Lee Kwan Yew: India not in the same league as China
RichAsianKid
1. As if this is news (but hey what do you expect from some Indian
newspaper?)
2. LKY was actually pretty diplomatic (contrary to article's
interpretation) at first glance:
(a) China >> India is fact, and hysterically denied by dreary-eyed
Indians precisely because even their own know it's true, e.g.
http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm
(b) "Culture" is merely euphemism for biology and genes as it offers a
last ray of hope of mutability. But you can't say THAT as a statesman
can you? What's the point of politics if things can't change? And what
happens when those poor little low IQ peoples wake up tasting futility
and recognize they got nothing to lose.....in Singapore?
Still....
I can also see why LKY can also be seen as not diplomatic enough.
Read between the lines and what he's hinting at what he's really saying
is how Indians are not only stupid (as we all know, e.g.
http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg ) but also lazy and don't
follow-through. Maybe they just don't have the mental stamina or whatever.
And "culture" is merely an excuse, and political device.
=================
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_for-singapore-s-father-india-not-in-the-same-league-as-china_1324461
For Singapore's father, India not in the same league as China
Sreejiraj Eluvangal / DNA
Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:22 IST
New Delhi: The 81-year-old Lee Kuan Yew is not known to be diplomatic.
Singapore's Gandhi and Nehru rolled together, Yew has been credited with
transforming the island nation from a vulnerable, resource-constrained
colonial outpost to one of the most advanced nations on the planet in
just around three decades.
For Yew, who shared his insights with an attentive and admiring audience
at an Indo-Singaporean event in the Capital on Wednesday, India is not
quite in the same league as China. He believes China has a considerable
headstart in the development game that is hard for India to overtake or
even match.
"Both can grow... But India's GDP is half that of China's. It's growth
does not exceed that of China's," he said, pointing out various
opinion-makers believe that the two Asian neighbours should not be
clubbed together at all any longer.
He pointed out that China is years ahead of India in terms of
infrastructure. "China has
50,000 km of eight-laned highways, 20,000 km of high-speed trains," he
pointed out, adding that India's lack of connectivity between its cities
and villages is severely hindering the country's development. "Better
transportation can easily add another 2-3% to India's GDP growth," he said.
Having served at the head of Singapore government from 1959 to 1990, Yew
is credited with not only bringing economic development, but also
reducing corruption and forging a truly Singaporean identity.
When asked why he thought South Asia lagged behind East Asia in living
standards and economic development, he pointed to the Confucian culture.
Confucius, a ancient Chinese scholar and philosopher who lived before
the Buddha is known for the hard-nosed practicality of his teachings.
Yew pointed out that Confucian ethos placed as much emphasis on hardwork
as on intelligence and ability.
"There is a great emphasis on drive. You don't get ahead based on brains
alone. You need all three of discipline, persistence and ability...
There is a tremendous faith [in Confucian societies] that through
education and hardwork, you will do better in life... Even the poorest
Chinese make sure their children are educated," he pointed out.
Yew, who is known for his candid and often unflattering appraisal of
Western culture and values, also fielded some questions about the "end"
of the dollar as the world's reserve currency and its status as the
World policeman. He, however, disappointed the enquirer with a quip:
"Imagine the world without a policeman!" Yew, currently serving as
Singapore's 'Minister Mentor' also felt all the hooplah about the demise
of the dollar was misplaced. "What will you replace it with?" he asked,
predicting that it will continue to be the currency of global trade for
"a long time" to come.
the Black Fucking Learngar Cock of the Holy Boudha
Lee Kuan Yew is a Chink ,
so China is Lee Kuan Yew 's Motherland .
n Dec 17, 12:39 pm, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 2 Comments:
>
> 1. As if this is news (but hey what do you expect from some Indian
> newspaper?)
>
> 2. LKY was actually pretty diplomatic (contrary to article's
> interpretation) at first glance:
>
> (a) China >> India is fact, and hysterically denied by dreary-eyed
> Indians precisely because even their own know it's true, e.g.http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm
>
> (b) "Culture" is merely euphemism for biology and genes as it offers a
> last ray of hope of mutability. But you can't say THAT as a statesman
> can you? What's the point of politics if things can't change? And what
> happens when those poor little low IQ peoples wake up tasting futility
> and recognize they got nothing to lose.....in Singapore?
>
> Still....
>
> I can also see why LKY can also be seen as not diplomatic enough.
>
> Read between the lines and what he's hinting at what he's really saying
> is how Indians are not only stupid (as we all know, e.g.http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg) but also lazy and don't
> follow-through. Maybe they just don't have the mental stamina or whatever.
>
> And "culture" is merely an excuse, and political device.
>
> =================http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_for-singapore-s-father-india-not...
charlie vietcong
from Thailand
is also 100% Hakka Chinese ,
that was why these two trust each other in their shares
swarping ,
between Temasek and Shin corp .
.
n Dec 17, 12:39 pm, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 2 Comments:
>
> 1. As if this is news (but hey what do you expect from some Indian
> newspaper?)
>
> 2. LKY was actually pretty diplomatic (contrary to article's
> interpretation) at first glance:
>
> (a) China >> India is fact, and hysterically denied by dreary-eyed
> Indians precisely because even their own know it's true, e.g.http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm
>
> (b) "Culture" is merely euphemism for biology and genes as it offers a
> last ray of hope of mutability. But you can't say THAT as a statesman
> can you? What's the point of politics if things can't change? And what
> happens when those poor little low IQ peoples wake up tasting futility
> and recognize they got nothing to lose.....in Singapore?
>
> Still....
>
> I can also see why LKY can also be seen as not diplomatic enough.
>
> Read between the lines and what he's hinting at what he's really saying
> is how Indians are not only stupid (as we all know, e.g.http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg) but also lazy and don't
> follow-through. Maybe they just don't have the mental stamina or whatever.
>
> And "culture" is merely an excuse, and political device.
>
> =================http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_for-singapore-s-father-india-not...
Arindam Banerjee
> Singapore's Gandhi and Nehru rolled together, Yew has been credited with
> transforming the island nation from a vulnerable, resource-constrained
> colonial outpost to one of the most advanced nations on the planet in
> just around three decades.
>
> For Yew, who shared his insights with an attentive and admiring audience
> at an Indo-Singaporean event in the Capital on Wednesday, India is not
> quite in the same league as China. He believes China has a considerable
> headstart in the development game that is hard for India to overtake or
> even match.
>
> "Both can grow... But India's GDP is half that of China's. It's growth
> does not exceed that of China's," he said, pointing out various
> opinion-makers believe that the two Asian neighbours should not be
> clubbed together at all any longer.
>
> He pointed out that China is years ahead of India in terms of
> infrastructure. "China has
> 50,000 km of eight-laned highways, 20,000 km of high-speed trains," he
> pointed out, adding that India's lack of connectivity between its cities
> and villages is severely hindering the country's development. "Better
> transportation can easily add another 2-3% to India's GDP growth," he
> said.
Problem for China here is that they have sunk a lot of money in all that
infrastructure. India has not, so India has more options. With a
innovative Govt. Indians can do many new things with new technology.
> Having served at the head of Singapore government from 1959 to 1990, Yew
> is credited with not only bringing economic development, but also
> reducing corruption and forging a truly Singaporean identity.
No doubt.
> When asked why he thought South Asia lagged behind East Asia in living
> standards and economic development, he pointed to the Confucian culture.
This is recent. When the British ruled India things were reversed. I
remember reading in Grade 1 how poor the Chinese were, in the 40-50s.
> Confucius, a ancient Chinese scholar and philosopher who lived before
> the Buddha is known for the hard-nosed practicality of his teachings.
> Yew pointed out that Confucian ethos placed as much emphasis on hardwork
> as on intelligence and ability.
If all people are practical, no theoretical innovations can be made.
Arindam Banerjee
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:_8GXm.63714$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Indian cultural ethos is heroic, individualistic, freedom-loving and
spiritual. This is most clearly shown in all standard Hindi films - upto
1989 at any rate. Purely practical people cannot be idealistic, for they
deal with what can happen as opposed to what might happen. In short, they
are basically second-rate, creativity wise. Of course, this does not mean
they will be poor - far from it. Second rates are in an ideal situation to
reap the benefits made by the first raters, the chaps who did the original
inventions that is. Modern China had absolutely no use for copyright,
patent rights, etc.
>> "There is a great emphasis on drive. You don't get ahead based on brains
>> alone. You need all three of discipline, persistence and ability...
>> There is a tremendous faith [in Confucian societies] that through
>> education and hardwork, you will do better in life... Even the poorest
>> Chinese make sure their children are educated," he pointed out.
Indians don't lag behind either, at least outside India. In India they are
exposed to many different languages, religions, stories, types of food,
festivals, cricket...
>> Yew, who is known for his candid and often unflattering appraisal of
>> Western culture and values, also fielded some questions about the "end"
>> of the dollar as the world's reserve currency and its status as the
>> World policeman. He, however, disappointed the enquirer with a quip:
>> "Imagine the world without a policeman!"
I think that the police were invented in 17th century England. In
aboriginal Australia there was no police, no jails, no roads, etc. They
managed for 40000 years.
Yew, currently serving as
>> Singapore's 'Minister Mentor' also felt all the hooplah about the demise
>> of the dollar was misplaced. "What will you replace it with?" he asked,
>> predicting that it will continue to be the currency of global trade for
>> "a long time" to come.
Who knows...
Jesus Christ , a long - term fucker of the Prostitute St . Mary 's cunt hole , is an Unique Son of GOD
Dec 21, 4:32 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
Arindam Banerjee
AB: Unity in diversity, is what Indians have been taught in schools.
Jesus Christ , a long - term fucker of the Prostitute St . Mary 's cunt hole , is an Unique Son of GOD
Diversity means killings and wars .
rst0wxyz
> 2 Comments:
>
> 1. As if this is news (but hey what do you expect from some Indian
> newspaper?)
>
> 2. LKY was actually pretty diplomatic (contrary to article's
> interpretation) at first glance:
>
> (a) China >> India is fact, and hysterically denied by dreary-eyed
>
> (b) "Culture" is merely euphemism for biology and genes as it offers a
> last ray of hope of mutability. But you can't say THAT as a statesman
> can you? What's the point of politics if things can't change? And what
> happens when those poor little low IQ peoples wake up tasting futility
> and recognize they got nothing to lose.....in Singapore?
>
> Still....
>
> I can also see why LKY can also be seen as not diplomatic enough.
>
> Read between the lines and what he's hinting at what he's really saying
> follow-through. Maybe they just don't have the mental stamina or whatever.
>
> And "culture" is merely an excuse, and political device.
>
Spoken like a true Chinaman of old - Lee Kwan Yew: India not in the
same league as China
Arindam Banerjee
Diversity means killings and wars .
ants, bees, etc.
Panthera Pardus
> 2 Comments:
>
> 1. As if this is news (but hey what do you expect from some Indian
> newspaper?)
>
> 2. LKY was actually pretty diplomatic (contrary to article's
> interpretation) at first glance:
>
> (a) China >> India is fact, and hysterically denied by dreary-eyed
>
> (b) "Culture" is merely euphemism for biology and genes as it offers a
> last ray of hope of mutability. But you can't say THAT as a statesman
> can you? What's the point of politics if things can't change? And what
> happens when those poor little low IQ peoples wake up tasting futility
> and recognize they got nothing to lose.....in Singapore?
>
> Still....
>
> I can also see why LKY can also be seen as not diplomatic enough.
>
> Read between the lines and what he's hinting at what he's really saying
> follow-through. Maybe they just don't have the mental stamina or whatever.
>
> And "culture" is merely an excuse, and political device.
>
Tell me something, oh wise one obsessed with IQ and genetics, (and
I've asked you this before as have others like P. Rajah and you have
never answered) why was was China poorer than India on a per capita
basis for centuries? Tell me wise Chinese sage, why modern China ,
even with its high paced growth, is poorer on a per capita basis than
Brazil, Mexico, the Bahamas or Barbados (note that 3 0f the 4
countries here have very large black population, yet still outperfom
China in terms of per capita income)? Is RAK going to explain that
these 4 countries are superior genetically to the PRC. Judging by
RAK's earlier words, that is the only possible conclusion.
RichAsianKid
Then the obvious question is why Brazil, Mexico, and India etc can't
parlay their initial advantages into real gains in the 21st century
while way more modest countries not just China, but also Taiwan, Korea
were able to do so.
Or why free democratic English-speaking India - in spite of everything
going for it - still lags behind in 21st century growth compared to
that evil evil oppressed & totalitarian China where its own system is so
stacked against its own people condemning their own to forever misery.
Then of course there's an environmental component, no doubt, duh!! Think
Zimbabwe and South Africa - once Africa's bread-basket, they're now
pathetic basket-cases. How come? Do their own people not shoulder any blame?
Or this too: is it true North Korea is congenitally more stupid than the
South? Is it true that former East Germany is way more stupid than the West?
You get the picture.
Why is it that blacks in America (no less) - still continue to fail in
spite of affirmative action while progeny of Jews spectacularly succeed
- in spite of the latter's claim of widespread rampant "anti-semitism"?
Please, are we *really* equal? :)
Panthera Pardus
We may not all be equal but the question is why was China poor for SO
LONG. Why, even after THREE DECADES of growth, is China still poorer
than Brazil or Mexico? And regarding this comment from you: " Then
the obvious question is why Brazil, Mexico, and India etc can't parlay
their initial advantages into real gains in the 21st century while way
more modest countries not just China, but also Taiwan, Korea
were able to do so." Um, RAK, you are aware that India IS GROWING in
terms of GDP correct? Also, as many other posters have pointed out,
India liberalized much later, in 1991 as opposed to 1978 for China.
Personally the India I see today is vastly different from the India I
grew up in during the 1980s. I expect it will look a lot different 20
years from now as well.
Vishnu , om Mangalam Mangalam
RichAsianKid
Oh? Seriously??!! Even at a superficial level explain this one to us:
How is it possible India is lagging further and further behind China
*after* India's 1991 liberalization? Again and just to be redundant
here, if India is so smart, how is it possible with all the right
prerequisites going for it India *still* continues to fall behind China
*after* that magical year of 1991 in spite of being hobbled? Do you not
think that India's lack of human capital and low IQ is a contributing
factor?
As you admitted, we're "not equal". At least, and that I got to admit,
thank you for your honesty. And for that very reason there's no reason
to expect parity of outcome, either.
P. Rajah
On a "superficial level", consider this:
When a major project is proposed in India, various permissions have to
be obtained, along with a process of determination of compensation for
people who lose property and jobs. There are sometimes also conflicts
when the project is inter-state, and the various states have to be in
agreement before the project proceeds. This takes time, and sometimes
ends up in court.
A similar project in China is simply ram-rodded through, with virtually
no consideration for people, particularly since much of the land that is
utilized for highways, dams, new urban centers, etc. is state-owned, and
since the people have no rights to speak of.
Of course, this "hobbles" the pace of India's progress, but at least
those affected get due process. I wouldn't expect someone like you to
understand that, since you personally are not in the position of losing
your home, being re-located hundreds or thousands of miles away and
being "assigned" a new menial job, with no compensation or consideration
of your rights.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GE12Ad01.html
http://www.ciel.org/Ifi/volreslet.html
> As you admitted, we're "not equal". At least, and that I got to admit,
> thank you for your honesty. And for that very reason there's no reason
> to expect parity of outcome, either.
You can only expect relative parity of outcomes if there is relative
parity of factors that affect the process. Unfortunately, your
dimly-comprehending mind is only able to focus on an alleged IQ
differential, while ignoring a host of other factors that are more
germane to the actual outcome in this comparison.
I note that, once again, you have side-stepped the issue of China's low
growth for decades and centuries prior to the 1970s, simply because you
have no answer. You have failed to explain why, after decades of
high-growth, China is _still_ on par with many low-growth third-world
countries in terms of per-capita GDP, and will require decades more of
double-digit growth before it achieves near parity with Japan and
Western Europe. Surely this almost century-long slog to bring China up
to par means that China has hitherto been a "low-IQ" country that
wallowed in third world poverty for centuries, does it not? I mean, a
country with the highest mean IQ on the planet should never have fallen
into a centuries-long pit of extreme poverty, correct?
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1497255.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200605/16/eng20060516_266019.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/iodine-illness-afflicts-millions-in-china-cretinism-is-its-worst-manifestation-dwarfism-is-another-more-common-are-the-disfiguring-goitres-such-as-those-pictured-here-to-be-found-on-7-million-chinese-they-are-all-caused-by-iodine-deficiency-peking-is-looking-to-protect-the-next-generation-by-treating-salt-teresa-poole-reports-1413650.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10599620
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html
RichAsianKid
> India is too fracture to g row .
>
Agree komin, look at this graphic summary of the Pew Report from
December 2009:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2s7j6ti.jpg
Notice how high India ranks on the social hostility scale? And don't
miss her cousins Bangladesh and Sri Lanka or Pakistan. All in spite of
relatively high government restrictions.
Now, while it is true that China has even severe government
restrictions, just cross-reference to Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan at
the bottom left corner of the chart. That suggests to me that the
Chinese government is being cautious (perhaps overly so, and I agree
"better safe than sorry): that is, even if China were to relax religious
restrictions, chances are, based on culture, racial kinship, as well as
precedence, China will not end up like some shithole in South Asia or
the Mid-East, Tibetans and Xinjiang Muslims notwithstanding.
RichAsianKid
If process is more important than outcome, hey, gee, good for you!! Like
teaching or counselling a kid, "as long as you tried". Right?
BWAHAHAHA!!!!
(Question btw, what does Pardus think? Why is he so silent that it takes
a big big man like Mr. Rajah to defend him?)
>
>
>> As you admitted, we're "not equal". At least, and that I got to admit,
>> thank you for your honesty. And for that very reason there's no reason
>> to expect parity of outcome, either.
>
> You can only expect relative parity of outcomes if there is relative
> parity of factors that affect the process. Unfortunately, your
> dimly-comprehending mind is only able to focus on an alleged IQ
> differential, while ignoring a host of other factors that are more
> germane to the actual outcome in this comparison.
>
>
> I note that, once again, you have side-stepped the issue of China's low
> growth for decades and centuries prior to the 1970s, simply because you
> have no answer. You have failed to explain why, after decades of
> high-growth, China is _still_ on par with many low-growth third-world
> countries in terms of per-capita GDP, and will require decades more of
> double-digit growth before it achieves near parity with Japan and
> Western Europe. Surely this almost century-long slog to bring China up
> to par means that China has hitherto been a "low-IQ" country that
> wallowed in third world poverty for centuries, does it not? I mean, a
> country with the highest mean IQ on the planet should never have fallen
> into a centuries-long pit of extreme poverty, correct?
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1497255.htm
> http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200605/16/eng20060516_266019.html
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/iodine-illness-afflicts-millions-in-china-cretinism-is-its-worst-manifestation-dwarfism-is-another-more-common-are-the-disfiguring-goitres-such-as-those-pictured-here-to-be-found-on-7-million-chinese-they-are-all-caused-by-iodine-deficiency-peking-is-looking-to-protect-the-next-generation-by-treating-salt-teresa-poole-reports-1413650.html
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10599620
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html
>
Re-read my original answer to Pardus whom you're now valiantly defending.
Let's put things this way again in case you forgot: if Pakistan were to
nuke India tomorrow, everything, including IQ (or lack thereof) goes,
correct? Yes, power, military power, or *political system* and yes
perhaps even luck, can be major game-changers, paradigm quakes. The
folly is to assume somehow cognitive capital - the substrate of a nation
- is somehow irrelevant.
And that, sorry!!, is precisely what India sorely lacks. (Simple number:
what's India's literacy rate again, compared to China?
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)
I even thought India was trying to emulate a first-world model. I now
see it's emulating China. No shame in that, necessarily, but you gotta
swallow your pride.
Can you do that, Mr. Rajah? :)
>
Penang
I only commenting on the last sentence, especially the "those affected
get due process".
You are talking about India, right?
Who are the largest group of people being affected, day in day out, in
India?
The outcast.
What type of "due process" are they getting?
Nada, nothing, zilch.
They just live on the street, die on the street. And people just walk
by, as if these outcasts do not exist.
And again, we are talking about India, right?
> I wouldn't expect someone like you to
> understand that, since you personally are not in the position of losing
> your home, being re-located hundreds or thousands of miles away and
> being "assigned" a new menial job, with no compensation or consideration
> of your rights.
>
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GE12Ad01.htmlhttp://www.ciel.org/Ifi/volreslet.html
>
> > As you admitted, we're "not equal". At least, and that I got to admit,
> > thank you for your honesty. And for that very reason there's no reason
> > to expect parity of outcome, either.
>
> You can only expect relative parity of outcomes if there is relative
> parity of factors that affect the process. Unfortunately, your
> dimly-comprehending mind is only able to focus on an alleged IQ
> differential, while ignoring a host of other factors that are more
> germane to the actual outcome in this comparison.
>
> I note that, once again, you have side-stepped the issue of China's low
> growth for decades and centuries prior to the 1970s, simply because you
> have no answer. You have failed to explain why, after decades of
> high-growth, China is _still_ on par with many low-growth third-world
> countries in terms of per-capita GDP, and will require decades more of
> double-digit growth before it achieves near parity with Japan and
> Western Europe. Surely this almost century-long slog to bring China up
> to par means that China has hitherto been a "low-IQ" country that
> wallowed in third world poverty for centuries, does it not? I mean, a
> country with the highest mean IQ on the planet should never have fallen
> into a centuries-long pit of extreme poverty, correct?
>
P. Rajah
If the outcome that you are looking for is power projection as an
authoritarian state, and not "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness", sure the Chinese model is good. The Nazi model was even better.
> (Question btw, what does Pardus think? Why is he so silent that it takes
> a big big man like Mr. Rajah to defend him?)
It took you two days to respond to him, and if he takes two days to get
back to you(and he hasn't: you only replied to him today), he is "so
silent"? Really, your intellect is so transparently inferior that you
allow your ego to take its place.
"Valiantly defending"? You are truly pathetic! You don't even give the
man 24 hours to respond, and you accuse him of running away and having
me "defend" him!
> Let's put things this way again in case you forgot: if Pakistan were to
> nuke India tomorrow, everything, including IQ (or lack thereof) goes,
> correct? Yes, power, military power, or *political system* and yes
> perhaps even luck, can be major game-changers, paradigm quakes. The
> folly is to assume somehow cognitive capital - the substrate of a nation
> - is somehow irrelevant.
And you have "spectacularly" failed to prove that either:
(a) China has superior "cognitive capital" as a people or
(b) that India does not in relation to China.
> And that, sorry!!, is precisely what India sorely lacks. (Simple number:
> what's India's literacy rate again, compared to China?
> BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)
What does literacy rate have to do with intelligence? Socrates, for
example, was illiterate. So were Genghis Khan, Akbar the Great,
Aurelian, Charlemagne(until he became emperor), Justin, and so on. There
have been brilliant illiterate poets and painters, philosophers,
naturalists and generals. The greatest argument to support the notion
that literacy does not equate with intelligence has been your
participation in the newsgroups.
> I even thought India was trying to emulate a first-world model. I now
> see it's emulating China.
No, India hasn't been killing civilian protesters or harvesting organs
from prisoners or attacking workers' rights activists or jailing
journalists or controlling its citizens access to information or
shutting down blogs that are critical of the government.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/276494,taiwan-condemns-chinas-suppression-of-riots-in-xinjiang.html
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-7-8/73074.html
I'm sure this is all in the interests of the greater good of the Chinese
people, and their prosperity and happiness.
> No shame in that, necessarily, but you gotta
> swallow your pride.
>
> Can you do that, Mr. Rajah? :)
What for? I never advocated that India harvest prisoners' organs or kill
civilian protesters.
And I note, yet again, that you continue to side-step the issue of
China's "spectacular" non-performance prior to 1972.
P. Rajah
I was actually referring to people affected by development programs like
highways, dams, power plants, etc., that require that their property be
acquired and that they be relocated and/or re-employed.
However, I would not be as sanguine as you appear to be on the issue of
"outcasts" in China, as if China is immune from it:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1013084/shocked_in_china_a_beggar_bullying_a_disable_young_beggar_in_da/
http://www.glovesoff.org/web_archives/nyt_china_20040407.html
http://en.secretchina.com/realchina/china_s_begging_children.html
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?gid=2&tid=655699
http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/the-clinging-beggars-of-china.html
http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/20061016_beggars_in_china_and_peoples_attitude.htm
http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/little-beggar-child-china/
http://www.chinatravel.net/chinatravelnet/qa/QAQuestion.aspx?id=26
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/22/china.theobserver
http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20080204-48203.html
It even seems to have become China's latest export:
http://malaysiakusayang.blogspot.com/2009/04/chinese-beggars-in-malaysia.html
http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20090903-165310.html
But I guess that, as per ARAK, they must be high-IQ beggars........
Penang
Why shift the focus?
We are talking about India, right?
The people in India who are affected, right?
That they would get "due processed", right?
What? You don't even see those living on the street?
Or ... to you, Mr. Rajah, those are not "people", ie, they are not
"Human Beings" ?
When was the last time these "non-people" get any attention?
>
> However, I would not be as sanguine as you appear to be on the issue of
> "outcasts" in China, as if China is immune from it:
>
> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1013084/shocked_in_china_a_beggar_bully...http://www.glovesoff.org/web_archives/nyt_china_20040407.htmlhttp://en.secretchina.com/realchina/china_s_begging_children.htmlhttp://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?gid=2&tid=655699http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/the-clinging-beggars-of-china.htmlhttp://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/20061016_beggars_in_china_and_p...http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/little-beggar-child-china/http://www.chinatravel.net/chinatravelnet/qa/QAQuestion.aspx?id=26http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/22/china.theobserverhttp://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20080...
>
> It even seems to have become China's latest export:http://malaysiakusayang.blogspot.com/2009/04/chinese-beggars-in-malay...http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Malaysia/Story/A1Story2009...
>
> But I guess that, as per ARAK, they must be high-IQ beggars........
>
> >> I wouldn't expect someone like you to
> >> understand that, since you personally are not in the position of losing
> >> your home, being re-located hundreds or thousands of miles away and
> >> being "assigned" a new menial job, with no compensation or consideration
> >> of your rights.
>
> >>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GE12Ad01.htmlhttp://www.ciel.org/I...
>
> >>> As you admitted, we're "not equal". At least, and that I got to admit,
> >>> thank you for your honesty. And for that very reason there's no reason
> >>> to expect parity of outcome, either.
> >> You can only expect relative parity of outcomes if there is relative
> >> parity of factors that affect the process. Unfortunately, your
> >> dimly-comprehending mind is only able to focus on an alleged IQ
> >> differential, while ignoring a host of other factors that are more
> >> germane to the actual outcome in this comparison.
>
> >> I note that, once again, you have side-stepped the issue of China's low
> >> growth for decades and centuries prior to the 1970s, simply because you
> >> have no answer. You have failed to explain why, after decades of
> >> high-growth, China is _still_ on par with many low-growth third-world
> >> countries in terms of per-capita GDP, and will require decades more of
> >> double-digit growth before it achieves near parity with Japan and
> >> Western Europe. Surely this almost century-long slog to bring China up
> >> to par means that China has hitherto been a "low-IQ" country that
> >> wallowed in third world poverty for centuries, does it not? I mean, a
> >> country with the highest mean IQ on the planet should never have fallen
> >> into a centuries-long pit of extreme poverty, correct?
>
> >>http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1497255.htmhttp://english.peo...
Arindam Banerjee
>
> Who are the largest group of people being affected, day in day out, in
> India?
The so-called upper castes - brahmins in particular.
> The outcast.
Indeed. Every brahmin or other caste Hindu I know, now feels like an
outcast in Modern India, and wants to emigrate. For they have been
subjected to unjustified and systematic vilification for decades -
from the media, the academia, govt. politicies, novelists, and of
course the foreign interests.
> What type of "due process" are they getting?
The foreign embassies have bee pretty kind, on the whole. So there is
a diaspora. The upper castes are leaving as fast as they possibly
can. I am one of them, a lucky one indeed.
> Nada, nothing, zilch.
Less than that, actually, from the hate-filled lower caste politicians
and their hangers-on.
> They just live on the street, die on the street. And people just walk
> by, as if these outcasts do not exist.
Not true, now. Yes it did happen when Churchill starved 3-4 million
Bengalis to death, and those images are still vivid.
> And again, we are talking about India, right?
Of course, of course.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
P. Rajah
You know, for people who claim racial intellectual superiority, both you
and ARAK appear quite determined to prove yourselves the exceptions. Get
someone who can comprehend the English language to explain to you what I
wrote above. I can't even allow that your counter is about semantics,
because it isn't. You flat out cannot understand what I wrote. I will
not endlessly repeat myself to half-wits.
Penang
Brahmins, or Brahmins !
If you leave India, what would India become ?
For thousands of years, you Brahmins are the torch bearers of the
Indian civilization. It was you who led and fed the simple peoples.
Without you, what would India become?
India needs you.
Those hateful Hindus don't know that.
Without them, India will become stronger.
But without you Brahmins, India will sink into chaos and mayhem.
Just like what have happened to Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Arindam Banerjee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well that is all very nice. There are still plenty of brahmins left
in India. When they get their just due everyone will gain.
If instead Indians continue to believe in the lies the foreign
scoundrels have taught them about Brahmins and Hinduism (and the
cowardly,mean, corrupt and bootlicking Indians including those of
brahmin descent absorbed and made personal gains from) then what else
for Indians, but Kodas etc. on the one hand, or continuation of
foreign rule?
RichAsianKid
The greatest crime the Nazis could ever possibly commit in the annals of
human history is they lost the war.
>
>
>> (Question btw, what does Pardus think? Why is he so silent that it
>> takes a big big man like Mr. Rajah to defend him?)
>
> It took you two days to respond to him, and if he takes two days to get
> back to you(and he hasn't: you only replied to him today), he is "so
> silent"? Really, your intellect is so transparently inferior that you
> allow your ego to take its place.
Oh, I responded to yours in 30 minutes....and previous Pardus responded
within 15 hours....still no harm no foul, I look forward to his original
response, only if he has one.
But really, not everyone sits in front of the computer 24/7. Certainly
not myself, perhaps not Pardus. Doesn't explain why you suddenly jumped
in front of him though - *especially* since all the points here were
already were raised often in detail with you, namely, how India is still
not in the same league as China, as title says. I just hope you're not
hurt by India being dwarfed by China in so many ways; and to get you an
easy way out no need to reply if you weren't. :)
See above. As I said:
"Oh, I responded to yours in 30 minutes....and previous Pardus responded
within 15 hours....still no harm no foul, I look forward to his original
response, only if he has one.
"But really, not everyone sits in front of the computer 24/7. Certainly
not myself, perhaps not Pardus. Doesn't explain why you suddenly jumped
in front of him though - *especially* since all the points here were
already were raised often in detail with you, namely, how India is still
not in the same league as China, as title says. I just hope you're not
hurt by India being dwarfed by China in so many ways; and to get you an
easy way out no need to reply if you weren't. :)"
(Are you?)
>
>
>> Let's put things this way again in case you forgot: if Pakistan were
>> to nuke India tomorrow, everything, including IQ (or lack thereof)
>> goes, correct? Yes, power, military power, or *political system* and
>> yes perhaps even luck, can be major game-changers, paradigm quakes.
>> The folly is to assume somehow cognitive capital - the substrate of a
>> nation - is somehow irrelevant.
>
> And you have "spectacularly" failed to prove that either:
> (a) China has superior "cognitive capital" as a people or
> (b) that India does not in relation to China.
I'd like to know what makes you think (let alone "prove") modern Indians
in India have equal or superior cognitive capital to modern Chinese in
China? List the preponderance of evidence that Indians in India are
equal to or higher in intelligence compared to Chinese in China say.
Where is it?
(Vis-a-vis this - http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg , if this
is 'racist' and inaccurate it should be very very very easy for you to
list the counter-evidence. I ask again, where is all the evidence
Indians are equal in intelligence as Chinese?)
Besides even at a superficial level you gotta ask this: Chinese do not
have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of Indians.
So, how come?
How's that even possible?
In this lop-sided match, why would you not think Indians are, on
average, just 'tards.....when compared to the Chinese?
What other magical ingredient can India reveal to the world?
Prayer? Religion?
BWAHAHAHA!!!!
And oh one last thing: my points still stand. Delete them next time if
they're somehow inconvenient when you reply. ;)
>
>
>> And that, sorry!!, is precisely what India sorely lacks. (Simple
>> number: what's India's literacy rate again, compared to China?
>> BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)
>
> What does literacy rate have to do with intelligence? Socrates, for
> example, was illiterate. So were Genghis Khan, Akbar the Great,
> Aurelian, Charlemagne(until he became emperor), Justin, and so on. There
> have been brilliant illiterate poets and painters, philosophers,
> naturalists and generals. The greatest argument to support the notion
> that literacy does not equate with intelligence has been your
> participation in the newsgroups.
Are you suggesting that, statistically speaking , illiterate people are
more intelligent than literate ones? Just curious. For then India may
have a real real advantage!
>
>
>> I even thought India was trying to emulate a first-world model. I now
>> see it's emulating China.
>
> No, India hasn't been killing civilian protesters or harvesting organs
> from prisoners or attacking workers' rights activists or jailing
> journalists or controlling its citizens access to information or
> shutting down blogs that are critical of the government.
>
> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/276494,taiwan-condemns-chinas-suppression-of-riots-in-xinjiang.html
>
> http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-7-8/73074.html
>
> I'm sure this is all in the interests of the greater good of the Chinese
> people, and their prosperity and happiness.
You can rationalize stupidity; you cannot justify outcome. Or in the
case of India, failed outcome.
Lesson for Mr. Rajah: in evolutionary ethics the individual means
nothing more than a vehicle. It's only a 'means', not the end.
>
>> No shame in that, necessarily, but you gotta swallow your pride.
>>
>> Can you do that, Mr. Rajah? :)
>
> What for? I never advocated that India harvest prisoners' organs or kill
> civilian protesters.
>
> And I note, yet again, that you continue to side-step the issue of
> China's "spectacular" non-performance prior to 1972.
Then why is India still behind China? Even utopians say "the tragedy is
not in falling down; it's in not getting up." How come India didn't
pick itself up even after 1991 - that magical year of liberalization?
Well?
Jesus Christ , a long - term fucker of the Prostitute St . Mary 's cunt hole , is an Unique Son of GOD
Indians have British Empire Trains .
P. Rajah
If that was a crime, why has no Nazi ever been prosecuted for losing the
war rather than the actual crimes they committed? No, don't try to
answer that, it was a rhetorical question to an idiotic proposition.
>>> (Question btw, what does Pardus think? Why is he so silent that it
>>> takes a big big man like Mr. Rajah to defend him?)
>>
>> It took you two days to respond to him, and if he takes two days to
>> get back to you(and he hasn't: you only replied to him today), he is
>> "so silent"? Really, your intellect is so transparently inferior that
>> you allow your ego to take its place.
>
> Oh, I responded to yours in 30 minutes....and previous Pardus responded
> within 15 hours....still no harm no foul, I look forward to his original
> response, only if he has one.
It appears you took almost 12 hours to respond this time. Sometimes I do
not browse the newsgroups for days. Again, it does not matter how long
it takes, but for you to have accused Pardus of cutting and running is
juvenile. Oops, sorry, I forgot: you are.
> But really, not everyone sits in front of the computer 24/7. Certainly
> not myself, perhaps not Pardus. Doesn't explain why you suddenly jumped
> in front of him though - *especially* since all the points here were
> already were raised often in detail with you, namely, how India is still
> not in the same league as China, as title says. I just hope you're not
> hurt by India being dwarfed by China in so many ways; and to get you an
> easy way out no need to reply if you weren't. :)
I "jumped in front of" Pardus? You do realize that you are posting in a
public forum and not via e-mail, right? Penang and Baldeagle seem to
regularly "jump in front of" you, but that doesn't appear to make your
brow wrinkle. Once more, not surprising given your demonstrated bigotry.
And speaking of the points raised here, you have failed to justify your
views. In particular, you have repeatedly failed to address the
uncomfortable issue of China's backwardness relative to India prior to
1972, which I have to point out _yet again_ and for the umpteenth time,
you have not addressed even in this, your current response. At this
stage, I have no option but to declare that you have _absolutely_ no
explanation worth a damn, and that you have involuntarily conceded defeat.
Yeah, see above.
Where is your evidence? Graphs from white supremacist
websites(apparently your only source) do not qualify as evidence, but
even giving those some consideration, I have over the past few months
pointed out the severe flaws that exist in them. One such flaw is the
unsupported extrapolation of a single IQ study of an educated urban
population to all of China. Another flaw in your "high IQ= high GDP"
theory wrt the NE Asians is that there was no way you could have
presented even a semblance of evidence for that prior to 1970, when,
with the exception of Japan, the entire area was squarely in third world
territory. Measured IQ for American Blacks today is higher than it was
for American whites in the 1940s. Were American whites of the 1940s(who,
btw, were higher IQ than Chinese of that time period) of low cognitive
ability? Your failure to acknowledge those flaws does not in any way
validate that "evidence".
> (Vis-a-vis this - http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg , if this
> is 'racist' and inaccurate it should be very very very easy for you to
> list the counter-evidence. I ask again, where is all the evidence
> Indians are equal in intelligence as Chinese?)
Where is the evidence that the Chinese are superior in intelligence to
the Indians? Your pathetic reliance on vdare to provide you with such
"evidence" and your insistent failure to consider various economic and
political factors merely validates your own mental insufficiency.
> Besides even at a superficial level you gotta ask this: Chinese do not
> have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
> then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
> fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
> much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
> Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
> handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of Indians.
>
> So, how come?
>
> How's that even possible?
Ask yourself this: could you have asked this question in 1960? Why not?
Were the Chinese retards in 1960? But I know that you will not honestly
answer this, as you have consistently refused to thus far, because
that's just the kind of racist dufus that you are.
> In this lop-sided match, why would you not think Indians are, on
> average, just 'tards.....when compared to the Chinese?
>
> What other magical ingredient can India reveal to the world?
>
> Prayer? Religion?
>
> BWAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> And oh one last thing: my points still stand. Delete them next time if
> they're somehow inconvenient when you reply. ;)
Don't flatter yourself that you ever had any "points". The only people
who agree with you are your fellow Chinese racists, including one
jackass who lives in Cambodia.
>>> And that, sorry!!, is precisely what India sorely lacks. (Simple
>>> number: what's India's literacy rate again, compared to China?
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)
>>
>> What does literacy rate have to do with intelligence? Socrates, for
>> example, was illiterate. So were Genghis Khan, Akbar the Great,
>> Aurelian, Charlemagne(until he became emperor), Justin, and so on.
>> There have been brilliant illiterate poets and painters, philosophers,
>> naturalists and generals. The greatest argument to support the notion
>> that literacy does not equate with intelligence has been your
>> participation in the newsgroups.
>
> Are you suggesting that, statistically speaking , illiterate people are
> more intelligent than literate ones? Just curious. For then India may
> have a real real advantage!
What I was suggesting, for the benefit of your unmitigated racist mind,
is that literacy does not equate to intelligence. Exhibit A: your question.
>>> I even thought India was trying to emulate a first-world model. I now
>>> see it's emulating China.
>>
>> No, India hasn't been killing civilian protesters or harvesting organs
>> from prisoners or attacking workers' rights activists or jailing
>> journalists or controlling its citizens access to information or
>> shutting down blogs that are critical of the government.
>>
>> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/276494,taiwan-condemns-chinas-suppression-of-riots-in-xinjiang.html
>>
>> http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-7-8/73074.html
>>
>> I'm sure this is all in the interests of the greater good of the
>> Chinese people, and their prosperity and happiness.
>
> You can rationalize stupidity; you cannot justify outcome. Or in the
> case of India, failed outcome.
I cannot even begin to quantify or categorize the stupendous ignorance
of your remark. Who else but one of the world's biggest jackasses can
quantify a GDP growth rate of 8-10% as a "failed outcome"? Who else but
one of the world's biggest jackasses can justify killing innocent people
demonstrating for liberty? Who else but one of the world's biggest
jackasses would overlook a national policy of harvesting organs from
prisoners, many of them political? All available descriptors for the
supremely inept cognitive ability that you display are totally
inadequate for the task.
> Lesson for Mr. Rajah: in evolutionary ethics the individual means
> nothing more than a vehicle. It's only a 'means', not the end.
We aren't speaking of evolution. We're speaking of modern civilizations
and human rights. Clearly, human rights is not at the top of your list
of priorities, as long as _your_ human rights are not in danger of being
violated. But you've already established yourself as merely a
self-absorbed, spoiled little twit with no comprehension of the reality
beyond your little Tommy Hilfiger-decorated world.
>>> No shame in that, necessarily, but you gotta swallow your pride.
>>>
>>> Can you do that, Mr. Rajah? :)
>>
>> What for? I never advocated that India harvest prisoners' organs or
>> kill civilian protesters.
>>
>> And I note, yet again, that you continue to side-step the issue of
>> China's "spectacular" non-performance prior to 1972.
>
>
> Then why is India still behind China? Even utopians say "the tragedy is
> not in falling down; it's in not getting up." How come India didn't
> pick itself up even after 1991 - that magical year of liberalization?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>
> Well?
You keep saying, with transparent fallaciousness, that India has
"failed", that India "didn't pick itself up", that India is "falling
behind", etc., without the slightest regard for honesty and
truthfulness. The fact is that, regardless of whether racist clowns such
as yourself acknowledge it or not, India is progressing at a reasonably
rapid clip despite certain impediments such as a global "great
recession", and that that rate of progress is generally regarded as
admirable except by vacuous idiots such as yourself, Baldeagle, Itlee
and Penang. If you think the India of today is comparable to the India
of 1991, I would peg your IQ at right around 35, sufficient to maintain
bodily functions, but not for much else.
Btw, here's an article that might raise your IQ:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1262150280-1xvMPCQC8aHdsPKvEVtbrA
RichAsianKid
Real power never needs justification nor sanction nor permission.
Thought the left understood this principle well.
>
>
>>>> (Question btw, what does Pardus think? Why is he so silent that it
>>>> takes a big big man like Mr. Rajah to defend him?)
>>>
>>> It took you two days to respond to him, and if he takes two days to
>>> get back to you(and he hasn't: you only replied to him today), he is
>>> "so silent"? Really, your intellect is so transparently inferior that
>>> you allow your ego to take its place.
>>
>> Oh, I responded to yours in 30 minutes....and previous Pardus responded
>> within 15 hours....still no harm no foul, I look forward to his original
>> response, only if he has one.
>
> It appears you took almost 12 hours to respond this time. Sometimes I do
> not browse the newsgroups for days. Again, it does not matter how long
> it takes, but for you to have accused Pardus of cutting and running is
> juvenile. Oops, sorry, I forgot: you are.
Still patiently waiting for Pardus' reply.
>
>
>> But really, not everyone sits in front of the computer 24/7. Certainly
>> not myself, perhaps not Pardus. Doesn't explain why you suddenly jumped
>> in front of him though - *especially* since all the points here were
>> already were raised often in detail with you, namely, how India is still
>> not in the same league as China, as title says. I just hope you're not
>> hurt by India being dwarfed by China in so many ways; and to get you an
>> easy way out no need to reply if you weren't. :)
>
> I "jumped in front of" Pardus? You do realize that you are posting in a
> public forum and not via e-mail, right? Penang and Baldeagle seem to
> regularly "jump in front of" you, but that doesn't appear to make your
> brow wrinkle. Once more, not surprising given your demonstrated bigotry.
>
> And speaking of the points raised here, you have failed to justify your
> views. In particular, you have repeatedly failed to address the
> uncomfortable issue of China's backwardness relative to India prior to
> 1972, which I have to point out _yet again_ and for the umpteenth time,
> you have not addressed even in this, your current response. At this
> stage, I have no option but to declare that you have _absolutely_ no
> explanation worth a damn, and that you have involuntarily conceded defeat.
What matters is quite simply what *is*. China trumps India. Period.
China's GDP is 3.6 times higher than India's. And that's only economic
power. Imagine that.
And now, just to be redundant, RAK already posted: "Chinese do not have
this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of Indians."
"So, how come?"
"How's that even possible?"
"In this lop-sided match, why would you not think Indians are, on
average, just 'tards.....when compared to the Chinese?"
"What other magical ingredient can India reveal to the world?"
"Prayer? Religion?"
Sad isn't it, in spite of all that tailwind, in spite of how hard you
brown Indians try, it's still not quite enough.
Now just imagine that. :)
We're still waiting for evidence that India's cognitive capital =
China's or higher than China's?
One piece of evidence is http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
Show us your conterevidence. Show us your datapoints here please!
Do you need surrogate quotes from the "next generation" i.e. Math
Olympiad, btw? Hey just asking!!! Don't kill the messenger OK???
Any case, how does India fare compared to China looking towards the
future? I'm more than happy to quote them for ya (but only if you
ask....) :)
>
>
>> (Vis-a-vis this - http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg , if this
>> is 'racist' and inaccurate it should be very very very easy for you to
>> list the counter-evidence. I ask again, where is all the evidence
>> Indians are equal in intelligence as Chinese?)
>
> Where is the evidence that the Chinese are superior in intelligence to
> the Indians? Your pathetic reliance on vdare to provide you with such
> "evidence" and your insistent failure to consider various economic and
> political factors merely validates your own mental insufficiency.
>
>
>> Besides even at a superficial level you gotta ask this: Chinese do not
>> have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
>> then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
>> fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
>> much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
>> Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
>> handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of
>> Indians.
>>
>> So, how come?
>>
>> How's that even possible?
>
> Ask yourself this: could you have asked this question in 1960? Why not?
> Were the Chinese retards in 1960? But I know that you will not honestly
> answer this, as you have consistently refused to thus far, because
> that's just the kind of racist dufus that you are.
Maybe pigs can fly, and hope springs eternal.
Sure!!
Fact: http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
What makes you think India will not end up like Sri Lanka or Nepal or
Bangladesh anyway, vs how China will not end up like Taiwan, Korea, or
Japan?
>
>> In this lop-sided match, why would you not think Indians are, on
>> average, just 'tards.....when compared to the Chinese?
>>
>> What other magical ingredient can India reveal to the world?
>>
>> Prayer? Religion?
>>
>> BWAHAHAHA!!!!
>>
>> And oh one last thing: my points still stand. Delete them next time if
>> they're somehow inconvenient when you reply. ;)
>
> Don't flatter yourself that you ever had any "points". The only people
> who agree with you are your fellow Chinese racists, including one
> jackass who lives in Cambodia.
Only women call men sexists btw.
Just for perspective.
>
>
>>>> And that, sorry!!, is precisely what India sorely lacks. (Simple
>>>> number: what's India's literacy rate again, compared to China?
>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!)
>>>
>>> What does literacy rate have to do with intelligence? Socrates, for
>>> example, was illiterate. So were Genghis Khan, Akbar the Great,
>>> Aurelian, Charlemagne(until he became emperor), Justin, and so on.
>>> There have been brilliant illiterate poets and painters,
>>> philosophers, naturalists and generals. The greatest argument to
>>> support the notion that literacy does not equate with intelligence
>>> has been your participation in the newsgroups.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that, statistically speaking , illiterate people are
>> more intelligent than literate ones? Just curious. For then India may
>> have a real real advantage!
>
> What I was suggesting, for the benefit of your unmitigated racist mind,
> is that literacy does not equate to intelligence. Exhibit A: your question.
>
>
Thank you.
>>>> I even thought India was trying to emulate a first-world model. I
>>>> now see it's emulating China.
>>>
>>> No, India hasn't been killing civilian protesters or harvesting
>>> organs from prisoners or attacking workers' rights activists or
>>> jailing journalists or controlling its citizens access to information
>>> or shutting down blogs that are critical of the government.
>>>
>>> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/276494,taiwan-condemns-chinas-suppression-of-riots-in-xinjiang.html
>>>
>>> http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-7-8/73074.html
>>>
>>> I'm sure this is all in the interests of the greater good of the
>>> Chinese people, and their prosperity and happiness.
>>
>> You can rationalize stupidity; you cannot justify outcome. Or in the
>> case of India, failed outcome.
>
> I cannot even begin to quantify or categorize the stupendous ignorance
> of your remark. Who else but one of the world's biggest jackasses can
> quantify a GDP growth rate of 8-10% as a "failed outcome"? Who else but
> one of the world's biggest jackasses can justify killing innocent people
> demonstrating for liberty? Who else but one of the world's biggest
> jackasses would overlook a national policy of harvesting organs from
> prisoners, many of them political? All available descriptors for the
> supremely inept cognitive ability that you display are totally
> inadequate for the task.
I guess China should pity India. India tried very very hard, perhaps
even prostituted her soul who knows, and yet look at where she is today
relative to China. Maybe we should all be nice to India. It's all about
effort and goodwill, and that's all that counts right? Just as we should
be nice to handicapped people etc. Yeah!
The real winner doesn't follow the rules; he makes it.
>
>
>> Lesson for Mr. Rajah: in evolutionary ethics the individual means
>> nothing more than a vehicle. It's only a 'means', not the end.
>
> We aren't speaking of evolution. We're speaking of modern civilizations
> and human rights. Clearly, human rights is not at the top of your list
> of priorities, as long as _your_ human rights are not in danger of being
> violated. But you've already established yourself as merely a
> self-absorbed, spoiled little twit with no comprehension of the reality
> beyond your little Tommy Hilfiger-decorated world.
"Human rights" again? Wow. First there is no such thing as 'rights',
really, but even to the extent of some make-believe, ladies and gents
where are these "human rights" realized in India anyway?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7445570.stm
In coveted UN Millennium goals, it's actually not China, but India,
which falls behind.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Nor should they ignore inequality even in terms of civilization, oh say,
this one:
http://i47.tinypic.com/oqzot1.jpg
So. let India be India, and let China be China.
>
>
>>>> No shame in that, necessarily, but you gotta swallow your pride.
>>>>
>>>> Can you do that, Mr. Rajah? :)
>>>
>>> What for? I never advocated that India harvest prisoners' organs or
>>> kill civilian protesters.
>>>
>>> And I note, yet again, that you continue to side-step the issue of
>>> China's "spectacular" non-performance prior to 1972.
>>
>>
>> Then why is India still behind China? Even utopians say "the tragedy is
>> not in falling down; it's in not getting up." How come India didn't
>> pick itself up even after 1991 - that magical year of liberalization?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qgmt2o
>>
>> Well?
>
> You keep saying, with transparent fallaciousness, that India has
> "failed", that India "didn't pick itself up", that India is "falling
> behind", etc., without the slightest regard for honesty and
> truthfulness. The fact is that, regardless of whether racist clowns such
> as yourself acknowledge it or not, India is progressing at a reasonably
> rapid clip despite certain impediments such as a global "great
> recession", and that that rate of progress is generally regarded as
> admirable except by vacuous idiots such as yourself, Baldeagle, Itlee
> and Penang. If you think the India of today is comparable to the India
> of 1991, I would peg your IQ at right around 35, sufficient to maintain
> bodily functions, but not for much else.
>
> Btw, here's an article that might raise your IQ:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1262150280-1xvMPCQC8aHdsPKvEVtbrA
>
>
China is 3.6 times the GDP of India's.
If it's so easy for India to catch up to China, i.e. we're all equal,
the fact India still didn't and can't is even more evidence of its
limited capacity, ability, and low IQ.
RichAsianKid
hole , is an Unique Son of GOD wrote:
> Chinese have High Speed Train
>
>
> Indians have British Empire Trains .
>
>
Oh never underestimate subjugated India "pride". Recall in 60th India
anniversary even the EU was suppposed to be emulating India.
P. Rajah
taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly hypotheses.
Gods and Monkeys
> P. Rajah wrote:
> > RichAsianKid wrote:
>
> Real power never needs justification nor sanction nor permission.
> Thought the left understood this principle well.
>
If this is true, why do you never find the powerful saying this in non-
anonymity?
Even primate studies show there is a somewhat rational distribution of
reward among
the group of monkeys, gorillas, what-have-you. If you observe pack
animals not even
that carefully, you will see that the top dog is rather constrained
its behavior. It has more
freedom, but not unlimited freedom. It has a sense or instinct for
fair play, because it
knows that it (and the groups) existence depends on it.
China unconstrained will very quickly become constrained, just like
what has occurred
with European countries. The world will find a way. One way already is
that China's
women are leaving in droves, mating outside the race. Female out-
mating is always
a preferred avenue for power distribution, a peaceful way of power
sharing.
> What matters is quite simply what *is*. China trumps India. Period.
> China's GDP is 3.6 times higher than India's. And that's only economic
> power. Imagine that.
>
This is true. India is not in the same league as China. Even the plate
tectonics show India slowly being buried under the Chinese plate.
(poetry-in-motion for a you poetically inclined Hindoo doos).
Gods and Monkeys
> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
> every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
> China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
> After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
> having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
> India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly hypotheses.
>
>
China was engaged in massive upheavals prior to 1972 under a communist
system, too. Of course it would lag behind any number of countries.
India
"benefitted" from subservience to a materialistic global empire. The
trickle
down enhanced her economic status relative to China.
Hope this helps.
P. Rajah
> On Dec 31, 6:01 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
>> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
>> every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
>> China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
>> After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
>> having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
>> India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly hypotheses.
>>
>>
>
> China was engaged in massive upheavals prior to 1972 under a communist
> system, too. Of course it would lag behind any number of countries.
Ah, that must mean, according to your friend and fellow Chinese ARAK,
that Chinese IQ must have been lagging behind those of other countries.
It cannot be explained any other way, as ARAK has been at pains to
inform us.
> India
> "benefitted" from subservience to a materialistic global empire. The
> trickle
> down enhanced her economic status relative to China.
Funny, but when I suggest that China has benefited from "subservience"
to a "materialistic global empire" aka western capitalists seeking a
low-cost base(low wages, low cost of compliance for safety, control of
wage inflation, etc.), somehow that becomes unacceptable to the likes of
you who prefer to see this recent revival in China's fortunes as somehow
validating their racist ideas about IQ and GDP growth. I have noted
before that you don't, for the moment, link IQ with actual GDP because
you cannot defend that at this point in time. Doubtless, in 50 years or
100 years whatever it takes for China to achieve per capita GDP parity
with the west, you or your progeny will suddenly find the link between
IQ and per-capita GDP.
> Hope this helps.
Indeed it does, and I sincerely hope that you will someday find
intellectual honesty.
Xi-n Ni�n Ku�i L�!
Happy New Year!
Gods and Monkeys
On Dec 31, 1:27 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Gods and Monkeys wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 6:01 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
> >> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
> >> every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
> >> China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
> >> After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
> >> having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
> >> India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly hypotheses.
>
> > China was engaged in massive upheavals prior to 1972 under a communist
> > system, too. Of course it would lag behind any number of countries.
>
> Ah, that must mean, according to your friend and fellow Chinese ARAK,
> that Chinese IQ must have been lagging behind those of other countries.
> It cannot be explained any other way, as ARAK has been at pains to
> inform us.
You asked for an explanation. I gave one. Now you raise a strawman
by saying I claim that IQ is related one to one with economic levels
through
any point in time. That's not what I said. Hindoo doo, that's not
cricket.
>
> > India
> > "benefitted" from subservience to a materialistic global empire. The
> > trickle
> > down enhanced her economic status relative to China.
>
> Funny, but when I suggest that China has benefited from "subservience"
> to a "materialistic global empire" aka western capitalists seeking a
> low-cost base(low wages, low cost of compliance for safety, control of
> wage inflation, etc.), somehow that becomes unacceptable to the likes of
> you who prefer to see this recent revival in China's fortunes as somehow
> validating their racist ideas about IQ and GDP growth. I have noted
> before that you don't, for the moment, link IQ with actual GDP because
> you cannot defend that at this point in time. Doubtless, in 50 years or
> 100 years whatever it takes for China to achieve per capita GDP parity
> with the west, you or your progeny will suddenly find the link between
> IQ and per-capita GDP.
You do raise a point of cart before horse. But I personally believe
that national
IQ is one of several factors linked to GDP. And the linkage is not
smooth, eg. sometimes having IQ nodes where groups congregate can
be an advantage. Whites in the US exploited the 1-2 standard deviation
advantage over blacks by enslaving them and gaining immeasurable
economic
advantage in the process. (And freeing up resources to steal native
N.American
lands.)
What's really interesting is how IQ shows up causally in GDP.
China is exploiting high intelligence (skilled positions), low
intelligence
(low wage repetitive production) differentials in the marketplace. But
that is
certainly only a part of the story. GDP is not only a number measuring
economic productivity, it is also dependent on the political and
cultural stability
of a country. The latters parts probably do correlate very well with
national
IQs. It's what has allowed NE Asian countries to weather the
harassments
of white countries and in fact turn the game around into white
countries
themselves. (The back and forth of East and West on the Eurasian
landmass
dating back for thousands of years.) Low IQ profile India takes, she
does not dish. And
she is beloved by all for this. (The patience of the Hindoo doo the
likeable dreamer.)
Only the nigger, who lacks understanding, hates India.
> Indeed it does, and I sincerely hope that you will someday find
> intellectual honesty.
>
Don't wish for things upon others that you yourself have no clue
about.
It's pretentious and dreamy, Hindoo doo.
P. Rajah
> On Dec 31, 1:27 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 1:27 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Gods and Monkeys wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 6:01 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
>>>> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
>>>> every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
>>>> China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
>>>> After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
>>>> having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
>>>> India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly hypotheses.
>>> China was engaged in massive upheavals prior to 1972 under a communist
>>> system, too. Of course it would lag behind any number of countries.
>> Ah, that must mean, according to your friend and fellow Chinese ARAK,
>> that Chinese IQ must have been lagging behind those of other countries.
>> It cannot be explained any other way, as ARAK has been at pains to
>> inform us.
>
> You asked for an explanation. I gave one. Now you raise a strawman
> by saying I claim that IQ is related one to one with economic levels
> through
> any point in time. That's not what I said. Hindoo doo, that's not
> cricket.
"according to your friend and fellow Chinese ARAK". Are you actually
ARAK? And the explanation I'm looking for is in relation to ARAK's claim
that the recent growth of China, and the "spectacular non-performance"
of India's 8.5% growth is directly related to the genius of the Chinese
and the borderline imbecile minds of the Indians. I know what the
goddamn reasons actually are, and I've enumerated them to ARAK(I'm sure
you haven't missed that, since you apparently claim to be the same person).
If you didn't suffer from copromania, you might be able to think straight.
RichAsianKid
> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_ undermines
> every one of his arguments with his failure to address the issue of why
> China lagged India and many other third world countries prior to 1972.
> After all, China should have had a tremendous head-start on India,
> having been a homogeneous, united and independent country well before
> India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would crash his silly
> hypotheses.
Don't worry about the top-posting, the underachievement of India is
probably painful for you. If I were an Indian I probably would be a
little unnerved and unsettled too. Thankfully I'm not.
That aside, RAK already answered: "Let's put things this way again in
case you forgot: if Pakistan were to nuke India tomorrow, everything,
including IQ (or lack thereof) goes, correct? Yes, power, military
power, or *political system* and yes perhaps even luck, can be major
game-changers, paradigm quakes. The folly is to assume somehow cognitive
capital - the substrate of a nation - is somehow irrelevant."
Why do you find the above statement unacceptable anyway?
And to delve into this deeper, there's that issue of statistical
innumeracy on your part. Look:
http://i49.tinypic.com/rrowpi.jpg
Look at the r^2. Is it 1 Mr. Rajah?
Why can't you accept that low Indian IQ can at least be a potential
handicap for India? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Third, we KNOW that IQ correlates not just with GDP, but also with
economic GROWTH. Now, I asked this again again again: "Chinese do not
have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of Indians."
And now you continue to remind posters here of India's headstart. Thanks!!!
Still waiting for your answer.
How come?
What alibis do you have now for your poor poor India relative to China,
Mr. Rajah? Or is it just too painful for you to bear and face the truth?
Fourth and last, I have one more to show everyone here. (You guys are
welcome!) As background and for everyone's interest, this one is from
Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University
of Tampere in Finland AND he is also father of the current Prime
Minister of Finland and former President of the European Council in
2006, Matti Vanhanen. This one looks at civilization IQ. Look at how
despicably LOW those Hindus score, compared to the Chinese and Japanese.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2mhfocz.jpg
And more revealingly: Hindus are even more stupid than Muslims!!
WTF????
Can you guys believe this?? Hindus are dumber than Muslims!!!!?????
<RichAsianKid chuckles>
OK, Mr. Rajah, consolation prize: you guys are still smarter than
Africans, all right? That RichAsianKid gotta admit..... There you go.
(Ahem)
No sir, the subject of this thread holds: India is not in the same
league as China. Whether in terms of IQ, or in terms of valued
socioeconomic outcomes and even including that composite human
development index.
You can ignore it, you can deny it, you can wail against it, you can
even rationalize however you want.
But hysteria and denial will not make it go away.
It's not meditation. It's the real world.
Sorry!
P. Rajah
> P. Rajah wrote:
>> I don't usually top-post, but in this case it's warranted. Despite
>> taking the time to repeat all his old chestnuts, ARAK _still_
>> undermines every one of his arguments with his failure to address the
>> issue of why China lagged India and many other third world countries
>> prior to 1972. After all, China should have had a tremendous
>> head-start on India, having been a homogeneous, united and independent
>> country well before India, and for much longer. Nope, doing so would
>> crash his silly hypotheses.
>
> Don't worry about the top-posting, the underachievement of India is
> probably painful for you. If I were an Indian I probably would be a
> little unnerved and unsettled too. Thankfully I'm not.
>
> That aside, RAK already answered: "Let's put things this way again in
> case you forgot: if Pakistan were to nuke India tomorrow, everything,
> including IQ (or lack thereof) goes, correct? Yes, power, military
> power, or *political system* and yes perhaps even luck, can be major
> game-changers, paradigm quakes. The folly is to assume somehow cognitive
> capital - the substrate of a nation - is somehow irrelevant."
>
> Why do you find the above statement unacceptable anyway?
Because you have failed, yet again and again, to explain China's
spectacular non-performance in the centuries leading up to 1972, in
terms of civilizational IQ or whatever you have been bleating about as
the fundamental reason for China's _recent_ progress, which still places
it squarely in 3rd world per capita GDP territory. In other words,
despite all your nonsense about Chinese IQ versus Indian IQ, China is
_today_ still very much a 3rd world country. Climbing out of the hole,
to be sure, but still 3rd world. You are at a loss to explain that in
your terms, wherefore you ignore it altogether, just as you have once
more here, and will always and forever. Instead, you utter arrant
nonsense about India as a "failure" etc., and irrelevant crap about a
nuclear war with Pakistan, because India is a couple of percentage
points behind in GDP growth. The low caliber of your intelligence
imprints itself on readers' minds the more you keep posting this
nonsense while being unable to find an explanation for the same
condition that afflicted China prior to 1972, providing instead "data"
from known racists using questionable hypotheses.
> And to delve into this deeper, there's that issue of statistical
> innumeracy on your part. Look:
>
> http://i49.tinypic.com/rrowpi.jpg
>
> Look at the r^2. Is it 1 Mr. Rajah?
>
> Why can't you accept that low Indian IQ can at least be a potential
> handicap for India? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have asked you before to explain how an old government IQ study from
urban Beijing was somehow not only extrapolated to represent the entire
country including its vast rural peasant population, and even a few
points gratuitously added on. Why are Shanghai Chinese allegedly so much
more intelligent than mainland Chinese? Did the Brits somehow shed some
of their intelligence on the natives? Furthermore, I notice you have
selected the graph that best serves your intent, rather than another
which shows "high IQ China" still in an uncomfortably low group. Look at
fig. 2 on page 2 here: http://www.iapsych.com/articles/dickerson2006ip.pdf
Fyi, the "data fitting" exercise is merely an attempt to fit data(which
may or may not be accurate) to a desirable conclusion. Also, picture
what the graph would have looked like in, say, 1964. Not very good for
you, wouldn't you say?
> Third, we KNOW that IQ correlates not just with GDP, but also with
> economic GROWTH. Now, I asked this again again again: "Chinese do not
> have this holy grail of "democracy" but this "oppressive" regime, which,
> then, proceeds to somehow violate precious precious ever-so-precious
> fragile "human rights" left-right-and-center; they do not have that
> much-touted English facility, and moreover they've not been blessed by
> Western-style institutions. But but but - *in spite of* all that
> handicap those poor 3rd world Chinese are *still* pulling ahead of
> Indians."
>
> And now you continue to remind posters here of India's headstart. Thanks!!!
Where have I done that? It was actually the Chinese who had a head
start, as I indicated in my top-posting previous message. As with all
bigots, you can only see what you want to see. Up until 1972, India was
on relative par with China(a bit higher in per capita GDP, but that
doesn't matter when both countries were dirt poor) thanks to the Indian
government's unfortunate adoption of a "planned" economy which
essentially suppressed development by placing artificial limits on
growth and restricting private enterprise. The 1991 liberalization
essentially removed many of these restrictions. If India had adopted
liberalization in, say, 1955 when the per capita availability of
resources was far higher despite the tremendous colonial exploitation,
the story would very likely have been different today. If China had
retained(or been true to, if you like) its Marxist-communist philosophy,
the story would very likely have been different today.
The point you are unwilling to concede is that policies, strategy,
access to resources and certain random factors such as timing and
fortuitous alliances, not your fictional "civilizational IQ", are the
impelling factors in a country's development. Instead, you bring up some
lame-ass IQ theory that fails to answer anomalies thrown up by its own
premise.
> Still waiting for your answer.
>
> How come?
>
> What alibis do you have now for your poor poor India relative to China,
> Mr. Rajah? Or is it just too painful for you to bear and face the truth?
>
> Fourth and last, I have one more to show everyone here. (You guys are
> welcome!) As background and for everyone's interest, this one is from
> Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University
> of Tampere in Finland AND he is also father of the current Prime
> Minister of Finland and former President of the European Council in
> 2006, Matti Vanhanen. This one looks at civilization IQ. Look at how
> despicably LOW those Hindus score, compared to the Chinese and Japanese.
>
> http://i49.tinypic.com/2mhfocz.jpg
>
> And more revealingly: Hindus are even more stupid than Muslims!!
>
> WTF????
WTF, indeed! You bring up yet another reference from a racist, who
assigns a random "civilizational IQ" to random "civilazations"("Hindu",
"Buddhist", "Islamic" and then "western" and "Chinese"? WTF???).
"Chinese" and "Japanese" should have been together with "Buddhist"
countries, and "Islamic" should have been together with "western" since
Mesopotamia is claimed as the cradle of western society, but that would
have screwed up the happy racist conclusions, wouldn't it?
A long time ago, before complacency and the systemic degeneration that
results from complacency set in(see Fall of Rome), the "stupid Hindu
civilization" was more advanced than "western" civilization. The
ancient "stupid Hindu civilization" was at least on par with the
greatest of so-called "western" civilizations like Rome, and far above
the fictional "Judaic civilization", the civilizations of what is now
the "Islamic world", western countries such as France, Britain, Germany,
Poland, the Slavic countries and the Scandinavians. Greece, another
cradle of western civilization, bordered on 3rd world status all the way
until the recent efforts of the EU to bring it up to par with other
European countries. The "African civilization" of Egypt was also unlike
anything contemporaneous in Europe. The Mesopotamians, the Phoenicians
and the Carthaginians(who your racist author now classifies as "low-IQ
Islamic civilization") were at one time more advanced than much of
Europe. Indian philosophy even today ranks at the top of anything that
has ever been produced. Low IQ civilizations do not produce brilliant
philosophy. Uncomfortable facts for racists like you and those you
quote, and therefore not up for consideration.
> Can you guys believe this?? Hindus are dumber than Muslims!!!!?????
>
> <RichAsianKid chuckles>
Yeah, idiots tend to chuckle at agreeable nonsense.
Penang
> the Carthaginians(who your racist author now classifies as
> "low-IQ Islamic civilization") were at one time more
> advanced than much of Europe.
I am not going to talk about anything else but the above.
Before the Carthaginians became Muslims, who were they?
After they became Muslim, they were brilliant, yes. But where did they
inherit their brilliance from?
And now, why are they so backward?
Try to answer these, if you can.
ltlee1
> On Jan 2, 7:35 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > the Carthaginians(who your racist author now classifies as
> > "low-IQ Islamic civilization") were at one time more
> > advanced than much of Europe.
>
> I am not going to talk about anything else but the above.
>
> Before the Carthaginians became Muslims, who were they?
The Cathagians were the premier sea power around the Mediterrean
based in today's Tunisia. It was deffeated and later destroyed by
Roman
after the Punic Wars.
P. Rajah
> On Jan 2, 7:35 am, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> the Carthaginians(who your racist author now classifies as
>> "low-IQ Islamic civilization") were at one time more
>> advanced than much of Europe.
>
> I am not going to talk about anything else but the above.
Why not? Have no answers for the other examples?
> Before the Carthaginians became Muslims, who were they?
The same people. Different religion.
> After they became Muslim, they were brilliant, yes. But where did they
> inherit their brilliance from?
From Chinese traders, perhaps?
> And now, why are they so backward?
>
> Try to answer these, if you can.
Again, like the truly pathetic racists that you are, you either don't
get the point or you try to slide around it. They are _the same people_!
Don't you get that? Did they suddenly lose their IQ when they became
Muslims?
Penang
If you can write a message without having to curse, you could become a
better man.
Try it.