train? Use
your air conditioner? I hope no one in your family ever needs open heart
surgery. I'd hate for you to be forced to rely on the products of a redundant
group.
Michael Ejercito
The same reasons the Mongols controlled the largest empire in human
history逆he Whites had superior weapons.
Michael
Todd Jackson
Michael Ejercito (meje...@csulb.edu) wrote:
Michael's right you know. The African tribes did not sell their own people
(willingly?), but they were forced to. A simple invention, the gun, gave
the White people an advantage over the Blacks in Africa. It also helped
then overtake the Native tribes in the Americas, too.
Todd Jackson
--
Mark Van Alstine
In article <EqFnIF.M57...@torfree.net>, cu...@torfree.net (Todd
Jackson) wrote:
> Michael Ejercito (meje...@csulb.edu) wrote:
> : In article <3518D0...@ab.se>, oral...@whitehouse.gov wrote:
>
> : > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> : > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
> : > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> : > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
> : The same reasons the Mongols controlled the largest empire in human
> : history逆he Whites had superior weapons.
> : Michael
>
> Michael's right you know. The African tribes did not sell their own people
> (willingly?), but they were forced to.
Not true. The the institution of slavery was long established in African
cultures well before Europeans showed up. Moreover, considering that a
significant portion of slaves came from the African interior- where there
were no Europeans with guns -Mr. Jackson's claim that the African slave
traders were "forced to" sell slaves to the Europeans falls flat on its
face. The simple fact was that, for the most part, Africans enslaved
Africans and sold them willingly to the Europeans.
See: http://squash.la.psu.edu/~plarson/smuseum/rooms/enslave.htm
[snip]
Dene Bebbington
RWhita8200 <rwhit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>ubject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>>From: tom...@metva.com.au (Tom Clasener)
>>Date: Mon, Mar 23, 1998 08:54 EST
>>Message-id: <35162ded...@news.metva.com.au>
>>
>>On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 06:58:39 -0500, "The Vegamite Sandwich"
>><re...@message.com> wrote:
>>
>>>How can you judge a person by IQ? How can you rate character by how smart
>>>they are?
>>
>>IQ is not the best way to determine intelligence. It is a culturally
>>skewed method at best. A person from deepest, darkest Africa may have
>>an extremely high intelligence level but he would fail any western
>>derived IQ test.
>
>
> They tried culturally African testing in the US, soul food , etc.
> Turned out whites did better on that, too.
> Western civilization is all that counts, anyway. Nobody in Africa lives
>like Africans unles they have to.
Wow Bob, you have knowledge of the views of all Africans, that truly is
an amazing ability, we all bow to your omniscience and won't bother
thinking that assertions must be substantiated.
--
Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
"Beside the braes of dawn. One clear new morning. Down where the lilies
stood in bloom. I knew that I was just a stranger in this world. A wind
just passing through." - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
Dene Bebbington
Richard G. Philllips <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>
>> In article <35151C...@news.nit>, f...@news.nit wrote:
>>
>> > Susan Cohen wrote:
>> >
>> > > Since you appended this to my post, I have to say that the original post
>was
>> > > some white racist trying to "prove" his "superiority" by quoting the Bell
>> > > Curve - so I naturally threw it back in his face that that self-same
>> book said
>> > > that Jews & Asains were superior to "whites", so, if he was going to crow
>> > > about being "smarter" than "blacks," he would have to admit to being
>> inferior
>> > > to two groups he most likely hates as well.
>
>=========================================
>Phillips
>
>"The Bell Curve" did not claim that whites (or even Aryan whites) are
>the smartest people in the world. It claimed only that their IQs average
>15 points higher than those of American blacks. That and nothing else.
Actually that book claims much else besides that when considering race.
For a start it claims that the discrepancy in average IQs is
predominantly genetic in origin, although it decides to focus on Black-
White differences regarding this subject, and neglects the implication
of the White-Asian difference. It also claims that Blacks and Latinos
are contributing to dysgenesis. There's lots more too, but just now I
can't be bothered to list it all.
[rest snipped]
MadAussie
To Suggest that "guns" were some type of "lucky" invention and the only
reason that enabled whites to dominate these peoples is the most moronic
and ludicrous statement I have ever read. What about the hundreds of years
of social and technological advances that were evident in European society,
whereas the blacks and native Americans seemed to stagnate once they'd
reached a certain level of development. And how did the white men get to
these places to conquer them? Did they shoot themselves out of guns? did
they build rafts out of guns? No it was tall ships another white invention.
How did they chain these blacks? did they bend guns around their wrists? No
they had the Knowledge of metal work, so they could make chains.So to
suggest guns were the *only* advantage they had is incredibly naive. As
much as people like you hate to admit it, there is no doubt whites were and
in a lot of peoples opinion (including mine) still are socially and
mentally superior to non whites. Look at history, look at these countries
and the ethnic areas of western cities today, the evidence is irrefutable.
P.S. I'm not a racist, I'm a REALIST. Big Difference.
Todd Jackson <cu...@torfree.net> wrote in article
<EqFnIF.M57...@torfree.net>...
> Michael Ejercito (meje...@csulb.edu) wrote:
> : In article <3518D0...@ab.se>, oral...@whitehouse.gov wrote:
>
> : > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> : > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely,
there
> : > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> : > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
> : The same reasons the Mongols controlled the largest empire in human
> : history逆he Whites had superior weapons.
> : Michael
>
> Michael's right you know. The African tribes did not sell their own
people
Susan Cohen
(flame groups deleted as a waste of time for anyone over the mental age of
12)
Niklas Löfdahl wrote:
> If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
> must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
Lessee...
Could it be that Blacks are wise, peace-loving people who wouldn't dream of
killing and enslaving other cultures just to prove their superiority? That
Whites are arrogant, violent & stupid? :->
What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
Susan Cohen
Todd Jackson wrote:
> Michael Ejercito (meje...@csulb.edu) wrote:
> : In article <3518D0...@ab.se>, oral...@whitehouse.gov wrote:
>
> : > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> : > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
> : > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> : > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
> : The same reasons the Mongols controlled the largest empire in human
> : history逆he Whites had superior weapons.
> : Michael
>
> Michael's right you know. The African tribes did not sell their own people
> (willingly?), but they were forced to.
Um, this i snot quite so. AFricans had a history of enslaving their enemies &
selling them off - *but* to them , slavery was far different than it was to us.
They assumed they'd be traded back, the way the Africans did it. What Whites
*did* do, however, was increase the demand, which, in turn, artificially
inflated the demand. The only "force" was te unwitting greed of the captors.
> A simple invention, the gun, gavethe White people an advantage over the
> Blacks in Africa.
I'm not so sure guns had all that much to do with the slave trade.
> It also helped
> then overtake the Native tribes in the Americas, too.
That & smallpox. The native peoples here were just not able to withstand the
diseases white people brought over (& vice versa, but whites just kept
coming...)
Susan Cohen
MadAussie wrote:
> To Suggest that "guns" were some type of "lucky" invention and the only
> reason that enabled whites to dominate these peoples is the most moronic
> and ludicrous statement I have ever read. What about the hundreds of years
> of social and technological advances that were evident in European society,
> whereas the blacks and native Americans seemed to stagnate once they'd
> reached a certain level of development. And how did the white men get to
> these places to conquer them? Did they shoot themselves out of guns? did
> they build rafts out of guns? No it was tall ships another white invention.
> How did they chain these blacks? did they bend guns around their wrists? No
> they had the Knowledge of metal work, so they could make chains.So to
> suggest guns were the *only* advantage they had is incredibly naive. As
> much as people like you hate to admit it, there is no doubt whites were and
> in a lot of peoples opinion (including mine) still are socially and
> mentally superior to non whites. Look at history, look at these countries
> and the ethnic areas of western cities today, the evidence is irrefutable.
Since it's been proven that Blacks could have made it to America (for instance)
long before any white person (Or did you miss "Voyage of the Ra"?), all this
proves is that they had the technology & the curiosity but *not* the arrogance
& greed which goes with colonization. I'd say that's a higher level of
civilization than anything you've delineated.
Did you also happen to miss the fact that, for centuries, Blacks (either
Egyptians or Moors) were the ultimate in culture, while whites were crawling in
filth & ignorance? These things go in cycles - read some real history for a
change.
> P.S. I'm not a racist, I'm a REALIST. Big Difference.
Or so you'd like to have us think.
Kathy
And once again I will tell you, no, you're not a realist, you are an IDIOT.
Do me a favour and get rid of that name and stop giving all us Australians bad
names.
Kathy
MadAussie wrote:
> To Suggest that "guns" were some type of "lucky" invention and the only
> reason that enabled whites to dominate these peoples is the most moronic
> and ludicrous statement I have ever read. What about the hundreds of years
> of social and technological advances that were evident in European society,
> whereas the blacks and native Americans seemed to stagnate once they'd
> reached a certain level of development. And how did the white men get to
> these places to conquer them? Did they shoot themselves out of guns? did
> they build rafts out of guns? No it was tall ships another white invention.
> How did they chain these blacks? did they bend guns around their wrists? No
> they had the Knowledge of metal work, so they could make chains.So to
> suggest guns were the *only* advantage they had is incredibly naive. As
> much as people like you hate to admit it, there is no doubt whites were and
> in a lot of peoples opinion (including mine) still are socially and
> mentally superior to non whites. Look at history, look at these countries
> and the ethnic areas of western cities today, the evidence is irrefutable.
>
> P.S. I'm not a racist, I'm a REALIST. Big Difference.
>
> Todd Jackson <cu...@torfree.net> wrote in article
> <EqFnIF.M57...@torfree.net>...
> > Michael Ejercito (meje...@csulb.edu) wrote:
> > : In article <3518D0...@ab.se>, oral...@whitehouse.gov wrote:
> >
> > : > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> > : > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely,
> there
> > : > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> > : > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
> > : The same reasons the Mongols controlled the largest empire in human
> > : history逆he Whites had superior weapons.
> > : Michael
> >
> > Michael's right you know. The African tribes did not sell their own
> people
> > (willingly?), but they were forced to. A simple invention, the gun, gave
>
> > the White people an advantage over the Blacks in Africa. It also helped
> > then overtake the Native tribes in the Americas, too.
> >
> > Todd Jackson
> > --
> >
> >
Richard G. Philllips
Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> (flame groups deleted as a waste of time for anyone over the mental age of
> 12)
>
>
> > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
> > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
>
>
> Could it be that Blacks are wise, peace-loving people who wouldn't dream of
> killing and enslaving other cultures just to prove their superiority? That
> Whites are arrogant, violent & stupid? :->
====================================
Phillips
Your conception of pre-colonialist Africa is an idealized one, to say
the least. It was far from being a peaceful place. Wars beteween
neighboring tribes were endemic and the treatment of captives was not
for the squeamish.
And when the white slave traders came, just how do you think they
acquired their captives - went into the jungles and did their own
capturing? NO way. They BOUGHT them from the slave-owning chiefs.
becasue enslaving captives was common practice and, indeed, slavery is
far from unknown in Africa TO THIS DAY.
But try telling things like this to a Liberal, for whom blacks can do no
wrong. Indeed, if they were caught in the act of cannibalism at 42nd and
Broadway, it would be lauded as a wholesome assertion of ethnic
identity.
=================================================
Travis
Susan Cohen wrote:
> Since it's been proven that Blacks could have made it to America (for >instance) long before any white person (Or did you miss "Voyage of the >Ra"?), all this proves is that they had the technology & the curiosity >but *not* the arrogance & greed which goes with colonization.
I suppose they also lacked the arrogance and greed to develope
comparable medicine, agriculture, and technological advancements as
well. Besides, your statement is still not correct. Even if they had
the technology to voyage to the New World, which I don't believe they
did, they still wouldn't have had the resources to effective colonize
(even if they had the arrogance and greed). Don't be silly, nobody has
a monopoly on evil.
>I'd say that's a higher level of civilization than anything you've >delineated.
Well, some would say that canibals that paint their faces up and bark at
the moon are every bit as sophisticated and civilized as Oxford history
professors. I however, would disagree. Blacks, like any other
civilization, had they the technology would have attempt to conquer as
much as they could. They just didn't have the technology and don't try
to say that they could have if they really wanted to.
> Did you also happen to miss the fact that, for centuries, Blacks >(either Egyptians or Moors) were the ultimate in culture, while whites >were crawling in filth & ignorance?
A trend a certain revisionist circals of history have been trying to put
forth the idea that acient Egyptians were black. However, every
legitamate historian that does not have an alterior agenda discredits
this notion and I believe they should.
>These things go in cycles - read some real history for a change.
There's no such thing as real history. History is like statistics, you
can use it to "prove" whatever you want. However, if you consider
modern day afro-centric (often afro-supremist) revisionism "real
history", I would disagree with your definition.
Anonymous
> Could it be that Blacks are wise, peace-loving people who wouldn't > dream of killing and enslaving other cultures just to prove their > superiority? That Whites are arrogant, violent & stupid? :->
Now, I am NOT AT ALL taking the other side of the argument here, but
I'm sure you know South Africa (their choice real estate) is completely
white-dominated in spite of the Nelson Mandela. That probably wasn't a
good example.
But I agree with every thing else you said :)
Travis
Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> (flame groups deleted as a waste of time for anyone over the mental age of
> 12)
>
> Niklas Löfdahl wrote:
>
> > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
> > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
>
> Lessee...
>
technologicaly advanced enough to wage campaigns of violence on the
scale of European civilizations. So in all, whites weren't/aren't more
evil- just better at being evil.
>That Whites are arrogant
yes, but with good reason
>violent
Find me one major civilization that isn't
>& stupid? :->
Wishful thinking on your part
Alexander Baron
In article <EqFnIF.M57...@torfree.net>
> Michael's right you know. The African tribes did not sell their own people
> (willingly?), but they were forced to. A simple invention, the gun, gave
> the White people an advantage over the Blacks in Africa. It also helped
> then overtake the Native tribes in the Americas, too.
Garbage, slavery is thousands of years old, blacks have practiced it just
as much as whites.
--
Alexander Baron,
93c Venner Road,
Sydenham,
London SE26 5HU.
England.
+44 (0)181 659 7713
E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
RWhita8200
>Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>From: Susan Cohen <ze...@smart.net>
>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 04:33 EST
>Message-id: <351B7264...@smart.net>
>>
>> : > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
>> : > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
>> : > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
>> : > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
>> : history逆he Whites had superior weapons.
>> : Michael
>>
>> (willingly?), but they were forced to.
>
>selling them off - *but* to them , slavery was far different than it was to
>us.
>They assumed they'd be traded back, the way the Africans did it.
Oh, horseshit. This Jewish orthodoxy that blacks are the master race is so
silly!
You just hate whites.
Down here in the South, I know some Jews who don't hate whties, but they know
they are the exception.
And on't tell me whites can't hate whites. All Poltically Correct whites
hate whties. It considered a great virtue.
Nobody ever gave a damn what happened to their slaves in Africa!
What Whites
>*did* do, however, was increase the demand, which, in turn, artificially
>inflated the demand. The only "force" was te unwitting greed of the captors.
>
>> A simple invention, the gun, gavethe White people an advantage over the
>> Blacks in Africa.
>
>I'm not so sure guns had all that much to do with the slave trade.
>
>> It also helped
>> then overtake the Native tribes in the Americas, too.
>
>That & smallpox. The native peoples here were just not able to withstand the
>diseases white people brought over (& vice versa, but whites just kept
>coming...)
>
>
Bob Whitaker
RWhita8200
>Message-id: <351B718A...@smart.net>
>
>(flame groups deleted as a waste of time for anyone over the mental age of
>12)
>
>
>> If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
>> colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
>> must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
>> slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
>
>
>Could it be that Blacks are wise, peace-loving people who wouldn't dream of
>killing and enslaving other cultures just to prove their superiority?
Like every otehr human group, blacks have enslaved as many people as they
coujld. There isno evidence blacks are at all peace-loving. They did, by the
way, commit genocide against the Hottnetots, from whom they took a huge hunk
of Africa.
You just hate whites.
That
>Whites are arrogant, violent & stupid? :->
That is the standard Jewish position. I know a number of Jews who disagree,
but this is the way Jews in general get themselves so hated.
>
>What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
Bob Whitaker
RWhita8200
>Message-id: <351B7363...@smart.net>
>
>
>
>MadAussie wrote:
>
>> To Suggest that "guns" were some type of "lucky" invention and the only
>> reason that enabled whites to dominate these peoples is the most moronic
>> and ludicrous statement I have ever read. What about the hundreds of years
>> of social and technological advances that were evident in European society,
>> whereas the blacks and native Americans seemed to stagnate once they'd
>> reached a certain level of development. And how did the white men get to
>> these places to conquer them? Did they shoot themselves out of guns? did
>> they build rafts out of guns? No it was tall ships another white invention.
>> How did they chain these blacks? did they bend guns around their wrists? No
>> they had the Knowledge of metal work, so they could make chains.So to
>> suggest guns were the *only* advantage they had is incredibly naive. As
>> much as people like you hate to admit it, there is no doubt whites were and
>> in a lot of peoples opinion (including mine) still are socially and
>> mentally superior to non whites. Look at history, look at these countries
>> and the ethnic areas of western cities today, the evidence is irrefutable.
>
>instance)
>long before any white person (Or did you miss "Voyage of the Ra"?),
You just hate whites. Egy[tians were not black. In fact, there were
prohibiitions on "Nubians' travelling north at the second cataract of the Nile.
Of course, Egypt fulfilled your fond dreams and became largely black.
Just look at them now!
This is your third anti-white diatribe in a row.
Like other rreally awful Jews, you demand the preservation of jews at any
cost, and the end of the white race by immigration and integration.
You use the Holocaust as an excuse for hating all of us.
all this
>proves is that they had the technology & the curiosity but *not* the
>arrogance
>& greed which goes with colonization. I'd say that's a higher level of
>civilization than anything you've delineated.
>
>Did you also happen to miss the fact that, for centuries, Blacks (either
>Egyptians or Moors) were the ultimate in culture, while whites were crawling
>in
>filth & ignorance? These things go in cycles - read some real history for a
>change.
>
>> P.S. I'm not a racist, I'm a REALIST. Big Difference.
>
>Or so you'd like to have us think.
>
>
> they had the technology & the curiosity but *not* the arrogance
>& greed which goes with colonization. I'd say that's a higher level of
>civilization than anything you've delineated.
Blacks, being human, did in fact do as much enslaving and other sinning as
they could. As I said, their genocide against the Hottentiots and taking of
their land is a matter of record.
>
>Did you also happen to miss the fact that, for centuries, Blacks (either
>Egyptians or Moors) were the ultimate in culture, while whites were crawling
>in
>filth & ignorance? These things go in cycles - read some real history for a
>change.
>
>
'Fraid not. There are some Poltically Correct Just-So stories that pass as
history, but Egyptians were not black at first, and at their height.
Nor was Northern Europe EVER as degenerate as you like to claim. Even in
prehistory, they were remarkably tall, and did not, as you are about to say,
ever live in caves.
>
>> P.S. I'm not a racist, I'm a REALIST. Big Difference.
>
>Or so you'd like to have us think.
>
>
Since you call anyone who cares about the white race a racist, I am PROUD to
be one!
RWhita8200
>Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 04:58 EST
>Message-id: <351B7854...@san.rr.com>
>
>No, you're not a realist, you're an IDIOT
Jo Carroll Smith
MadAussie wrote:
> To Suggest that "guns" were some type of "lucky" invention and the only
> reason that enabled whites to dominate these peoples is the most moronic
> and ludicrous statement I have ever read. What about the hundreds of years
> of social and technological advances that were evident in European society,
> whereas the blacks and native Americans seemed to stagnate once they'd
> reached a certain level of development. And how did the white men get to
> these places to conquer them? Did they shoot themselves out of guns? did
> they build rafts out of guns? No it was tall ships another white invention.
> How did they chain these blacks? did they bend guns around their wrists? No
> they had the Knowledge of metal work, so they could make chains.So to
> suggest guns were the *only* advantage they had is incredibly naive. As
> much as people like you hate to admit it, there is no doubt whites were and
> in a lot of peoples opinion (including mine) still are socially and
> mentally superior to non whites. Look at history, look at these countries
> and the ethnic areas of western cities today, the evidence is irrefutable.
>
> P.S. I'm not a racist, I'm a REALIST. Big Difference.
>
> Todd Jackson <cu...@torfree.net> wrote in article
> <EqFnIF.M57...@torfree.net>...
> > Michael Ejercito (meje...@csulb.edu) wrote:
> > : In article <3518D0...@ab.se>, oral...@whitehouse.gov wrote:
> >
> > : > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> > : > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely,
> there
> > : > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> > : > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
> > : The same reasons the Mongols controlled the largest empire in human
> > : history逆he Whites had superior weapons.
> > : Michael
> >
> > Michael's right you know. The African tribes did not sell their own
> people
> > (willingly?), but they were forced to. A simple invention, the gun, gave
>
> > the White people an advantage over the Blacks in Africa. It also helped
> > then overtake the Native tribes in the Americas, too.
> >
> > Todd Jackson
> > --
> >
> >
You may not feel like a racist, but you sound like one. You are classic. A
racist is one who elevates his/her race above all others.
I do agree that guns were not totally responsible for the undoing of African
civilization. A big part was our trust of strangers. Big mistake. Another
mistake was our failure to focus on using OUR knowledge of metalurgy to create
weapons of destruction. When whites showed up, we were poorly equiped to
defend ourselves against long distance fighters. We were close up warriors.
You know what I mean? Had the courage to get in the opponents face vs.
shooting at him from across the yard. And europeans were not the only
travellers of the sea. You might want to check into some history beyond
yours. Don't be surprised when you run across the Africans who were in Europe,
Asia, South America. And they sailed their own ships to those lands. :-)
I'm reading a book on post-colonial philosophy and the author clearly points
out that Africans dropped the ball on our scientific explorations. We got
stuck in understanding the practical day-to-day use of certain knowledge and
did not consider "why" those things worked the way they did. But according to
the author, this was due to a philosophical and cultural way of thinking and
being that is too extensive and deep to go into here.
The point is that a racist will always disclude the fact that different people
are coming from different perspectives and that determines their destinations
and mode of travel. A racist will conclude that his/her way is the "one right
way" and nothing else matters.
When you think like this, you miss out on what the other people have to offer.
I think the greatest and mostly untapped offering that blacks can make to
humanity is our understanding of our spiritual connection to all of creation.
That, too, is a concept and philosophy that is too deep to go into here. It is
however, a discussion that would be far better than the common trash that I
have seen here, to date.
You might also take a stroll through the internet and learn about all the
inventions that were at the hands of African-Americans. Off the top, a black
gentleman invented the type writer keyboard. Where would the computer
technology be without the keyboard? That is the simplest example I can give,
but you might want to check it out if you are truely not a racist. :-)
Also consider that the bulk of these inventions were done without financial
backing or institutional support. While you are at it, check out the super
computer recently invented by the Nigerian that has the oil industry standing
at attention. If you have a problem finding it, let me know. Finally, I think
that blacks invent those things that help mankind. We, to my knowledge, have
not done as much in the areas of death and destruction as europeans. I yield
on that one. :-)
Jo
ChuckF2323
From Chuck Ferree:
So far, after reading what some of these turkeys have had to say about racial
matters, I conclude that maybe one person is anywhere near close to the truth.
It isn't Bob Whitaker, the bigot of the year, and it sure as hell isn't Baron,
the potential serial killer.
Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
From: A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk (Alexander Baron)
Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 11:52 AM
Message-id: <890999...@abaron.demon.co.uk>
In article <EqFnIF.M57...@torfree.net>
> Michael's right you know. The African tribes did not sell their own people
> (willingly?), but they were forced to.
CF:>>>>>>Some African Chiefs sold their own people into slavery, however, most
of the time they were sold to Arab slave traders. Before it was over, just
about every white race had participated in capturing and selling Black Africans
to slave traders. Americans bought many thousands, but keep this in mind; these
Americans were for the most part recently arrived from Europe. Our country was
young and sparsely populated, the slaves were needed to do stoop labor, just as
today, Latinos do it, because the average white American would rather get
welfare than do stoop labor. Also few if any Black Americans will do that hard
work. And this is no reflection on Black people.
A simple invention, the gun, gave
> the White people an advantage over the Blacks in Africa. It also helped
> then overtake the Native tribes in the Americas, too.
CF:>>>That is factual, and historically accurate.
Garbage, slavery is thousands of years old, blacks have practiced it just
as much as whites.
CF:>>>>>>>Garbage, yourself, Baron. Slavery is thousands of years old, and
Black people are not the only people who were every held as slaves. The Jewish
people experienced slavery before Black people did.
Further more, Africans did practice slavery, but not nearly as much as whites
and for different reasons.
--
Alexander Baron,
93c Venner Road,
Sydenham,
London SE26 5HU.
England.
+44 (0)181 659 7713
E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
Chuck Ferree
Please visit: http://remember.org/witness/dachlib.html
Also: www2.3dresearch.com/~june/Vincent/Camps/CampsEngl.html
Michael Ejercito
> MadAussie wrote:
>
> > To Suggest that "guns" were some type of "lucky" invention and the only
> > reason that enabled whites to dominate these peoples is the most moronic
> > and ludicrous statement I have ever read. What about the hundreds of years
> > of social and technological advances that were evident in European society,
> > whereas the blacks and native Americans seemed to stagnate once they'd
> > reached a certain level of development. And how did the white men get to
> > these places to conquer them? Did they shoot themselves out of guns? did
> > they build rafts out of guns? No it was tall ships another white invention.
> > How did they chain these blacks? did they bend guns around their wrists? No
> > they had the Knowledge of metal work, so they could make chains.So to
> > suggest guns were the *only* advantage they had is incredibly naive. As
> > much as people like you hate to admit it, there is no doubt whites were and
> > in a lot of peoples opinion (including mine) still are socially and
> > mentally superior to non whites. Look at history, look at these countries
> > and the ethnic areas of western cities today, the evidence is irrefutable.
>
> Since it's been proven that Blacks could have made it to America (for
instance)
> long before any white person (Or did you miss "Voyage of the Ra"?), all this
> proves is that they had the technology & the curiosity but *not* the
arrogance
> & greed which goes with colonization. I'd say that's a higher level of
> civilization than anything you've delineated.
They lacked greed or arrogance? I guess they sold slaves to Arabs for
charitable purposes.
Michael
Alexander Baron
In article <199803272249...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
chuck...@aol.com "ChuckF2323" writes:
> CF:>>>>>>>Garbage, yourself, Baron. Slavery is thousands of years old, and
> Black people are not the only people who were every held as slaves. The Jewish
> people experienced slavery before Black people did.
> Further more, Africans did practice slavery, but not nearly as much as whites
> and for different reasons.
So what you're saying Chuck is that Whites are more inclined towards slavery
than Blacks? Hell, that sounds like a racist statement.
RWhita8200
>Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 14:43 EST
>Message-id: <351C017F...@pacbell.net>
As the establishment position, anti-white statements are represented as the
RWhita8200
>Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>From: Jo Carroll Smith <jos...@pacbell.net>
>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 14:43 EST
>Message-id: <351C017F...@pacbell.net>
>
>
>
Actually, nobody in this newsgroup, least of all the "anti-racists", gie a
damn about nonwhites one way or the other. Thwe "anti-racists" here are just
antiwhite Poltical Correctness cclones, and their only interest in nonwhties is
as a weapon against whites:
RWhita8200
>Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 17:49 EST
>Message-id: <199803272249...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>From Chuck Ferree:
>
>So far, after reading what some of these turkeys have had to say about racial
>matters, I conclude that maybe one person is anywhere near close to the
>truth.
>It isn't Bob Whitaker, the bigot of the year, and it sure as hell isn't
>Baron,
>the potential serial killer.
It's whoever hates whites, of course.
You're not much of a surprise, Chuck.
Mark Van Alstine
In article <351BC5...@ou.edu>, Travis <love...@ou.edu> wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
[snip]
> >These things go in cycles - read some real history for a change.
>
> There's no such thing as real history.
Baloney. Western historiogrpahy has established objective histrorical
truth for centuries.
> History is like statistics, you can use it to "prove" whatever you want.
So? Do guns kill or do people kill? Scientific disciplines can be
subverted or perverted. Ever hear of Lysenko? How about Lamarkism, or
Creation "science?" Like most complex issues, the more complex they are,
the more likely it is somebody will get conned by a shyster sooner or
later. History is no exception.
In the case ofthe history of the Holocaust, the shysters are professional
Holocaust deniers trying to make a buck off the genocide of millions wile
white-washing Nazism. Their suckers are typically "Aryan" trailer trash,
with more testosterone than serotonin, who cash in their beer can deposits
to buy denier garbage which they swallow hook, line, and sinker.
> However, if you consider modern day afro-centric (often afro-supremist)
> revisionism "real history", I would disagree with your definition.
Such afro-centric history ala Jeffries, for example, is about as real
history-wise as Holocaust denial is. IOW, History it ain't. Idiots, as
history has shown, come in all skin colors and ethnicities.
ChuckF2323
More of Whitaker's garbage. What a dummy!
CF
RWhita8200
>Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 18:21 EST
>Message-id: <891040...@abaron.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>
>So what you're saying Chuck is that Whites are more inclined towards slavery
>than Blacks? Hell, that sounds like a racist statement.
>
>
Chcuk hates whites. To him, hating white is not racist, but a virtue, since
he is white.
Bob Whitaker
Dene Bebbington
Whadda you expect, he is a self-proclaimed redneck!!!
RWhita8200
>Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>Date: Sun, Mar 29, 1998 18:48 EST
>Message-id: <352dd30e...@news.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>
>>So what you're saying Chuck is that Whites are more inclined towards slavery
>>than Blacks? Hell, that sounds like a racist statement.
>
>I think he is saying Blacks good - Whites bad. Check out what he has
>said about Italians, Chinese and others Alexander. Shocking stuff.
>
>
He is always saying that. Chuck thinks being antiracist is a virtue, since
he's white.
"The greatest barrier to progress is not ignorance, but the illusion of
knowledge."
-- Daniel Boorstin
Bob Whitaker
ChuckF2323
From Chuck Ferree:
#1- I don't pretend to possess "THE TRUTH about Blacks."
Several of the people commenting are making *ABSOLUTE* statements, some of
which may or may not be true. My position is too long and too complicated to
attempt an explaination here, and it really isn't that important to AR. Some of
the opinions are bigoted and racist, I object to that more than anything. Also
I feel that most of us including me are shooting from the hip.
Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
From: re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Date: Sun, Mar 29, 1998 11:48 PM
Message-id: <352dd30e...@news.demon.co.uk>
A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk (Alexander Baron) wrote:
>In article <199803272249...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
> chuck...@aol.com "ChuckF2323" writes:
>
>> CF:>>>>>>>Garbage, yourself, Baron. Slavery is thousands of years old, and
>> Black people are not the only people who were every held as slaves. The
Jewish
>> people experienced slavery before Black people did.
Black people existed before Jews; so I imagine they would have had the
odd slave, and been the odd slave, before them. Old Testament Jews had
slaves Chuck.
CF:>>>>>>>Is this a fact which can be proven, or just an opinion? How do we
know which race came first..that is can Jews be considered a race, which I
personally don't think they are. I can't argue about the Bible because I just
don't know.
>> Further more, Africans did practice slavery, but not nearly as much as
whites
>> and for different reasons.
Different reasons?
CF:>>>>>>The whites were in the business of buying and selling Black Africans
as slaves, this was slave trade. The motive was profit.
Native Africans captured other Blacks mostly during battles and kept some of
them as slaves. The motive; these prisoners did the work the winners didn't
want to do. I see that as a different reason than bankers and plantation owners
buying and selling Black Africans for a profit.
>So what you're saying Chuck is that Whites are more inclined towards slavery
>than Blacks? Hell, that sounds like a racist statement.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Blacks captured other Blacks and sold them to
whites and Arabs for profit. I don't think the Blacks who did this did it for
racist reasons. The whites on the other hand did not consider the Blacks which
they had bought or captured as humans. Chatel is the word they used. Anyway,
this is getting way off subject. I oppose racisim, I oppose bigotry. I don't
mean to sound sanctimonious about any of this, but the argument was pushed by
the likes of Whitaker, who is a racist.
I think he is saying Blacks good - Whites bad. Check out what he has
said about Italians, Chinese and others Alexander. Shocking stuff.
CF:>>>>>BS! Anything I ever wrote about other races including my own was tongue
in cheek. I shouldn't have done it, because some posters are too intense, and
that kind of humor goes over like a lead balloon. I have apologized on AR
about any racial slurs. None were intended to be serious.
>
>--
>
> Alexander Baron,
> 93c Venner Road,
> Sydenham,
> London SE26 5HU.
> England.
> +44 (0)181 659 7713
> E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
>
>
>"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
>the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
>
Chuck Ferree
Bibor Szilard Kiraly
The whales are intelligent, but they cannot raise a civilization because
they are too "specialised", they don't have hands to build. The blacks are
specialised too (black skin, great body strength and stamina). They were
isolated from the happenings that moved the great civilizations of the
Middle-East/Northern Africa. If we are talking about hatred, my opinion is
that the Arabs and Gipsies are much more "dirty" than the blacks.
After all, don't forget that the dawn of human history began in Central
Africa (this is told by WHITE scientists).
A tall blonde from Croatia
Niklas Löfdahl <led...@ab.se> wrote in article <3518D0...@ab.se>...
Susan Cohen
Michael Ejercito wrote:
> In article <35151C...@news.nit>, f...@news.nit wrote:
>
> > Susan Cohen wrote:
> >
> > > Since you appended this to my post, I have to say that the original post was
> > > some white racist trying to "prove" his "superiority" by quoting the Bell
> > > Curve - so I naturally threw it back in his face that that self-same
> book said
> > > that Jews & Asains were superior to "whites", so, if he was going to crow
> > > about being "smarter" than "blacks," he would have to admit to being
> inferior
> > > to two groups he most likely hates as well.
> >
> > The difference is that jews and asians don't have institutionalized
> > racial
> > preferences to land them promotions and university admissions with their
> > skin color as a criterion. Nor do they have racial "leaders" who cry
> > racism or cultural bias to excuse academic underperformance. (wouldn't
> > over-
> > achieving asians suffer far more from cultural bias?) See
> Of course Jews would not support affirmative action based on
> religion;such a policy will result in discrimination against Jews in favor
> of Christians.
I beg your pardon? This would be impossible.
Susan Cohen
Richard G. Philllips wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
> >
> > (flame groups deleted as a waste of time for anyone over the mental age of
> > 12)
> >
> > Niklas Löfdahl wrote:
> >
> > > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> > > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
> > > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> > > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
> >
> > Lessee...
> >
> > Could it be that Blacks are wise, peace-loving people who wouldn't dream of
> > killing and enslaving other cultures just to prove their superiority? That
> > Whites are arrogant, violent & stupid? :->
>
> ====================================
> Phillips
>
> Your conception of pre-colonialist Africa is an idealized one, to say
> the least.
It was also a smart-assed joke that you're too stiff & stupid to see, bozo.
> It was far from being a peaceful place. Wars beteween
> neighboring tribes were endemic and the treatment of captives was not
> for the squeamish.
>
> And when the white slave traders came, just how do you think they
> acquired their captives - went into the jungles and did their own
> capturing? NO way. They BOUGHT them from the slave-owning chiefs.
> becasue enslaving captives was common practice and, indeed, slavery is
> far from unknown in Africa TO THIS DAY.
No duh!
> But try telling things like this to a Liberal, for whom blacks can do no
> wrong. Indeed, if they were caught in the act of cannibalism at 42nd and
> Broadway, it would be lauded as a wholesome assertion of ethnic
> identity.
> =================================================
>
> >
> > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
I notice you didn't answer this.
Susan Cohen
Travis wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
> >
> > (flame groups deleted as a waste of time for anyone over the mental age of
> > 12)
> >
> > Niklas Löfdahl wrote:
> >
> > > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> > > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
> > > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> > > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
> >
> > Lessee...
> >
> > Could it be that Blacks are wise, peace-loving people who wouldn't >dream of killing and enslaving other cultures just to prove their >superiority?
> No, blacks were every bit as violent but were not organized, unified, or
> technologicaly advanced enough to wage campaigns of violence on the
> scale of European civilizations. So in all, whites weren't/aren't more
> evil- just better at being evil
As I said before, it was mostly a snide spitball on my part. I thought it was obvious, but I keep forgetting that people do write that stupidly *not* on
purpose!
> >That Whites are arrogant
> yes, but with good reason
> >violent
> Find me one major civilization that isn't
> >& stupid? :->
> Wishful thinking on your part
Hardly. Look at all the whites who took my post so seriously.
I even put a smiley - & you *still* couldn't figure it out.
> > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
I notice you didn't answer this. None of you did.
Susan Cohen
Anonymous wrote:
> > Could it be that Blacks are wise, peace-loving people who wouldn't > dream of killing and enslaving other cultures just to prove their > superiority? That Whites are arrogant, violent & stupid? :->
> > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
>
> Now, I am NOT AT ALL taking the other side of the argument here, but
> I'm sure you know South Africa (their choice real estate) is completely
> white-dominated in spite of the Nelson Mandela. That probably wasn't a
> good example.
Especially since I thought they *had* "fixed" that...
> But I agree with every thing else you said :)
I was really being a little hyperbolic, just to spitball...
Susan Cohen
dana
You're just another ignorant son of a bitch...What do you mean
"dirty"?...Anyone who doesn't wash himself daily is "dirty" -- it has
nothing to do with race or ethnicity. If I didn't use any soap on my body
for a week I'd be dirty too -- we all would.
dana
Bibor Szilard Kiraly <bibor....@zg.tel.hr> wrote in article
<01bd5c1e$d3cacee0$c4e41dc3@default>...
> The whales are intelligent, but they cannot raise a civilization because
> they are too "specialised", they don't have hands to build. The blacks
are
> specialised too (black skin, great body strength and stamina). They were
> isolated from the happenings that moved the great civilizations of the
> Middle-East/Northern Africa. If we are talking about hatred, my opinion
is
> that the Arabs and Gipsies are much more "dirty" than the blacks.
>
> After all, don't forget that the dawn of human history began in Central
> Africa (this is told by WHITE scientists).
>
> A tall blonde from Croatia
>
> Niklas Löfdahl <led...@ab.se> wrote in article <3518D0...@ab.se>...
Anonymous
> > > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
I don't think this has anything to do with one race being "better" than
the other, but incidentally, don't whites currently rule South Africa, a
particularly choice piece of land (which I personally think sucks) and
didn't the British rule Hong Kong until the late eighties until they
turned over the city to the Chinese people?
ChuckF2323
Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 6:57 PM
Message-id: <pNaVmwBs...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>
ChuckF2323 <chuck...@aol.com> wrote:
>More of Whitaker's garbage. What a dummy!
Whadda you expect, he is a self-proclaimed redneck!!!
CF:>>>>>>At the very least!
--
Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
"Beside the braes of dawn. One clear new morning. Down where the lilies
stood in bloom. I knew that I was just a stranger in this world. A wind
just passing through." - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
Travis
> > > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
>
> I notice you didn't answer this. None of you did.
Susan Cohen
Sorry about the double posting - I have no idea how it happened.
Susan Cohen wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > > Could it be that Blacks are wise, peace-loving people who wouldn't > dream of killing and enslaving other cultures just to prove their > superiority? That Whites are arrogant, violent & stupid? :->
> > > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
> >
Susan Cohen
Travis wrote:
> > > > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
> >
> > I notice you didn't answer this. None of you did.
> OK, have you ever heard of the British Commonwealth?
If we're going to dredge up ancient history, you'll be sorry.
Bruce Dickey
Travis wrote:
>
> > > > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
> >
> > I notice you didn't answer this. None of you did.
> OK, have you ever heard of the British Commonwealth?
Just for the record, that was true in the old days of the British
Empire, but it does not apply to today's British Commonwealth. Today's
Commonwealth is a voluntary association of independent countries which
deals with trade and other topics of mutual interest. While there are a
number of member countries which have chosen to retain the Queen as Head
of State, such as Canada and New Zealand, Britain has no power
whatsoever. In the African republics which remain part of the
Commonwealth (eg Malawi, Nigeria), the British have no role whatsoever.
It is interesting to note that a couple of years ago, the country of
Mozambique, which was a Portuguese colony, applied and was accepted into
the British Commonwealth.
Spike White
Susan Cohen (ze...@smart.net) wrote:
: Travis wrote:
: > > > > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
: > >
: > > I notice you didn't answer this. None of you did.
: > OK, have you ever heard of the British Commonwealth?
: If we're going to dredge up ancient history, you'll be sorry.
Wow, you must be young. I don't consider anything within this decade
(apartheid, HK a british protectorate) to be ancient history. But I'm
an old fart, I guess.
--
Spike White | | Dilbert and Drew Carey
Tivoli Systems | spike...@tivoli.com | -- separated at birth?
Austin, TX | '87 BMW K75S (motorcycle)|
Disclaimer: The guys down the hall disagree with everything I say. Guess
who speaks for the company!
ChuckF2323
From Chuck FerreeSubject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
From: re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Date: Tue, Mar 31, 1998 11:34 PM
Message-id: <35256e77...@news.demon.co.uk>
chuck...@aol.com (ChuckF2323) wrote:
>From Chuck Ferree:
>
>#1- I don't pretend to possess "THE TRUTH about Blacks."
>
>Several of the people commenting are making *ABSOLUTE* statements, some of
>which may or may not be true. My position is too long and too complicated to
>attempt an explanation here, and it really isn't that important to AR. Some of
>the opinions are bigoted and racist, I object to that more than anything. Also
>I feel that most of us including me are shooting from the hip.
If you claim statements are racist and bigoted you should at least say
which ones and by whom - and why.
>Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>From: re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
>Date: Sun, Mar 29, 1998 11:48 PM
>Message-id: <352dd30e...@news.demon.co.uk>
>
>A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk (Alexander Baron) wrote:
>
>>In article <199803272249...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>> chuck...@aol.com "ChuckF2323" writes:
>>
>>> CF:>>>>>>>Garbage, yourself, Baron. Slavery is thousands of years old, and
>>> Black people are not the only people who were every held as slaves. The
>Jewish
>>> people experienced slavery before Black people did.
>
>Black people existed before Jews; so I imagine they would have had the
>odd slave, and been the odd slave, before them. Old Testament Jews had
>slaves Chuck.
>
>CF:>>>>>>>Is this a fact which can be proven, or just an opinion?
It is widely known. Ask a knowledgeable Jew - or read the bible Chuck.
How do we
>know which race came first..that is can Jews be considered a race, which I
>personally don't think they are. I can't argue about the Bible because I just
>don't know.
Ask Laura Finsten about the origin of Man , I think she will tell you
that the generally held view is that Man came out of Africa - though
there are people who argue for a more diffuse origin.
>>> Further more, Africans did practice slavery, but not nearly as much as
>whites
>>> and for different reasons.
>
>Different reasons?
>
>CF:>>>>>>The whites were in the business of buying and selling Black Africans
>as slaves, this was slave trade. The motive was profit.
>Native Africans captured other Blacks mostly during battles and kept some of
>them as slaves. The motive; these prisoners did the work the winners didn't
>want to do. I see that as a different reason than bankers and plantation
owners
>buying and selling Black Africans for a profit.
Rubbish Chuck. Blacks were capturing other Blacks for many centuries
and selling them "up North" to Egypt and Rome before there was a true
Jewish nationhood.
>>So what you're saying Chuck is that Whites are more inclined towards slavery
>>than Blacks? Hell, that sounds like a racist statement.
>
>No, that's not what I'm saying. Blacks captured other Blacks and sold them to
>whites and Arabs for profit. I don't think the Blacks who did this did it for
>racist reasons.
Who said anything about racism Chuck? Except in response to your
comments.
>The whites on the other hand did not consider the Blacks which
>they had bought or captured as humans. Chatel is the word they used. Anyway,
>this is getting way off subject.
And the word "goyim" can mean "Cattle" Chuck.
>I oppose racism, I oppose bigotry. I don't
>mean to sound sanctimonious about any of this, but the argument was pushed by
>the likes of Whitaker, who is a racist.
No, it was brought up by you.
>I think he is saying Blacks good - Whites bad. Check out what he has
>said about Italians, Chinese and others Alexander. Shocking stuff.
>
>CF:>>>>>BS! Anything I ever wrote about other races including my own was
tongue
>in cheek. I shouldn't have done it, because some posters are too intense, and
>that kind of humor goes over like a lead balloon. I have apologized on AR
>about any racial slurs. None were intended to be serious.
Oh I see, it was all a joke all those times. That's all right then.
Lucky your friends are so forgiving of you; pity they are less
forgiving of others jokes. Indeed, pity that you are so unforgiving of
others' jokes Chuck.
>
>>
>>--
>>
>> Alexander Baron,
>> 93c Venner Road,
>> Sydenham,
>> London SE26 5HU.
>> England.
>> +44 (0)181 659 7713
>> E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
>>
>>
>>"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
>>the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Chuck Ferree
>Please visit: http://remember.org/witness/dachlib.html
>Also: www2.3dresearch.com/~june/Vincent/Camps/CampsEngl.html
Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
From: re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Date: Tue, Mar 31, 1998 11:34 PM
Message-id: <35256e77...@news.demon.co.uk>
chuck...@aol.com (ChuckF2323) wrote:
>From Chuck Ferree:
>
>#1- I don't pretend to possess "THE TRUTH about Blacks."
CF:>>>>>>Fergus, read this again!
>
>Several of the people commenting are making *ABSOLUTE* statements, some of
>which may or may not be true. My position is too long and too complicated to
>attempt an explaination here, and it really isn't that important to AR. Some
of
>the opinions are bigoted and racist, I object to that more than anything. Also
>I feel that most of us including me are shooting from the hip.
If you claim statements are racist and bigoted you should at least say
which ones and by whom - and why.
CF:>>>>>>I suppose so, but right now, I'm not in the mood to fool with it. I'll
get back to it .....maybe!
>Subject: Re: THE TRUTH about blacks!!
>From: re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
>Date: Sun, Mar 29, 1998 11:48 PM
>Message-id: <352dd30e...@news.demon.co.uk>
>
>A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk (Alexander Baron) wrote:
>
>>In article <199803272249...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>> chuck...@aol.com "ChuckF2323" writes:
>>
>>> CF:>>>>>>>Garbage, yourself, Baron. Slavery is thousands of years old, and
>>> Black people are not the only people who were every held as slaves. The
>Jewish
>>> people experienced slavery before Black people did.
>
>Black people existed before Jews; so I imagine they would have had the
>odd slave, and been the odd slave, before them. Old Testament Jews had
>slaves Chuck.
>
>CF:>>>>>>>Is this a fact which can be proven, or just an opinion?
It is widely known. Ask a knowledgable Jew - or read the bible Chuck.
CF:>>>>>>You do the research and prove your point. I said I don't have the
truth, I doubt if you do either. If it's important....post it.
How do we
>know which race came first..that is can Jews be considered a race, which I
>personally don't think they are. I can't argue about the Bible because I just
>don't know.
Ask Laura Finsten about the origin of Man , I think she will tell you
that the generally held view is that Man came out of Africa - though
there are people who argue for a more diffuse origin.
CF:>>>>>As much as I respect Laura Finsten, you are the guy making all these
profound absolutes, you prove what you say, don't refer me to some other
source. Shit, man that's easy.
>>> Further more, Africans did practice slavery, but not nearly as much as
>whites
>>> and for different reasons.
>
>Different reasons?
>
>CF:>>>>>>The whites were in the business of buying and selling Black Africans
>as slaves, this was slave trade. The motive was profit.
>Native Africans captured other Blacks mostly during battles and kept some of
>them as slaves. The motive; these prisoners did the work the winners didn't
>want to do. I see that as a different reason than bankers and plantation
owners
>buying and selling Black Africans for a profit.
Rubbish Chuck. Blacks were capturing other Blacks for many centuries
and selling them "up North" to Egypt and Rome before there was a true
Jewish nationhood.
CF:>>>>>>That's my point almost exactly!
>>So what you're saying Chuck is that Whites are more inclined towards slavery
>>than Blacks? Hell, that sounds like a racist statement.
>
>No, that's not what I'm saying. Blacks captured other Blacks and sold them to
>whites and Arabs for profit. I don't think the Blacks who did this did it for
>racist reasons.
Who said anything about racism Chuck? Except in response to your
comments.
CF:>>>>>>>Is this post about slavery? Racisim or what?
>The whites on the other hand did not consider the Blacks which
>they had bought or captured as humans. Chatel is the word they used. Anyway,
>this is getting way off subject.
And the word "goyim" can mean "Cattle" Chuck.
CF:>>>>>>Bait and switch, artist. The question was:.>>>>>>>>>
>I oppose racisim, I oppose bigotry. I don't
>mean to sound sanctimonious about any of this, but the argument was pushed by
>the likes of Whitaker, who is a racist.
No, it was brought up by you.
CF:>>>>>>>Better check Deja News. You are wrong!
>I think he is saying Blacks good - Whites bad. Check out what he has
>said about Italians, Chinese and others Alexander. Shocking stuff.
>
>CF:>>>>>BS! Anything I ever wrote about other races including my own was
tongue
>in cheek. I shouldn't have done it, because some posters are too intense, and
>that kind of humor goes over like a lead balloon. I have apologized on AR
>about any racial slurs. None were intended to be serious.
Oh I see, it was all a joke all those times. That's all right then.
Lucky your friends are so forgiving of you; pity they are less
forgiving of others jokes. Indeed, pity that you are so unforgiving of
others' jokes Chuck.
CF:>>>>>>What jokes?
cf
>
>>
>>--
>>
>> Alexander Baron,
>> 93c Venner Road,
>> Sydenham,
>> London SE26 5HU.
>> England.
>> +44 (0)181 659 7713
>> E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
>>
>>
>>"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
>>the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Niggerstomper
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:12:39 -0500, fuz <f...@news.nit> wrote:
>Susan Cohen wrote:
>
>> Since you appended this to my post, I have to say that the original post was
>> some white racist trying to "prove" his "superiority" by quoting the Bell
>> Curve - so I naturally threw it back in his face that that self-same book said
>> that Jews & Asains were superior to "whites", so, if he was going to crow
>> about being "smarter" than "blacks," he would have to admit to being inferior
>> to two groups he most likely hates as well.
>
>The difference is that jews and asians don't have institutionalized
>racial
>preferences to land them promotions and university admissions with their
>skin color as a criterion. Nor do they have racial "leaders" who cry
>racism or cultural bias to excuse academic underperformance. (wouldn't
>over-
>achieving asians suffer far more from cultural bias?)
But Jews and Asians are not discriminated against nearly as much as
black people, they were never slaves in this country, and came to
America from places wherein they could potentially be prosperous
before they left. It's hard to establish a family as wealthy when
that family is enslaved. It will take a while for black people to be
generally competitive with others, for the reasons I've mentioned.
Affirmative action, whether you like it or not, is the easiest way to
start levelling the playing field.
By the way, you Nazis have your racial "leaders," so quit pointing
fingers.
e-mail to 'adtj...@hotmail.commiepinkobastard'
Niggerstomper
>
>
>Richard G. Philllips wrote:
>
>> =========================================
>> Phillips
>
100 years ago when occupations such as
>> carpenter, black-
>> smith, machinist, janitor, potter, etc were common. Many black persons
>> filled these occupations and were fully
>> competent at them. The tragedy today is that a number of factors have
>> acted to
>> eliminate these roles. the net result is that the black male has become
>> redundant in our society.
>
Redundant? Do you own a dictionary? You might want to look up the
word "redundant." I don't think that's the word you want to use.
You stupid piece of shit, you :->
e-mail to 'adtj...@hotmail.commiepinkobastard'
Susan Cohen
Anonymous wrote:
> > > > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
> I notice you didn't answer this. None of you did.
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with one race being "better" than
> the other, but incidentally, don't whites currently rule South Africa,
So you haven't watched the news for the last 10 years...?
> a
> particularly choice piece of land (which I personally think sucks) and
> didn't the British rule Hong Kong until the late eighties until they
> turned over the city to the Chinese people?
So you're saying that Whites don't rule there anymore, right...?
(And you're also saying that the British are all white, but we'll just let that one
slide...)
Susan Cohen
Hands up all who think this may be an inept troll...?
Michael Ejercito
In article <6fu94i$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
inv...@emailaddress.com (Niggerstomper) wrote:
> But Jews and Asians are not discriminated against nearly as much as
> black people, they were never slaves in this country, and came to
> America from places wherein they could potentially be prosperous
> before they left. It's hard to establish a family as wealthy when
> that family is enslaved. It will take a while for black people to be
> generally competitive with others, for the reasons I've mentioned.
> Affirmative action, whether you like it or not, is the easiest way to
> start levelling the playing field.
> By the way, you Nazis have your racial "leaders," so quit pointing
> fingers.
> e-mail to 'adtj...@hotmail.commiepinkobastard'
Michael
pogo
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with one race being "better" than
> the other, but incidentally, don't whites currently rule South Africa, a
> particularly choice piece of land (which I personally think sucks) and
> didn't the British rule Hong Kong until the late eighties until they
> turned over the city to the Chinese people?
>
educate your self before you even attempt to argue.
Soth Africa is now, and has been for some time, ruled by nelson
mandela.....black. and hong kong was run by the british until 1997, not
the late 80's. people's ignorance astounds me. and why would you think
south africa sucks? have you ever been there? furthermore, south africa
is no more 'choice' than ehtiopia, morocco, the ivory coast, etc etc.
.......................pogo
"i didn't do it...i saw who did"
Susan Cohen
This one's a keeper - I'm leaving it intact, as it bears repeating.
Thanks, Mark!!!
Susan
Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> In article <EqA2CK.A...@torfree.net>, cu...@torfree.net (Todd
> Jackson) wrote:
>
> > Richard G. Philllips (rgp...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> > : Kenya Kawanee Hemingway wrote:
> > : >
> > : > Not to be rude or anything. I don't know any of you but what is the point
> > : > of the initial statement. I'm sure you've heard that you can't believe
> > : > everything that you read. Also haven't any of you ever come across a
> > : > black person that you thought was intelligent? Or do you just resent
> > : > blacks altogether which would therefore allow you to justify any negative
> > : > statement about blacks? I have to say,in america, asians are supposed to
> > : > be known for being good in math, science and anything with computers. I
> > : > have come across quite a few who are haven't a clue. I have also come
> > : > across many whites who are at first resentful at the fact that I am in
> > : > "their" classrooms but after they find out that I have aced the exam, they
> > : > want to get to know me. As far as intelligence goes, I really do not
> > : > think you can determine someone's intelligence by a test. Besides most
> > : > people who can afford to pay to have someone else take these type of exams
> > : > for them do. It happens all the time. So again what exactly is your
> > : > point for stating these results and just where did you get them, who were
> > : > they tested on, how reliable is your source?
> >
> > : =========================================
> > : Phillips
> >
> > : Virtually all investigations made into the matter demonstrate, in a very
> > : consistent way, that black intelligence averages about 15 points below that
> > : of whites.
>
> According to Nisbett:
>
> <begin quote>
>
> To simplify the reporting of the academic skills data, I will present the
> average degree of convergence for the five data sources the book [_The
> Bell Curve_] presents in the form of degree of improvement in composite
> scores (verbal or reading plus math, or reading plus math and science).
> The best data sources is the National Assessment of Educational Progress
> (NEAP), based on a random smple of thousands of American students of age
> nine, thirteen, and seventeen. The reduction in B/W gap for the composite
> score over a period of about twenty years ending in 1990 was equal to .28
> standard deviations, or 4.2 IQ points. Another long-duration study the
> authors report is the change in B/W gap in SAT scores over a sventeen-year
> period ending in 1993. This was a reduction of almost a third of a
> standard deviation, equivalent to five IQ points for a two-decade period.
> There are also three shorter term studies lasting about a decade. The
> National High School Studies showed a reduction in B/W gap of about .15
> standard deviations over a ten year period ending in 1982, which is
> equivalent to a 4.5 point reduction for a two-decade period. The B?W gap
> in American College TEst scores decreased by .16 standard deviations ove
> ra nine-year period ending in 1988, which is equivalent to a 5.7 reduction
> over a two-decade period. Each of these results is compatable with the
> following generalization: the B/W gap has been decreasing by about 2.5 IQ
> points per decade. This would indicate that, assuming the gap was fifteen
> points two decades prior to around 1990, the gap in 1990 was only around
> ten points.
>
> <end quote>
>
> Source: Fraser, _The Bell Curve Wars_, p.49.
>
> And of course, by extrapolation, around 2010 there will be a zero B/W IQ gap.
>
> > : The best known case of this research was the book "The Bell Curve" but it is
> > : far from the only one.
>
> According to Nisbett:
>
> <begin quote>
>
> ...There are a total of seven studies providing direct evidence on the
> question of a genetic basis for the B/W IQ gap. Six of them are consistant
> with a zero genetic contribution to the gap (or with a slight African
> superiority) based just on the raw IQ numbers, and though all of these six
> suffer from interpretive difficulties, they mostly boil down to a single
> objection. If it was very low IQ
> whites who mated with blacks (or very high IQ blacks who mated with
> whites), the result could be explained away. (One study, which compared
> blacks and whites in the same institutional environment, is free from this
> objection.) The self-selection factor would have to be implausibly great,
> however, and would have to be present under a variety of circumstances, in
> several very different locales, at several different time periods. The
> remaining study- the only one that the authors write about at any length
> -is at least on the face of it consistent with a model assumng a
> substantial genetic contribution to the B/W gap. But that study has as
> many intereptive problem as the other, including the two studies which the
> authors mention only to dismiss. Any reader would surely reach very
> different conclusions about the likely degree of genetic contribution to
> the B/W gap by virtue of knowing the facts just presented than by reading
> the highly selected review presented in _The Bell Curve_.
>
> <end quote>
>
> Source: Fraser, _The Bell Curve Wars_, pp.41-41.
>
> > : Hundreds of other such studies have been made. The
> > : conclusions are remarkably similar.
>
> Hundreds? Really? Cite a mere one hundred of them then. What? You can't?
>
> [Phillips' self-exculpating drivel snipped]
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
>
> -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil McCracken
You'd have to be able to prove it first. I think most discrimination
is subtle, and that the people who discriminate don't always realize
what they're doing.
> Michael
e-mail to 'adtj...@hotmail.commiepinkobastard'
dana
I think most people realize when they're being racist -- subtly or not. As
an African-American guy, if I had the proverbial $10 -- adjusted for
inflastion, of course -- for everytime someone said to me (after meeting me
in person): "Oh...you're black...", shit, I could BUY Microsoft plus a
dozen more Fortune 500 companies!!
dana
Phil McCracken <inv...@emailaddress.com> wrote in article
<6g30ar$f...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Todd Jackson
Susan Cohen (ze...@smart.net) wrote:
: Todd Jackson wrote:
: > Michael Ejercito (meje...@csulb.edu) wrote:
: > : In article <3518D0...@ab.se>, oral...@whitehouse.gov wrote:
: >
: > : > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
: > : > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
: > : > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
: > : > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
: > : The same reasons the Mongols controlled the largest empire in human
: > : history逆he Whites had superior weapons.
: > : Michael
: >
: > Michael's right you know. The African tribes did not sell their own people
: > (willingly?), but they were forced to.
: Um, this i snot quite so. AFricans had a history of enslaving their enemies &
: selling them off - *but* to them , slavery was far different than it was to us.
: They assumed they'd be traded back, the way the Africans did it. What Whites
: *did* do, however, was increase the demand, which, in turn, artificially
: inflated the demand. The only "force" was te unwitting greed of the captors.
You missed that I wrote that the African tribes did not sell their own
people willingly. Based on what you had said, I will say that had they
known, they would not have participated. We do not know if they did or
not. I'll assume that they didn't.
: > A simple invention, the gun, gavethe White people an advantage over the
: > Blacks in Africa.
: I'm not so sure guns had all that much to do with the slave trade.
Maybe it wasn't the number one force, but it did have an influence.
: > It also helped
: > then overtake the Native tribes in the Americas, too.
: That & smallpox. The native peoples here were just not able to withstand the
: diseases white people brought over (& vice versa, but whites just kept
: coming...)
--
Todd Jackson
: MadAussie wrote:
: > To Suggest that "guns" were some type of "lucky" invention and the only
: > reason that enabled whites to dominate these peoples is the most moronic
: > and ludicrous statement I have ever read.
Who suggested this? I'd sure like to know.
: > What about the hundreds of years
: > of social and technological advances that were evident in European society,
: > whereas the blacks and native Americans seemed to stagnate once they'd
: > reached a certain level of development.
Progress takes time. We all know that. To suggest that it doesn't is
one of the most moronic and ludicrous statements I have ever read.
: > And how did the white men get to
: > these places to conquer them? Did they shoot themselves out of guns? did
: > they build rafts out of guns? No it was tall ships another white invention.
: > How did they chain these blacks? did they bend guns around their wrists? No
: > they had the Knowledge of metal work, so they could make chains.So to
: > suggest guns were the *only* advantage they had is incredibly naive.
I'm assuming that you're being quite sarcastic here. But look at the
situations in their respective contexts. The African tribes did not
require knowledge of using metals as much as Whites did.
Also, guns were not the only advantage. They had a couple of things
going on for them: numbers, knowledge, strength.
: > As
: > much as people like you hate to admit it, there is no doubt whites were and
: > in a lot of peoples opinion (including mine) still are socially and
: > mentally superior to non whites. Look at history, look at these countries
: > and the ethnic areas of western cities today, the evidence is irrefutable.
The main reason why this is so is because everything is not looked at in
context. Many look at others and see their problems, but they can't see
their own. So look at it this way: many look at blacks when it comes to
violence, etc. and we realise that there is a violence problem in some
areas. We know that especially because others have told us. Now, when
some black leaders or communities tell white ones their problems, they
don't admit them. This is only because they can't see their own
problems.
: > P.S. I'm not a racist, I'm a REALIST. Big Difference.
Please expain the difference. I'm dying to know.
Todd Jackson
--
Alexander Baron
In article <01bd5f18$36422400$1fcc17d0@einstein> cjac...@fuse.net "dana" writes:
> I think most people realize when they're being racist -- subtly or not. As
> an African-American guy, if I had the proverbial $10 -- adjusted for
> inflastion, of course -- for everytime someone said to me (after meeting me
> in person): "Oh...you're black...", shit, I could BUY Microsoft plus a
> dozen more Fortune 500 companies!!
>
What has this to do with "racism"? Supposing you were in a wheelchair and
they commented, hey, you're a cripple. Would that be "hate".
> > What about CRIMINALIZING discrimination? Have you considered that?
Good idea, better still, everytime you think somebody discriminates punch them
in the face. They'll soon stop discriminating, in fact they might even like
you.
> > You'd have to be able to prove it first. I think most discrimination
> > is subtle, and that the people who discriminate don't always realize
> > what they're doing.
In other words, people are sick because they don't conform to your
perceived mores. Discrimination means choosing one in preference to another.
I think most people would choose a white man to an obviously paranoid black one.
dana
Yes, extremely paranoid...Maybe you can get YOUR psychiatrist to write me a
prescription some Prozac.
dana
Alexander Baron <A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<891677...@abaron.demon.co.uk>...
Redneck Killer!
Dene Bebbington wrote:
> Richard G. Philllips <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35151C...@news.nit>, f...@news.nit wrote:
> >>
> >> > Susan Cohen wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Since you appended this to my post, I have to say that the original post
> >was
> >> > > some white racist trying to "prove" his "superiority" by quoting the Bell
> >> > > Curve - so I naturally threw it back in his face that that self-same
> >> book said
> >> > > that Jews & Asains were superior to "whites", so, if he was going to crow
> >> > > about being "smarter" than "blacks," he would have to admit to being
> >> inferior
> >> > > to two groups he most likely hates as well.
> >
> >=========================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >"The Bell Curve" did not claim that whites (or even Aryan whites) are
> >the smartest people in the world. It claimed only that their IQs average
> >15 points higher than those of American blacks. That and nothing else.
>
> Actually that book claims much else besides that when considering race.
> For a start it claims that the discrepancy in average IQs is
> predominantly genetic in origin, although it decides to focus on Black-
> White differences regarding this subject, and neglects the implication
> of the White-Asian difference. It also claims that Blacks and Latinos
> are contributing to dysgenesis. There's lots more too, but just now I
> can't be bothered to list it all.
>
> [rest snipped]
Yawn!! The argument about race, genes and intelligence has been answered decades
ago. There is no "intelligent gene" for race. If there were, someone needs to
explain why Africans are in the top 5 in math and science in the world. The US is
almost last next to South Africa. Also nearly all Africans speak three or more
languages. Many Blacks in the US tend to learn other languages quite quickly also.
In Germany and Korea, most US Army blacks were more willing to learn the language of
the locals than whites.
Redneck Killer!
Perhaps I missed something, but I don't think that he meant dirty as in smelly,
rather as underhanded or sneaky.
Which I still don't understand.
dana wrote:
> You're just another ignorant son of a bitch...What do you mean
> "dirty"?...Anyone who doesn't wash himself daily is "dirty" -- it has
> nothing to do with race or ethnicity. If I didn't use any soap on my body
> for a week I'd be dirty too -- we all would.
>
> dana
>
> Bibor Szilard Kiraly <bibor....@zg.tel.hr> wrote in article
> <01bd5c1e$d3cacee0$c4e41dc3@default>...
> > The whales are intelligent, but they cannot raise a civilization because
> > they are too "specialised", they don't have hands to build. The blacks
> are
> > specialised too (black skin, great body strength and stamina). They were
> > isolated from the happenings that moved the great civilizations of the
> > Middle-East/Northern Africa. If we are talking about hatred, my opinion
> is
> > that the Arabs and Gipsies are much more "dirty" than the blacks.
> >
> > After all, don't forget that the dawn of human history began in Central
> > Africa (this is told by WHITE scientists).
> >
> > A tall blonde from Croatia
> >
> > Niklas Löfdahl <led...@ab.se> wrote in article <3518D0...@ab.se>...
Redneck Killer!
Michael Ejercito wrote:
> In article <3518D0...@ab.se>, oral...@whitehouse.gov wrote:
>
> > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely, there
> > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
> The same reasons the Mongols controlled the largest empire in human
> history逆he Whites had superior weapons.
>
> Michael
Perhaps the reason that Africans didn't rule the world or conquor nations,
was because they were peace and nature lovers. They are naturally
benelovent. From the former posters thoughts, whites are seen as control
freaks, malevolent and blood thirsty barabrians.
Redneck Killer!
Richard G. Philllips wrote:
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >
> > In article <35151C...@news.nit>, f...@news.nit wrote:
> >
> > > Susan Cohen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since you appended this to my post, I have to say that the original post was
> > > > some white racist trying to "prove" his "superiority" by quoting the Bell
> > > > Curve - so I naturally threw it back in his face that that self-same
> > book said
> > > > that Jews & Asains were superior to "whites", so, if he was going to crow
> > > > about being "smarter" than "blacks," he would have to admit to being
> > inferior
> > > > to two groups he most likely hates as well.
>
> =========================================
> Phillips
>
> "The Bell Curve" did not claim that whites (or even Aryan whites) are
> the smartest people in the world. It claimed only that their IQs average
> 15 points higher than those of American blacks. That and nothing else.
>
> Now if you want to talk about that --and nothing else-- and are prepared
> to do in a reasoned and rational way, then fine. But if all you want to
> do is climb up on your soapbox and make speeches, then youll have to do
> it alone.
> ================================================================
> > >
Yea, but did the "Bell Curve" author go into detail about socialogical reasons for
differences in IQ? Or did he just infer that blacks were a lost cause?
Everyone knows when blacks are taken from their stereotypical environment (the hood,
gangs, drugs etc.) and put into a middle class suburban environment, they tend to
academically equal and surpass whites.
Redneck Killer!
Michael Ejercito wrote: See
> Of course Jews would not support affirmative action based on
> religion;such a policy will result in discrimination against Jews in favor
> of Christians.
>
> Michael
I don't see how affirmative action has anything to do with religion? Apples and
Oranges.
dana
Yes, I know the context in which he was using the word...I was just being
facetious to goad him...hehe
dana
Redneck Killer! <Ih...@whites.com> wrote in article
<3527D4CC...@whites.com>...
Richard G. Philllips
Phillips
I cannot answer further questions about "The Bell Curve" because I have
not read it and because much time has elapsed since the reviews
appeared.
However, it is my impression that the implied conclusion was that those
special "head-start" programs in the education system were futile.
===================================================
> Everyone knows when blacks are taken from their stereotypical environment (the hood,
> gangs, drugs etc.) and put into a middle class suburban environment, they tend to
> academically equal and surpass whites.
====================================
Phillips
"Everyone knows." ???????
Roughly speaking, what has happened is that the force of government has
been used to create for blacks places in the civil service (which can
hardly be said to be intellectually demanding); moreover to create
places often at the expense of better-qualified whites.
And if you really believe this has been such a huge success I would
refer you to the state of near-chaos that prevails in the Chicago postal
system to say nothing Washington DC's collapse into a jungle-like
condition.
Tell me one more thing: why is it that you take such pleasure in the
thought of blacks' achievements EXCEEDING those of whites (which you
imagine to be the case.) Do you detest your own race that much, or is
this just your Jewish liberal guilt showing through. Think and fell as
you wish but know one thing: the blacks despise you for it.
=========================================
dana
Hairball
Richard G. Philllips wrote in message <3527E3...@earthlink.net>...
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>I cannot answer further questions about "The Bell Curve" because I have
>not read it and because much time has elapsed since the reviews
>appeared.
>
>However, it is my impression that the implied conclusion was that those
>special "head-start" programs in the education system were futile.
>===================================================
>
>> Everyone knows when blacks are taken from their stereotypical environment
(the hood,
>> gangs, drugs etc.) and put into a middle class suburban environment, they
tend to
>> academically equal and surpass whites.
>
>====================================
>Phillips
>
>"Everyone knows." ???????
>
>Roughly speaking, what has happened is that the force of government has
>been used to create for blacks places in the civil service (which can
>hardly be said to be intellectually demanding); moreover to create
>places often at the expense of better-qualified whites.
>
>And if you really believe this has been such a huge success I would
>refer you to the state of near-chaos that prevails in the Chicago postal
>system to say nothing Washington DC's collapse into a jungle-like
>condition.
>
>Tell me one more thing: why is it that you take such pleasure in the
>thought of blacks' achievements EXCEEDING those of whites (which you
>imagine to be the case.) Do you detest your own race that much, or is
>this just your Jewish liberal guilt showing through. Think and fell as
>you wish but know one thing: the blacks despise you for it.
>=========================================
RICHARD TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH.
POST THE VERIFIABLE SOURCES FROM WHICH
YOU DRAW YOUR CONCLUSION THAT ON A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD , BLACKS SURPASS WHITES.
ANOTHER QUESTION. WHY IS IT THAT IN SO MANY
CASES , INSTEAD OF REQUIRING BLACKS TO ACHIEVE
THE SAME LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE AS WHITES ,
THE GOVERNMENT SIMPLY LOWERS THE STANDARDS
FOR BLACKS IN ORDER TO FULFILL A QUOTA?
THIS ALSO GOES FOR WOMEN AND OTHER MINORITIES.
I BELIEVE IN 'EQUAL' OPPORTUNITY ,
NOT CUSTOMIZED REQUIREMENTS
BASED ON GENDER OR RACE.
Michael Ejercito
In article <3527D23C...@whites.com>, "Redneck Killer!"
<Ih...@whites.com> wrote:
Well,if affirmative action gave preferences based on religion,then it
would have EVERYTHING to do with religion.
Michael
Dene Bebbington
>> >Michael Ejercito wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <35151C...@news.nit>, f...@news.nit wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Susan Cohen wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Since you appended this to my post, I have to say that the original
>post
>> >was
>> >> > > some white racist trying to "prove" his "superiority" by quoting the
>Bell
>> >> > > Curve - so I naturally threw it back in his face that that self-same
>> >> book said
>> >> > > that Jews & Asains were superior to "whites", so, if he was going to
>crow
>> >> > > about being "smarter" than "blacks," he would have to admit to being
>> >> inferior
>> >> > > to two groups he most likely hates as well.
>> >
>> >=========================================
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >"The Bell Curve" did not claim that whites (or even Aryan whites) are
>> >the smartest people in the world. It claimed only that their IQs average
>> >15 points higher than those of American blacks. That and nothing else.
>>
>> For a start it claims that the discrepancy in average IQs is
>> predominantly genetic in origin, although it decides to focus on Black-
>> White differences regarding this subject, and neglects the implication
>> of the White-Asian difference. It also claims that Blacks and Latinos
>> are contributing to dysgenesis. There's lots more too, but just now I
>> can't be bothered to list it all.
>>
>> [rest snipped]
>
>Yawn!! The argument about race, genes and intelligence has been answered
>decades
>ago. There is no "intelligent gene" for race.
I never said there is. I was merely pointing out that Mr Philips, who
has admitted to not actually having read the book he asserts "That and
nothing else" about, was wrong and that the book asserts many things
about race.
[rest snipped]
--
Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
"Beside the braes of dawn. One clear new morning. Down where the lilies
stood in bloom. I knew that I was just a stranger in this world. A wind
just passing through." - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
Richard G. Philllips
Phillips
So what if it does say all of these things? If true, they are certainly
things we ought to know. the fact they are unpalatable in certain
circles is not argument that they should not be publicly articulated.
=======================================
> >>
> >> [rest snipped]
> >
> >Yawn!! The argument about race, genes and intelligence has been answered
> >decades
> >ago. There is no "intelligent gene" for race.
================================
Phillips
Was it, now? The number of serious studies that previously corroborated
the findings of The Bell Curve probably run into the hundreds. How many
studies can you quote that argue the opposite in a convincing way.
===========================
>
Pip Papadakis
Anonymous wrote:
> > > What part of Africa, China and India (for examples) do whites rule?
I notice you didn't answer this. None of you did.
I don't think this has anything to do with one race being "better" than
www.setiquest.com
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Pip Papadakis wrote:
> Yes you are right and moreover, they didn't even get Hong Kong back until 11
> months ago.
Hong Kong was run by local election and autonomy in decision-making.
Nor were the people "ruled" by anyone at all, but had self-determination
as in the United States. No perfection of course, but people deciding own
lives nonetheless. Beijing had earlier opportunities to incorporate Hong
Kong, but it was wiser economically to hold off and grow ready for it. As
far as the original treaty in which China turned rule (it was
indeed rule at that time) of the port over to London, the Opium War was
not winnable by any military against such an alliance as the invaders.
And any exploitive camp can wait until there is uncertainty in a dynasty
and strike then, it is a very easy but wicked act.
> > but incidentally, don't whites currently rule South Africa, a
No.
Chump-Dogg
Hey, the Africans left us alone at start, we came to THEIR land took THEIR
people.
Africans were minding their own business and kept trying to when we
arrived.
Todd Jackson <cu...@torfree.net> wrote in article
<EqFnIF.M57...@torfree.net>...
> Michael Ejercito (meje...@csulb.edu) wrote:
> : In article <3518D0...@ab.se>, oral...@whitehouse.gov wrote:
>
> : > If Blacks are equal to Whites: How come it is the White people that
> : > colonized the World and White people that rule the World. Surely,
there
> : > must be a reason why the Afican tribes sold their own people to the
> : > slavetraders. Why did Europe colonize Africa and not the opposite....
> : The same reasons the Mongols controlled the largest empire in human
> : history逆he Whites had superior weapons.
> : Michael
>
> Michael's right you know. The African tribes did not sell their own
people
> (willingly?), but they were forced to. A simple invention, the gun, gave
> the White people an advantage over the Blacks in Africa. It also helped
> then overtake the Native tribes in the Americas, too.
>
> Todd Jackson
> --
>
>
ChuckF2323
For your own sake, don't ask Phillips> This guy is a genuine idiot!
BTW this is a proven historical fact.
CF
Chuck Ferree
Please visit: http://remember.org/witness/dachlib.html
Also: www2.3dresearch.com/~june/Vincent/Camps/CampsEngl.html
Chance
Richard G. Philllips wrote in message <352AE8...@earthlink.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Somebody wrote:
<mercy snip>
>> >
>> >Yawn!! The argument about race, genes and intelligence has been
answered
>> >decades
>> >ago. There is no "intelligent gene" for race.
>
>================================
>Phillips
>
>Was it, now? The number of serious studies that previously corroborated
>the findings of The Bell Curve probably run into the hundreds. How many
>studies can you quote that argue the opposite in a convincing way.
>
>===========================
1) You'd be well advised to go read the book before you make claims about
what supports it. What, exactly, _were_ the findings of the Bell Curve? I'm
not interested in a regurgitation of some media review. If you haven't read
the book, you've got no claim to look to it for support.
2) Assuming for a moment, that you really didn't mean to imply anything by
your previous statement, and were just saying:
> >> >"The Bell Curve" did not claim that whites (or even
Aryan whites) are
> >> >the smartest people in the world. It claimed only that
their IQs average
> >> >15 points higher than those of American blacks. That
and nothing else.
to hear yourself talk, why did you bother to say anything at all? What's
your point? Do you really want me to go into all the problems with this
statement?
3) Define "race," as you use it to claim that different races are have
genetically different levels of intelligence.
You're way off base here. It would be wise to look at the first section of
this post (the one before your response) and say "You're right, I was
wrong." to whomever authored it and move on.
-Chance