The reason for genocide: Continued
DesertCactus
From: Rush...@aol.com (Andrew E. Smyth)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa,sci.anthropology
Subject: The reason for genocide
Date: 8 May 2004 17:31:41 -0700
>One ethnic group does not try and exterminate another because they
>thing they are inferior. Just the opposite. The Germans did not
>really think the Jews were inferior. Read Nazi writings. They
>thought the Jews were super competent and could control nations and
>take over the world. They knew Jews outscored Gentiles on IQ tests
by
>wide margins. That's why they banned these tests.
>The Hutu thought the Tutsi were superior. They had been dominated by
>the tall, lighter skinned, aristocratic looking Tutsi for
generations.
>Same with the Ibo tribe in west Africa during the Biafran war. The
>other Nigerians who were trying to wipe them out called them "The
Jews
>of Africa." Another example, the Chinese in Indonesia.
>Maybe the impulse for genocide is built in HSS. HSS left Africa
maybe
>100,000 years ago (but new studies put the exodus as recent as 50,000
>years ago.) Our species then exterminated Neandertal man in Europe,
>Homo Erectus in Asia, and whatever archaic man we met, including non
>HSS Hominids in Africa.
>Why else is there such a gap between us and the Apes? Because our
>Apelike cousins who could speak were wiped out. (Chimps have the IQ
of
>a human 2 year old but no vocabulary. I believe their speechlessness
>is a survival mechanism not to attract our genocidal attention)
This is interesting. Generally the poorer/less intelligent/less
educated layers of society tend have far higher birthrates, where the
richer/more intelligent/more educated tend to have less, even not high
enough for the replacement rate. It Is essentially the birthrate of
the races which will
determine who survives and who becomes extinct.
Actually this applies regardless of race, so humanity is devolving
anyway, becoming more stupid, in theory at least.
A race which is consistantly faring worse in a society while it
observes another race being successful, naturally assumes there must
be some kind of discrimination going on, it must be that successful
races fault for their poverty.
In societies where generally higher intelligence equals higher sucess
and higher paying jobs, the stupid become poor.
So as the examples have listed the White germans hated the Jews
because of their sucess while germany was going through rough times,
The Hutu hated the Tutsi because of their wealth and sucess, the
Ugandan's expelled the sucessful asians as they sucessfully EARNED
their wealth, the ugandan's believe that the asians must havee created
their wealth by exploiting or in some way stealing from the ugandans.
What happened after to the ugandans after the asians were expelled?
were they better off were they richer? no they wern't any better off,
they were worse off. Of course it was a dictatorship and they often
have econmic difficulties.
The Black birthrate in america and around the world is much higher
than average, whereas the white birth rate and other race's birthrates
are often below the replacement. The White population of America is
declining because of this.
When the white population and other non-black races become the
minority, they will find they no longer have the political majority
power
or any kind of majority powers.
As the blacks continue to (it hasn't changed yet despite all efforts,
unless you think allowing a black student into college even though he
has worse grades simply because he is black is a good change) fare
worse in education, employment, crime, and in almost every way, the
blacks will continue to believe it must be the fault of the more
successful races.
The African population is growing massively, despite aids, warfare,
disease, famine etc. With more efficent and Genetically modified
farming a place the size of africa can support population of billions,
and africa's population will rise to billions.
South africa is an example of a country where blacks are the majority,
with a white minority, and if you did some research into it you will
find it has a lot of problems, it is perhaps what america will become.
History repeats itself, yet humans do not seem to learn from history.
Most developed countries have birthrates below the replacement rate,
and as most countries come above a reasonable GDP, with only africa
lagging behind, and carribbean nations. Africans in their native lands
and in other lands will take over the world peacefully because of one
thing, higher birthrate.
What's interesting is that the white americans will have
invited/allowed their own destruction, by allowing blacks, orginially
imported as slaves of course, to reproduce at a faster rate than they
do, and also accepting huge amounts of immigrants of different races.
There is no advantage to the indeginious race to accept numbers of
another race and to give them rights and freedoms, at the expense of
the indeginous race, costs of police for the higher crime rates, costs
of prisons, justice system etc, reduction of quality of service for
jobs for lowering the requirement level purely because of the race of
the applicant, making jobs harder to get for the idigenious race
because of affirmitive action programs.
Programs, research into causes solutions for the behavioural and
academic performance differences, have been partially successful,
they've closed the gap in differences and identifed some environmental
differences which may be causing it but need to continue to do this to
try and solve the problems.
The possible solutions to the american and worldwide problem could be:
Extreme racial mixing, so that almost everyone becomes a mix of races,
with a mix of features etc. Hopefully it would remove the division in
society race creates.
Giving birth liscences only to couples with an average IQ above a
certain amount. This would probably be dismissed as racism though,
because of the worse performance of certain races. An alternative
could be giving birth liscenes to the top layers of each race.
Coming up with better contraceptives or increasing distrubution of
these contraceptives among the black community, to help reduce the
higher birthrate and also stop the spread of disease. I believe most
of the black birthrate is unwanted, occuring in the poverty-stricken
areas. For Example I believe the black birthrate amongst black married
couples is extremely low, below the replacement rate. And while of
course marriage is not always in this modern day neccesary to have
children it does suggest that most of the birth rate is perhaps
unwanted.
P.Comm
people tend to be more peaceful - and the stupider people tend to be more
brutish. Sure they'd blame the smart guys for their own failures. And
slaughter them in time.
The Chinese aren't stupid, however - they are highest IQ on record. They
alone are more people than anyone else and they have birth restrictions.
What if they didn't have restrictions? Heh. They also aren't SOFT because
of their intelligence. I doubt they'd let a bunch of stupid brutes wreck
their stuff. And I doubt they'd go walking around with useless guilt trips
on their shoulders. They'd DO what NEEDS TO BE DONE.
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04061...@posting.google.com...
DesertCactus
chinese IQ is high, I thought Jewish IQ was higher though, I don't
think Chinese IQ is that much higher than whites.
I can understand that you are chinese, and don't wish to see your
chinese lands suffer the same fate that Europe and North America may
face, but what reasons are there for the outcome to be really that
different? We live in a global community where any kind of racism is
illegal by most government laws and the united nations, there arn't
any legal actions they can take really.
It's generally accepted as being the official view that there is no
difference in races whatsoever, and it is not acceptable to even
entertain the possility that there may be. Many believe race to be a
completely social construct and think it is an obsolete term and we
should not even classify people as races anymore.
I don't see why china or asian nations will avoid the same experience
as the dozens of European nations who have large minority populations
where 50 years ago some would have virtually none.
China has a large population but as I said birthrate is linked to
wealth.
Historically China is a massive area and unlike the Africans, who
before other races arrived were mostly nomadic tribes, who's
population was limited by their food getting techniques, primitive
farming and hunting, they were in equlibrium with the environment
neither threatening the environement's resources nor facing problems
of overpopulation.
However western models of civilization were forced upon the whole
continent, and we can see the effects of that.
It has birth controls now though of course, and even if this was
lifted, once china becomes as wealthy as the US and european nations
the birthrate will probably be the same, that is below the replacement
rate, except from whatever minority population they attract who have a
higher birthrate.
Who do you think is bringing in these anti-discrimination laws etc etc
anyway? The idiots of society? No, the educated and intelligent
politicians etc. It's usually or at least it's presented by the media
as being the stupid people who join these nationalist movements etc.
"P.Comm" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message news:<Em8zc.8790$Y3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
DesertCactus
> of their intelligence. I doubt they'd let a bunch of stupid brutes wreck
> their stuff. And I doubt they'd go walking around with useless guilt trips
> on their shoulders. They'd DO what NEEDS TO BE DONE.
>
They won't allow it, yet the Europeans and Americans are and will? It
will soon get to the point of no return for the Americans as the
American whites will soon become the minority, if you don't count
hispanics as whites then I believe the white american population is
65% or so. I think your faith in the chinese doing something different
is naive, I can't remember what the IQ difference between whites and
chinese was but I remember it being negligible, about 5 points or
something like that.
DesertCactus
environental, although research so far seems to suggest that the IQ
differences are caused by environmental effects.
Rushtown
>From: desert...@emailcorner.net (DesertCactus)
>Date: 6/14/2004 12:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <f25f7f62.0406...@posting.google.com>
>
>And of course we don't know if the IQ differences are genetic or
>environental, although research so far seems to suggest that the IQ
>differences are caused by environmental effects.
Twin studies suggest that 70% of IQ differences are genetically caused.
Think about it--if IQ differences were 100% enviornmentally caused the hominid
line could not have evolved increasingly higher intelligence over the last
million years. And think about it a little more---If there were no
correllation between head size, intelligence and genes, our species would not
have evolved an increasingly larger head (with all the problems that causes)
over the last million years
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04061...@posting.google.com...
> chinese IQ is high, I thought Jewish IQ was higher though, I don't
> think Chinese IQ is that much higher than whites.
Asian (NOT SE Asia) is about 110 or 120. White is about 100 or 105. Black
is about 80 or 85 - in Africa, lower in most cases, some show 69 IQs.
>
> I can understand that you are chinese, and don't wish to see your
I'm not chinese at all - in fact the Chinese were thousands of years the
enemies of my people! I'm turko-tatar :) Some might call us Asian. In
America some lump us in with white folks of some ethnic type.
> chinese lands suffer the same fate that Europe and North America may
> face, but what reasons are there for the outcome to be really that
> different? We live in a global community where any kind of racism is
> illegal by most government laws and the united nations, there arn't
> any legal actions they can take really.
The Chinese do not quite feel the same way about it - no matter what spew
they utter to the listening world out there. I know what happened there
when visiting African students did the USUAL CRAP - and I swear to god man,
it was the SAME OLD "destructive loser" crap that people of all kinds see
them to in the USA over and over again. Unbelieveable. Did they deal with
it? HO yes. OH yes. Global community be damned - the Chinese don't give a
shit about your patents or whatever else, they do for themselves and that's
that. Deeds - not words. They are not a weak-hearted sentimental people
that can be made to feel guilt about conquering someone - or enslaving
someone or any of that bullcrap that is common human history that white
folks tend to feel huge guilt trips over right now. You know, the DEAD
threat of Hitler - OH MY GOD, the utterance of the label - NAZI, FASCIST,
RACIST - and some folks just shrivel up. Right now the Chinese have BY LAW
both positive and negative eugenics going on - and they don't give a shit
what the "world" thinks. I even saved a report they wrote in their own
military on that before they implimented it. MORE POWER TO THEM - they
have the Will to Power to RISE UP. Go for it. Just don't China mess with
my people again LMAO.
>
> It's generally accepted as being the official view that there is no
> difference in races whatsoever, and it is not acceptable to even
> entertain the possility that there may be. Many believe race to be a
> completely social construct and think it is an obsolete term and we
> should not even classify people as races anymore.
Who cares about the genetics, as I said on here elsewhere. People know what
they repeatedly and consistently experience - and they learn to AVOID
destructive losers, no matter if the destructive loser is one person, a
whole family, or most of the blacks they have repeatedly had to MOVE AWAY
from in whole neighborhoods. OK? All the PC does it make people LIE, as
Kurtz said, something like "necessary hypocricy?" As DeSousa said "rational
racism." People practice it - even if they deny it. they LIE. So much for
liberal agendas, eh?
>
> I don't see why china or asian nations will avoid the same experience
> as the dozens of European nations who have large minority populations
> where 50 years ago some would have virtually none.
Do you have any idea what China does to Koreans sneaking in - or to the
christians helping them? Think - TORTURE? They then kick then the hell
out, if they survive the interrogation. Do you think they care what the
world thinks? Why should they?
>
> Who do you think is bringing in these anti-discrimination laws etc etc
> anyway? The idiots of society? No, the educated and intelligent
> politicians etc. It's usually or at least it's presented by the media
> as being the stupid people who join these nationalist movements etc.
Who cares what the media says? The Chinese? HA! Forced integration has
been a disaster. PC is a disaster hoisted on society by the Frankfurt
School. Yeah, they are idiots (and also very cunning people) because the
common people working to make ends meet find ways to do what they CHOOSE to
do - that is freedom of chnoice. Freedom of association is not racism -
except in the minds of people that think like the KGB thought. Thought
police types.
Forget what people say. Look at what they DO, where they choose to GO, with
whom they choose to associate. THAT is real and things have not changed
much at all. Free choice.
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04061...@posting.google.com...
> > of their intelligence. I doubt they'd let a bunch of stupid brutes
wreck
> > their stuff. And I doubt they'd go walking around with useless guilt
trips
> > on their shoulders. They'd DO what NEEDS TO BE DONE.
> >
>
>
> They won't allow it, yet the Europeans and Americans are and will?
So far, they are! And damned anyone who dares to speak out against it.
It
> will soon get to the point of no return for the Americans as the
> American whites will soon become the minority, if you don't count
> hispanics as whites then I believe the white american population is
> 65% or so. I think your faith in the chinese doing something different
> is naive,
I do not have faith in anything. I know the chinese - and know they ARE
DOING it - they DO do it. They are also doing eugenics, both pos and neg
type - by law.
I can't remember what the IQ difference between whites and
> chinese was but I remember it being negligible, about 5 points or
> something like that.
I doubt that self preservation has anything to do with IQ per se.
Suggest you read Professor MacDonald's essays on just how people can be
turned from proud, fearless and pro themselves, into cowering wimps,
ashamed, guild ridden and even self destructive. Read and learn.
P.Comm
"Rushtown" <rush...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040615002557...@mb-m16.aol.com...
Consider that the Frankfurt School et al et al guys had very high IQs - and
look at the shit they've done against Europeans predominantly of Christian
faith.
DesertCactus
> I doubt that self preservation has anything to do with IQ per se.
>
> Suggest you read Professor MacDonald's essays on just how people can be
> turned from proud, fearless and pro themselves, into cowering wimps,
> ashamed, guild ridden and even self destructive. Read and learn.
I can easily imagine how this could happen with the politically
correct media constantly telling people how evil and worthless the
White race is etc. Pride in one's race is frowned upon. I can easily
see this guilt and shame, self-hatred becoming so strong that they
desire self destruction, they feel so worthless that they should be
destroyed or die out, no longer exist.
A lot of white people feel guilty about the slave trade etc, even
though they themselves had nothing to do with the slave trade, and
none of the blacks who exist today who whine about slavery have ever
experienced it either. In fact I read an interesting report about how
many black slaves were treated well by their owners and were actually
HAPPY as slaves. Consider how many slave owners there were, huge
numbers, great amounts of people in the regions where slavery
plantations were, were they all evil? Is that an inherent trait of the
people of those regions? I don't think so. They didn't all treat the
slaves badly.
Oh and I read about a black american who is in the process of suing a
london company which insured a slavery ship, apparently through
tracing back his genetics he was able to prove he is an ancestor of a
slave who travelled on the ship.
He's suing on the grounds that he now has no identity, and no sense of
his past or history because his ancestors were slaves. But If I were
him I would be thanking the company, he and all blacks have benifited
massively from slavery, they now live in one of the richest and nicest
countries in the world. If not for slavery, he would be living in some
third-world black country living in poverty, disease, warfare, etc.
His true motivation for suing the company? Money of course.
By the way P Comm, thanks for the replies, could you give me some
websites or tell me some information about the Chinese eugenics?
Thanks.
DesertCactus
Sorry, I meant "we don't know if the IQ differences BETWEEN THE RACES
are genetic or environmental..."
DesertCactus
> Who cares about the genetics, as I said on here elsewhere. People know what
> they repeatedly and consistently experience - and they learn to AVOID
> destructive losers, no matter if the destructive loser is one person, a
> whole family, or most of the blacks they have repeatedly had to MOVE AWAY
> from in whole neighborhoods. OK? All the PC does it make people LIE, as
> Kurtz said, something like "necessary hypocricy?" As DeSousa said "rational
> racism." People practice it - even if they deny it. they LIE. So much for
> liberal agendas, eh?
>
From crime statistics and common obeservations by many people, it's
probably true that black people could more often be classified as
"destructive losers". And it's not fair for a decent law-obiding,
hard-working, peaceful family to have to move out of a neighborhood
once a certain number of blacks or antisocials move in.
But everyone should be judged as individuals in any case, even if
society one day accepts that yes blacks are more likely to assault
someone for example, because they are easier to anger due to the
higher level of testosterone in them, or whatever, and if society
accepts other things.
A random person of any race could be anything, stupid/smart etc, he
might be more likely to be one thing than another due to his
race/upbringing/environment but he still could be anything.
The idea to have rules on a neighbourhood where blacks are not allowed
to move in is unthinkable, however you could propose another rule to
achieve the same effect, such as noone with significant criminal
records are allowed in, and they must have college level education,
that would probably stop the majority of blacks from being able to
move in, even though they are allowed into college and other
instituions with worse grades/abilities, simply because they are
black, which I think is the most rediculous thing ever to be
introduced.
MIB529
> >environental, although research so far seems to suggest that the IQ
> >differences are caused by environmental effects.
>
> Twin studies suggest that 70% of IQ differences are genetically caused.
> Think about it--if IQ differences were 100% enviornmentally caused the hominid
> line could not have evolved increasingly higher intelligence over the last
> million years. And think about it a little more---If there were no
> correllation between head size, intelligence and genes, our species would not
> have evolved an increasingly larger head (with all the problems that causes)
> over the last million years
Actually, the length of the dendritic tree is more important
than head size. Head size and intelligence? Oh, maybe one-tenth
of an IQ point.
MIB529
> > What are the average IQ's for the different races? I'm aware that the
> > chinese IQ is high, I thought Jewish IQ was higher though, I don't
> > think Chinese IQ is that much higher than whites.
>
> Asian (NOT SE Asia) is about 110 or 120. White is about 100 or 105. Black
> is about 80 or 85 - in Africa, lower in most cases, some show 69 IQs.
Now check Koreans living in Japan. Or North Koreans. Or Mongolians.
> > I can understand that you are chinese, and don't wish to see your
>
> I'm not chinese at all - in fact the Chinese were thousands of years the
> enemies of my people! I'm turko-tatar :) Some might call us Asian. In
> America some lump us in with white folks of some ethnic type.
Well, you know how it is: Prove they're "down with" the Pacific Rim
by kissing China's ass.
> > chinese lands suffer the same fate that Europe and North America may
> > face, but what reasons are there for the outcome to be really that
> > different? We live in a global community where any kind of racism is
> > illegal by most government laws and the united nations, there arn't
> > any legal actions they can take really.
>
> The Chinese do not quite feel the same way about it - no matter what spew
> they utter to the listening world out there. I know what happened there
> when visiting African students did the USUAL CRAP - and I swear to god man,
> it was the SAME OLD "destructive loser" crap that people of all kinds see
> them to in the USA over and over again. Unbelieveable. Did they deal with
> it? HO yes. OH yes. Global community be damned - the Chinese don't give a
> shit about your patents or whatever else, they do for themselves and that's
> that. Deeds - not words. They are not a weak-hearted sentimental people
> that can be made to feel guilt about conquering someone - or enslaving
> someone or any of that bullcrap that is common human history that white
> folks tend to feel huge guilt trips over right now. You know, the DEAD
> threat of Hitler - OH MY GOD, the utterance of the label - NAZI, FASCIST,
> RACIST - and some folks just shrivel up. Right now the Chinese have BY LAW
> both positive and negative eugenics going on - and they don't give a shit
> what the "world" thinks. I even saved a report they wrote in their own
> military on that before they implimented it. MORE POWER TO THEM - they
> have the Will to Power to RISE UP. Go for it. Just don't China mess with
> my people again LMAO.
It's funny, I'm sure the Chinese say similar things about Mongolians.
> > It's generally accepted as being the official view that there is no
> > difference in races whatsoever, and it is not acceptable to even
> > entertain the possility that there may be. Many believe race to be a
> > completely social construct and think it is an obsolete term and we
> > should not even classify people as races anymore.
>
> Who cares about the genetics, as I said on here elsewhere. People know what
> they repeatedly and consistently experience - and they learn to AVOID
> destructive losers, no matter if the destructive loser is one person, a
> whole family, or most of the blacks they have repeatedly had to MOVE AWAY
> from in whole neighborhoods. OK? All the PC does it make people LIE, as
> Kurtz said, something like "necessary hypocricy?" As DeSousa said "rational
> racism."
D'Souza thought the Six Nations were "about ten or so tribes", so I
don't trust him for anything rational. And for reference, blacks were
being stopped disproportionately by the police even at the start of
the century. Psychology tests have shown over and over again that if
you show a white man attacking a black man with a knife, people will
think it's a black man attacking a white man with a knife.
> > Who do you think is bringing in these anti-discrimination laws etc etc
> > anyway? The idiots of society? No, the educated and intelligent
> > politicians etc. It's usually or at least it's presented by the media
> > as being the stupid people who join these nationalist movements etc.
>
> Who cares what the media says? The Chinese? HA! Forced integration has
> been a disaster. PC is a disaster hoisted on society by the Frankfurt
> School.
PC is just changing the language. Really it's stupid. It means that saying
"nigger" is racist but a policy of not hiring "African-Americans" isn't.
> Yeah, they are idiots (and also very cunning people)
Can't beat them for versatility!
DesertCactus
> don't trust him for anything rational. And for reference, blacks were
> being stopped disproportionately by the police even at the start of
> the century. Psychology tests have shown over and over again that if
> you show a white man attacking a black man with a knife, people will
> think it's a black man attacking a white man with a knife.
>
Care to elaborate on this? You're statement makes little sense if
taken literally, although I think I know what you're trying to say,
that people assume black people are more criminal etc, and would
assume it is the black man doing the attacking.
But unless people are colorblind it would be difficult for them to SEE
a white man attacking a black man with a knife then think it is a
black man attacking a white man with a knife.
Where could this psychological effect come from? It's certainly not
from the media, because that is Politically correct. Perhaps it's from
personal observations and experiences?
"Blacks are so much more likely than other races to commit crimes that
police may be justified in stopping and questioning them more
frequently - just as they stop men more frequently than women and
young people more than old people."
http://www.amren.com/color.pdf
Where are the most violent crime areas of the USA? They are in the
mainly black areas, black on black violence, where people are murdered
etc. The police are not making up the dead bodies which frequently
turn up at the morgue's from these areas.
What towns/cities have higher crime rates? towns and cities with high
black populations. 33% of African-American's are below the poverty
line, and 20% of Whites are.
However in the white areas this poverty does not turn people to crime
to the extent it does in black areas, despite claims that this is the
reason for higher black crime.
IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY, there is a wide range of behavior and
attitude. However, having said that, it is critical to note that group
behavior is still a valid and important element to society. White
society may have produced some serial killers, but the group behavior
is to hate such people and to attempt to rid society of their
influence. Contrast that attitude with the reaction of the Black
community when OJ "the knife" Simpson was acquitted, or its reaction
of apathy towards, or even support for, other Black criminals.
One clear indication of the group behavior of the Black community, and
of the understanding of that behavior by the White community (and that
understanding runs deep, even in the most rabid liberal) is the crime
rate in ALL predominantly Black communities, and the refusal of White
folks to voluntarily move their families into any of these areas. No
honest White man actually wants to live in a Black neighborhood. Of
course such a choice is always available. For a cost much less than
what any White family is paying for housing in a safe White
neighborhood, they could have a much larger house in a Black
neighborhood. Since they do not make that move, the liberals' actions
shout from the housetops, what their lying words deny.
In the Washington DC area where rich liberals abound, you will find
that they do not send their children to Black dominated public
schools. Even with all of the (supposedly wonderful) diversity
available there, the liberal hypocrites (like Bill Clinton) send their
kids to private, predominately White schools.
This is an indication of a general understanding in White people of
the group behavior of Black people. This observation is not
numerically quantified, or exact. It is just an example of common
sense at work. White people know that if they move their families into
a Black neighborhood, the odds will increase dramatically that their
wives and daughters will be raped, their sons will be beaten up, and
that one or more of them will be murdered. They know their cars will
be vandalized or stolen, and that their houses will be targets for
thieves and vandals.
Of course, since virtually all White people understand this
(demonstrated by their refusal to take advantage of the financial
savings provide by a move to a predominantly Black neighborhood, and
even more clearly demonstrated by their moving out of a once White
neighborhood when it starts to become Black) it is an easy, and
flawless step of logic to realize that if we allow our society in
general to become predominantly Black, it will be a place wherein none
of us would want to live.
What is going on in South Africa today is convenient for us to use as
an example of this phenomenon, even though it is horribly inconvenient
for the White people who are onsite and living through it. You will
notice that once the Leftists did their work of destroying the
political system in South Africa, their news media suddenly went dead
on the subject of that poor nation.
Johannesburg has become the murder capitol of the world. Over 1 out of
every 3 women have been raped in that city. All over the country,
murder, rape, and torture have exploded as White restraint has been
removed, and the Black group characteristic behavior has been
unleashed upon the White folks.
What do we hear of this from the media that once was all afire with
concern for "fairness" and "compassion" in South Africa? Nothing! Why
is that? It is the same reason that inspired the national cover up of
the Wichita Massacre, and the dragging deaths of Patricia Stansfield
(1) and Little Jake Robel.
It is undeniable and beyond serious debate that White folks today know
the dangers of Black group behavior. The fact is clearly established
by the choices made by White folks in where they choose to live, and
when possible, where they send their children to school.
From subjective common sense, let us move to hard objective data. We
find that what is going on in South African is also going on in the
USA, and that the news media is being just as deceitful in its
covering this fact up, as it has been in the near total blackout on
covering Black South African crime.
If you would like more detail on this topic, a report has been issued
by American Renaissance called The Color of Crime. It documents many
of the facts on this issue.
In per capita numbers of crimes, we find that the Black group behavior
is 10 times as likely as White group behavior to commit murder,
robbery, or any violent crime. TEN TIMES!
The impact on our overall crime rate is astounding for a group that
only makes up 12% of the population. The murder rate for America has
been raised from the White rate of murder of less than 5 per 100,000
people (which incidentally is similar to the rate found in White
European countries) to 9.8 per 100,000 people. Our murder rate is
being doubled by a group making up only 12% of our population. The
Black group behavior is the very same in the USA as it is in South
Africa, and everywhere else on the planet that they reside in large
numbers.
The sad fact is that many liberals know about the Black crime
situation, but instead of facing reality they try and cover up the
fact with misdirection. They say that all Black crime is as result of
poverty. The absurdity of this claim can be shown several ways.
First of all, Blacks are much more likely to commit even white collar
crime. That means that even if they are employed, and not in poverty,
the group behavior comes through.
Secondly, compare the Black group behavior, with the White group
behavior of the poorest people in West Virginia, where the poverty
level is far worse than anything in Black neighborhoods. Here people
are living in shacks, are thin from lack of food, and are barely
educated. Yet their crime rate is extremely low.
Thirdly, in case the idea is promulgated that it is a combination of
poverty and city life that is required as an excuse, as if there could
really be one, look at the Great Depression. There were many years of
extreme poverty, coupled with city life, little hope, and hungry
people. And there was NO INCREASE in crime among the poor Whites. The
White group behavior remained constant, even with poverty.
It is clearly a lying attempt by the Leftists to use poverty, or
anything else, other than Black group behavior, to explain Black
crime. The lying nature of their claims, are clearly highlighted by
their continual change of direction. One minute they act as if there
is no difference in the rate of crime in the group behavior of Blacks
and Whites, and the next they are making excuses for that difference!
Then, a moment later they are back to the first position again.
What about "hate crime," or more specifically and accurately, what
about cross-racial crime? Who is the greater danger to whom?
Here the numbers are even more astounding. When Whites commit violent
crime, 97% of the time it is against other Whites. That is a striking
difference from the 57% of Black crime which is directed against
Whites. This boils down to the simple fact that Black group behavior
is 56 times more likely to commit a cross-racial crime against Whites,
than White group behavior will produce a crime against Blacks. That is
not twice as likely, or even 10 times as likely, but 56 times as
likely!
Now compare that hard fact with the news coverage you have seen on
cross-racial crime in America. As you will note, the blackout on
reality is as complete concerning what is going on in the USA as it is
on what is going on in South Africa. The media is quite consistent.
The single greatest cross-racial crime difference is in the area of
crimes against women. A Black is 200 times more likely to rape a White
woman, than a White is to rape a Black woman. This is an outrage that
most White folks are completely ignorant of. Instead they are exposed
to propaganda movies like "To Kill a Mockingbird" which ignores the
reality around us.
So, before you let some liberal hypocrite tell you that the Wichita
Massacre was just 2 Black guys, and it has no deeper racial meaning,
remember that overall group behavior exhibits itself in individual
acts like this. It is time for White folks to stop listening to lying
liberals and to start looking at the facts of real life. It is
important to you to understand what is really going on, but it is even
more important to your children. The choices that you make today will
effect your children's future and the future of their children. You
must stop America from creating another South Africa right here. If
you are ignorant of the facts, then you cannot possibly make the right
choices for your children's future.
http://www.whitefuture.com/html/blackcrime.html (*warning* Obvious
from the name, a racist site) But I think the article had some useful
points.
Below an interesting article that appears to have been written from
the persepective of a black man on the black crime problem.
DesertCactus
I think the head/brain seize of an individual is related to his/her body size.
DesertCactus
I think the head/brain size of an individual is related to his/her body size.
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04061...@posting.google.com...
> >
what
> > they repeatedly and consistently experience - and they learn to AVOID
> > destructive losers, no matter if the destructive loser is one person, a
> > whole family, or most of the blacks they have repeatedly had to MOVE
AWAY
> > from in whole neighborhoods. OK? All the PC does it make people LIE,
as
> > Kurtz said, something like "necessary hypocricy?" As DeSousa said
"rational
> > racism." People practice it - even if they deny it. they LIE. So much
for
> > liberal agendas, eh?
> >
>
> From crime statistics and common obeservations by many people, it's
> probably true that black people could more often be classified as
> "destructive losers". And it's not fair for a decent law-obiding,
> hard-working, peaceful family to have to move out of a neighborhood
> once a certain number of blacks or antisocials move in.
Heh, you bet it's not fair. People had to spend every cent they worked hard
for years to save, in order go flee out like refugees from war zones. You
have NO idea unless you experienced it first hand - and once is enough.
People experienced it MANY times, repeatedly. So then, when ANY black moves
in, everyone goes on alert due to that experience, everyone says "oh oh, not
again." Not only is it not fair, but it was SHOVED on people, FORCED on
them.
> But everyone should be judged as individuals in any case, even if
> society one day accepts that yes blacks are more likely to assault
> someone for example, because they are easier to anger due to the
> higher level of testosterone in them, or whatever, and if society
> accepts other things.
Tell that to insurance companies. Tell that to anyone with common sense.
Sorry buster, it's WAY too late for that. Ever hear of GATED communities?
No one cares if they do that because of testosterone levels. NO one cares
if they do it due to lower IQ. NO ONE CARES. I personally think they do it
because they HATE themselves and, as a result of that, HATE EVERYONE ELSE
that is NOT them. I know this much, when an individual of any type behaves
that way, that's the reason they do it. That's MY theory on why they behave
that way - and they do it all the time, not just once or twice. ALL THE
TIME. They make DEMANDS on society, gimme gimme gimme gimme. So they are
given it at our expense. What do they do? DESTROY it.
> A random person of any race could be anything, stupid/smart etc, he
> might be more likely to be one thing than another due to his
> race/upbringing/environment but he still could be anything.
Sure they can. No one is denying that. I've met plenty of individual white
destructive losers. But ONE person, or even ONE family, is easy to avoid.
A whole neighborhood of them is impossible to avoid -
you have to MOVE OUT. All of that costs money. All of that breaks up
friendships, communities, it isolates people who have to start all over in a
new place. It especially is bad for the kids.
> The idea to have rules on a neighbourhood where blacks are not allowed
> to move in is unthinkable,
It wasn't unthinkable a short while ago. But there are many ways to keep
places NICE.
however you could propose another rule to
> achieve the same effect, such as noone with significant criminal
> records are allowed in, and they must have college level education,
> that would probably stop the majority of blacks from being able to
> move in, even though they are allowed into college and other
> instituions with worse grades/abilities, simply because they are
> black, which I think is the most rediculous thing ever to be
> introduced.
Yeah, affirmative action is another thing they demanded - and they had it
handed to them. And is it good for them in the end? NO, as Clarence Thomas
said. Everyone in his life looked at him with suspicion that he was not
really qualified for any job he did. So much for that. They demand it.
They get it. Then they bitch and moan about it? Enough with them. Too
much time, money and effort has been WASTED on them. They aren't GODS you
know.
P.Comm
"MIB529" <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad78f65.04061...@posting.google.com...
I have no idea what Chinese people say about Mongolians and I don't care.
For the most part, they say that those people are CHINESE - and I think they
really are. They just don't speak it. Turk-Tatar people, the majority of
us, are NOT in China. We are in the former Soviet Union. What do the
Russians say about us? Not much, they are openly afraid of us. They are
all all mixed up with us.
>
> > > It's generally accepted as being the official view that there is no
> > > difference in races whatsoever, and it is not acceptable to even
> > > entertain the possility that there may be. Many believe race to be a
> > > completely social construct and think it is an obsolete term and we
> > > should not even classify people as races anymore.
> >
> > Who cares about the genetics, as I said on here elsewhere. People know
what
> > they repeatedly and consistently experience - and they learn to AVOID
> > destructive losers, no matter if the destructive loser is one person, a
> > whole family, or most of the blacks they have repeatedly had to MOVE
AWAY
> > from in whole neighborhoods. OK? All the PC does it make people LIE,
as
> > Kurtz said, something like "necessary hypocricy?" As DeSousa said
"rational
> > racism."
>
> D'Souza thought the Six Nations were "about ten or so tribes", so I
> don't trust him for anything rational. And for reference, blacks were
> being stopped disproportionately by the police even at the start of
> the century. Psychology tests have shown over and over again that if
> you show a white man attacking a black man with a knife, people will
> think it's a black man attacking a white man with a knife.
I don't care about any studies, genetics, biology, testosterone, blah blah
blah BLAH. I know what I've experienced - and no one can tell me I did not
experience it. No one. No trying to "sell" the Negroes to me. It's far
too late for that. AVOID AVOID AVOID. D'Souza might not know a thing about
NA - and why should he? He probably knows nothing about Tatars either. So
what? Tatars aren't an ISSUE in the USA. But what he wrote about blacks
is something that the majority of people experienced - all they had to do is
LIVE in a neighborhood that they took over. Bingo. I told you why I think
blacks behave that way when they are in a big group. HATE and SELF HATE. I
don't have the time to give a shit WHY.
>
> > > Who do you think is bringing in these anti-discrimination laws etc etc
> > > anyway? The idiots of society? No, the educated and intelligent
> > > politicians etc. It's usually or at least it's presented by the media
> > > as being the stupid people who join these nationalist movements etc.
> >
> > Who cares what the media says? The Chinese? HA! Forced integration has
> > been a disaster. PC is a disaster hoisted on society by the Frankfurt
> > School.
>
> PC is just changing the language. Really it's stupid. It means that saying
> "nigger" is racist but a policy of not hiring "African-Americans" isn't.
Yeah, and everyone knows that saying "African American" is as stupid as
anything else - Africa is a continent, not a country. Who cares what they
want to be called. One BIG whatever.
>
> > Yeah, they are idiots (and also very cunning people)
>
> Can't beat them for versatility!
True, can't beat them for having turned the country upside down on its head.
But the cat's out of the bag - people KNOW WHO did this. OH OH. As a
matter of fact, a hilarious note is that blacks know what was done - and
they HATE them for it! HA HA. Talk about backfiring.
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04061...@posting.google.com...
> > don't trust him for anything rational. And for reference, blacks were
> > being stopped disproportionately by the police even at the start of
> > the century. Psychology tests have shown over and over again that if
> > you show a white man attacking a black man with a knife, people will
> > think it's a black man attacking a white man with a knife.
> >
>
> Care to elaborate on this? You're statement makes little sense if
> taken literally, although I think I know what you're trying to say,
> that people assume black people are more criminal etc, and would
> assume it is the black man doing the attacking.
> But unless people are colorblind it would be difficult for them to SEE
> a white man attacking a black man with a knife then think it is a
> black man attacking a white man with a knife.
> Where could this psychological effect come from? It's certainly not
> from the media, because that is Politically correct. Perhaps it's from
> personal observations and experiences?
I'd wager to say that the study was pure bullshit - like "Dr." Kenneth
Clark's black and white dolls - all bullshit.
>
> "Blacks are so much more likely than other races to commit crimes that
> police may be justified in stopping and questioning them more
> frequently - just as they stop men more frequently than women and
> young people more than old people."
Yes. Young people loitering around might be a gang up to no good. Old
timers loitering around are definitely not a gang.
>
> http://www.amren.com/color.pdf
>
> Where are the most violent crime areas of the USA? They are in the
> mainly black areas, black on black violence, where people are murdered
> etc. The police are not making up the dead bodies which frequently
> turn up at the morgue's from these areas.
> What towns/cities have higher crime rates? towns and cities with high
> black populations. 33% of African-American's are below the poverty
> line, and 20% of Whites are.
> However in the white areas this poverty does not turn people to crime
> to the extent it does in black areas, despite claims that this is the
> reason for higher black crime.
They are always coming up with "reasons" but the reasons do not pan out,
they are excuses.
>
> IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY, there is a wide range of behavior and
> attitude. However, having said that, it is critical to note that group
> behavior is still a valid and important element to society.
YOU BET it is! Bingo - on targert.
White
> society may have produced some serial killers, but the group behavior
> is to hate such people and to attempt to rid society of their
> influence. Contrast that attitude with the reaction of the Black
> community when OJ "the knife" Simpson was acquitted, or its reaction
> of apathy towards, or even support for, other Black criminals.
They applauded and celebrated.
>
> One clear indication of the group behavior of the Black community, and
> of the understanding of that behavior by the White community (and that
> understanding runs deep, even in the most rabid liberal) is the crime
> rate in ALL predominantly Black communities, and the refusal of White
> folks to voluntarily move their families into any of these areas. No
> honest White man actually wants to live in a Black neighborhood. Of
> course such a choice is always available. For a cost much less than
> what any White family is paying for housing in a safe White
> neighborhood, they could have a much larger house in a Black
> neighborhood. Since they do not make that move, the liberals' actions
> shout from the housetops, what their lying words deny.
BINGO. Obligatory hypocricy in action. I'm on usenet - heh - and I'm being
100% up front about it. In person I'm obligatorily POLITE and otherwise
avoid the subject or those people. I simply CHOOSE to go elsewhere.
>
> In the Washington DC area where rich liberals abound, you will find
> that they do not send their children to Black dominated public
> schools. Even with all of the (supposedly wonderful) diversity
> available there, the liberal hypocrites (like Bill Clinton) send their
> kids to private, predominately White schools.
>
> This is an indication of a general understanding in White people of
> the group behavior of Black people. This observation is not
> numerically quantified, or exact. It is just an example of common
> sense at work. White people know that if they move their families into
> a Black neighborhood, the odds will increase dramatically that their
> wives and daughters will be raped, their sons will be beaten up, and
> that one or more of them will be murdered. They know their cars will
> be vandalized or stolen, and that their houses will be targets for
> thieves and vandals.
>
> Of course, since virtually all White people understand this
> (demonstrated by their refusal to take advantage of the financial
> savings provide by a move to a predominantly Black neighborhood, and
> even more clearly demonstrated by their moving out of a once White
> neighborhood when it starts to become Black)
It's called voting with their feet.
it is an easy, and
> flawless step of logic to realize that if we allow our society in
> general to become predominantly Black, it will be a place wherein none
> of us would want to live.
>
> What is going on in South Africa today is convenient for us to use as
> an example of this phenomenon, even though it is horribly inconvenient
> for the White people who are onsite and living through it. You will
> notice that once the Leftists did their work of destroying the
> political system in South Africa, their news media suddenly went dead
> on the subject of that poor nation.
>
> Johannesburg has become the murder capitol of the world. Over 1 out of
> every 3 women have been raped in that city. All over the country,
> murder, rape, and torture have exploded as White restraint has been
> removed, and the Black group characteristic behavior has been
> unleashed upon the White folks.
They should get the hell out of there.
>
> What do we hear of this from the media that once was all afire with
> concern for "fairness" and "compassion" in South Africa? Nothing! Why
> is that? It is the same reason that inspired the national cover up of
> the Wichita Massacre, and the dragging deaths of Patricia Stansfield
> (1) and Little Jake Robel.
>
> It is undeniable and beyond serious debate that White folks today know
> the dangers of Black group behavior. The fact is clearly established
> by the choices made by White folks in where they choose to live, and
> when possible, where they send their children to school.
>
> From subjective common sense, let us move to hard objective data. We
> find that what is going on in South African is also going on in the
> USA, and that the news media is being just as deceitful in its
> covering this fact up, as it has been in the near total blackout on
> covering Black South African crime.
>
> If you would like more detail on this topic, a report has been issued
> by American Renaissance called The Color of Crime. It documents many
> of the facts on this issue.
No need to turn to that kind of literature. FBI stats are good enough - or
hard knocks experience is good enough for 100% EVERYONE I know - people from
MANY ethnic groups, including us Tatar-Turks, including Asians, I mean
EVERYONE knows it unless they've never experienced it.
>
> In per capita numbers of crimes, we find that the Black group behavior
> is 10 times as likely as White group behavior to commit murder,
> robbery, or any violent crime. TEN TIMES!
>
> The impact on our overall crime rate is astounding for a group that
> only makes up 12% of the population. The murder rate for America has
> been raised from the White rate of murder of less than 5 per 100,000
> people (which incidentally is similar to the rate found in White
> European countries) to 9.8 per 100,000 people. Our murder rate is
> being doubled by a group making up only 12% of our population. The
> Black group behavior is the very same in the USA as it is in South
> Africa, and everywhere else on the planet that they reside in large
> numbers.
>
> The sad fact is that many liberals know about the Black crime
> situation, but instead of facing reality they try and cover up the
> fact with misdirection. They say that all Black crime is as result of
> poverty. The absurdity of this claim can be shown several ways.
My way of knowing it. Blacks were a lot more well off than any of us when
we came here. They spoke the English language. They had a foot inside of
this capitalist society and knew their way around. Where are they today?
LOSERS. Where are we today? Quite well off. NO ONE helped us.
>
> First of all, Blacks are much more likely to commit even white collar
> crime. That means that even if they are employed, and not in poverty,
> the group behavior comes through.
YES, IT DOES and I've seen it all my life. NONE of the blacks that wrecked
areas I was in were poor - NOT ONE. They had a lot more than any of us had.
WE were poor at first. But we didn't stay that way long. No one helped us.
>
> Secondly, compare the Black group behavior, with the White group
> behavior of the poorest people in West Virginia, where the poverty
> level is far worse than anything in Black neighborhoods. Here people
> are living in shacks, are thin from lack of food, and are barely
> educated. Yet their crime rate is extremely low.
>
> Thirdly, in case the idea is promulgated that it is a combination of
> poverty and city life that is required as an excuse, as if there could
> really be one, look at the Great Depression. There were many years of
> extreme poverty, coupled with city life, little hope, and hungry
> people. And there was NO INCREASE in crime among the poor Whites. The
> White group behavior remained constant, even with poverty.
>
> It is clearly a lying attempt by the Leftists to use poverty, or
> anything else, other than Black group behavior, to explain Black
> crime. The lying nature of their claims, are clearly highlighted by
> their continual change of direction. One minute they act as if there
> is no difference in the rate of crime in the group behavior of Blacks
> and Whites, and the next they are making excuses for that difference!
> Then, a moment later they are back to the first position again.
Advice: IGNORE them. Or heh, give them a ride to any MLK street and force
them to get out of the car - make sure it's starting to get dark out. LMAO.
>
> What about "hate crime," or more specifically and accurately, what
> about cross-racial crime? Who is the greater danger to whom?
Blacks are the danger, more than anyone else. PERIOD.
No use preaching this to anyone, no use trying to tell them, if they have
not EXPERIENCED it for themselves. The media hype and other brainwashing is
too overwhelming. They have to experience it for themselves. It's the only
way.
>
> http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_2_my_black.html
This is a GOOD article here. Nim posted one on afrocentric views - I'm
searching to see if I saved that post, it was very informative, very good.
In case I never saved it, the post is on here and can be gotten via a google
search.
FOUND IT:
QUOTE
As to the deadly Afrocentric paradigm, I'll leave you with this:
It is not uneducated blacks in the inner cities that believe all or some
form of this "long conspiracy of evil whites," (see below, please) but their
professors believe it. I don't believe you can find a black person anywhere
that isn't aware of this paradigm - and as you may know, paradigms are very
hard, if not impossible, to oust. I will also say that I know this paradigm
to be so convincing that PC (the poster) believes it, or at least considers
the possibility that while white speak *words* indicating they are helping
blacks, whites are doing *deeds* to commit genocide against them. PC is
neither pro nor anti black or white. That is how convincing this paradigm
is, that it can convince an outsider.
A very good analogy was made on another thread: as Hitler blamed and wanted
to exterminate the Jews; the blacks are blaming whites, and some of them are
blaming *Jews*, for everything that's either wrong with them, deficient in
them, or their own fault. This is *very* alarming and upsetting.
What really convinced me of an inherent, dangerous weakness in black ways
of thought, however, was their widespread belief in Afrocentrism and the
notion that whites were committing "genocide" against blacks. In September
1989, ABC News did a program on the condition of blacks in America,
followed by a special edition of Nightline with a panel consisting of
several of ABC's black correspondents and other *noted* blacks. With the
exception of Professor Shelby Steele, these *accomplished, successful*
blacks *all* endorsed the notion of a white conspiracy to commit "genocide"
against blacks. The fact that it was not just ignorant street people, but
*successful, articulate* black professionals who believed these insane and
wicked conspiracy theories made a devastating impression on me. It shook
my former belief that blacks and whites could more or less get along in the
same society.
The wide acceptance of Afrocentrism had a similar effect on my views of
blacks. I was appalled when I heard commentator Tony Brown, a *reasonable
and intelligent* black (who, moreover, had just joined the Republican
Party), say in a speech to the Heritage Foundation that, given the fact
that mankind began in Africa, "all civilizations are African." More than
anything else, Afrocentrism, with its claims that European civilization was
"stolen" from Africa and that people like Hannibal and Cleopatra were black
because they lived on the African continent, confirmed my growing
conviction that blacks were often incapable of distinguishing their wishes,
feelings, and resentments from objective reality. There is also the
growing "black Bible" movement, which teaches that the main figures in the
Bible, including Abraham, Moses, Mary, Jesus, and Paul, were black-a truth
which (naturally) those tricky whites have systematically hidden from
blacks so as to maintain their dominance over them. As far as I can see,
the blackness of the people in the Bible constitutes the sole teaching of
this sect. Their interest in the Bible is exclusively racialist. (Once
again, the fact that a large number of blacks do not believe in
Afrocentrism does not change the fact that a large number of them do, and
are *acting* on it and spreading it and institutionalizing it throughout
the whole society.)
The most extreme form of black conspiracy thinking is the Nation of Islam
claim that whites are demons who were created by a mad scientist 5,000 years
ago, and who ever since then have robbed blacks of their birthright.
Whether blacks believe in that myth, or are just fixated on a general
feeling of historic grievance, the notion of their historic victimhood tends
to *justify* in their minds every crime and injustice that they might now
commit against whites. Over and over, polls and statements reveal that
blacks feel they should not be held to moral standards for the crimes of
blacks against whites, because blacks have been the victims of this vast and
still unacknowledged evil by whites for several thousands of years. Blacks
thus tend to see every issue in purely racialist terms-as we can see when
black juries excuse black killers of whites, or when the great majority of
blacks say that O.J. Simpson is innocent, or when a high percentage of
blacks agree that Colin Ferguson's mass murder on the Long Island Rail Road
was a justified act of rage against white racism. The above attitudes all
increasingly suggest that blacks and whites cannot truly live as equal
co-citizens in the same society.
Of course, blacks have suffered real historic crimes at the hands of
whites. Is there any group of people that has *not* suffered real historic
crimes at the hands of others? It is blacks and liberals that are *not*
simply viewing this as "*man's* inhumaity to *man*"; they see it as
distnictly racial. If I were to give an antibiotic to three patients, one
black, one white, one Chinese, and if that antibiotic didn't work - would
that enable the white and black to accuse me of racism? What about the
Chinese patient? It is not so unusual for an antibiotic not to work. Just
as it is *not* unusual for one group of people to suffer at the hands of
another. Human history is full of this. But that (blacks having suffered
at the hands of whites) does not explain the contemporary, *intensifying*
sense of black grievance, which finds its most flagrant expression in
fantasies of white devils and 5,000-year-old conspiracies. Most
importantly, the fact that the black feeling of grievance is *augmenting,
rather than diminishing*, as slavery and legal discrimination recede into
the distant past, suggests that the grievance has little to do with any
actual crimes committed by whites.
Even more alarming, the more blacks advance, the *more*, not less, they
resent whites (and Asians, whom they don't distinguish between). The more
America does to overcome its "racism," the more "racist" America appears.
The reason for this is built into the dynamics of human nature. Very
simply, the more equal blacks become with whites, the more unbearable and
unjust seem the *remaining differences*. Thus what started as a demand for
basic civil rights mutated into a demand to *overturn the whole society*,
along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history
and heroes, since in all these things blacks are still not "equal."
An example of what happens when blacks gain power can be seen in the
current imbroglio at Rutgers University, where President Francis Lawrence,
through his own affirmative action policies, created the very student body
that is now trying to *destroy* him. When blacks gain numbers and power,
they inevitably subject whites to intimidation and tyranny, just as they do
to their own people. End Quotes
It is hard to forget Jefferson's chilling premonitions in this regard:
(Thomas Jefferson said) Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into
the State, and thus save the expense of supplying by importation of white
settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep-rooted prejudices entertained
by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries
they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature
has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and
produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination
of the one or the other race. [Italics added] [Notes on Virginia, Query
XIV, 1782].
I, and many others, have quiely observed this for many years.
UNQUOTE.
Google RULES man :) It took a few minutes, and a bit of reading thru posts
on here, but I found it. NOW I'm gonna SAVE IT!!!
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04061...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > I doubt that self preservation has anything to do with IQ per se.
> >
> > Suggest you read Professor MacDonald's essays on just how people can be
> > turned from proud, fearless and pro themselves, into cowering wimps,
> > ashamed, guild ridden and even self destructive. Read and learn.
>
> I can easily imagine how this could happen with the politically
> correct media constantly telling people how evil and worthless the
> White race is etc. Pride in one's race is frowned upon. I can easily
> see this guilt and shame, self-hatred becoming so strong that they
> desire self destruction, they feel so worthless that they should be
> destroyed or die out, no longer exist.
The extent of the infiltartion of Frankfurt School is FAR beyond what anyone
can really imagine - except to see it all on hindsight - and a tad too late
if you ask me. Look up Professor MacDonald or - I can post something on it.
I'll reply to my own post and change the subject and paste it in here.
>
> A lot of white people feel guilty about the slave trade etc, even
> though they themselves had nothing to do with the slave trade, and
> none of the blacks who exist today who whine about slavery have ever
> experienced it either.
Well, a greater deal of people that are usually lumped in with whites if
they speak English - including Turks, Tatars, Slavs, etc - have no such
guilt over that kind of SHIT.
In fact I read an interesting report about how
> many black slaves were treated well by their owners and were actually
> HAPPY as slaves.
As one Chinese poster on here said, they should be GLAD they are here in the
USA - and not back in hell hole Africa. LMAO. It doesn't matter how they
got here. I call it the guilt trip gimme gimme game. God this has NO
effect on people like me. NONE. The more someone whines gimme gimme, the
more I wanna chop their heads off. As for putting guilt trips on people -
that's called SPIRITUAL WAR in my book. It destroys the LIGHT in a person.
That's my bottom line on it. I won't budge from that opinion because I see
it.
Snip the bs on slavery - it's tired.
>
> Oh and I read about a black american who is in the process of suing a
> london company which insured a slavery ship, apparently through
> tracing back his genetics he was able to prove he is an ancestor of a
> slave who travelled on the ship.
Gimme gimme gimme. LMAO. My people should sue China for the past. LMAO.
Excuse me, I have to go to McDonalds and slip and fall - I need a few
million. Be back later.....LOL.
> He's suing on the grounds that he now has no identity, and no sense of
> his past or history because his ancestors were slaves.
And if he could find all his cousins and such, he'd still hate himself. No
matter, he wants to deposit bucks in the bank. He has an identify: LEECH,
BLOOD SUCKER, VAMPIRE, PARASITE. That's his identity. Period.
But If I were
> him I would be thanking the company, he and all blacks have benifited
> massively from slavery, they now live in one of the richest and nicest
> countries in the world. If not for slavery, he would be living in some
> third-world black country living in poverty, disease, warfare, etc.
That's what the Chinese guy Nim said, LOL. I loved it. I pick up new ideas
all the time on here.....
>
> His true motivation for suing the company? Money of course.
Gimme gimme.
>
> By the way P Comm, thanks for the replies, could you give me some
> websites or tell me some information about the Chinese eugenics?
> Thanks.
Welcome -
Here is a post (with some commentary inside it) from Chinese military.
Eugenics in China
(Article on Eugenics, positive and negative, in Communist China - and it
retains the Creative Darwinism of the much maligned TDL.)
By Sun Dong-Sheng Jinan ARMY INSTITUTE, PEOPLE'S REPUBOLIC OF CHINA
While striving to control the growth of population in China, our nation's
family planners have simultaneously taken serious note of the importance
eugenics represents as a field of inquiry. Eugenics is currently being
promoted in China. Although literally it means,"superior births," the
essence of eugenics can be found in the expression, "the birth of that
which is better," that is to say, the birth of children whose prenatal
characteristics are excellent. Naturally, if one wishes to see that every
family is able to produce healthy, intelligent children, then it is
necessary to study eugenics, to popularize the knowledge of this field and
to master its principles.
1. Eugenics is the science of the ways in which the genetic constitution of
man can be improved. Eugenics is divided into two branches. The first of
these is that which is preventive in nature. This,"subdivision," of
eugenics seeks to carry out research with the view of determining ways by
which the birth of unhealthy offspring in generations to come can be
avoided. Its point of departure is "disease" prevention. The second
subdivision of eugenics is that which is progressive in nature. In essence,
its research efforts are undertaken in an attempt to determine the means by
which the birth of future generations composed of outstanding genetic
make-up can be brought about. Both subdivisions of eugenics are devoted to
the improvement of man's hereditary nature. The field of eugenics is
therefore the science of improving the inherited character of man.
A. Eugenics, its origins and development. Eugenics was first brought into
being by the English biologist and anthropologist, Francis Galton. Some 100
years have now passed since its inception. While observing the phenomena of
biological inheritance during the 1870's, Galton discovered that many of
man's diseases were transmitted to later generations. At the same time, he
noted that the positive physical and mental attributes of husband and wife
would be inherited by their offspring, male or female. In view of this obse
rvation, Galton advanced the doctrine which postulated that selective
marriages could improve the human species by weeding out those marriages
characterized by the poor qualities of their participants and fostering the
increase of those having excellent characteristics. In 1883, he christened
this doctrine eugenics. The American, Curt Stem, brought eugenics into its
modern form by subdividing its general field of inquiry into the
aforementioned branches in 1960.(1) Historically, the development of
eugenics has passed through a circuitous route indeed. In the 1930's,
eugenics provided proponents of both fascism and racism with a splendid
opportunity. Unabashedly, eugenics was co-opted to promote racism. Hitler
openly proclaimed that the Aryan race possessed the finest genetic
qualities. while encouraging marriages between members of the Aryan race,
the Nazi leader oversaw the condemnation of hundreds of thousands of Jews
and Gypsies to the concentration camps where mass exterminations were
carried out. These genocidal acts gave rise to worldwide opposition and
condemnation. Misunderstandings arose and eugenics was, perforce, viewed as
a science which at heart served only the goals of racial discrimination.
Eugenics thus became a forbidden field in the minds of many people and
remained so for a long time. In addition to the above-described social
history of eugenics, specialists in the field came to look at questions
from a purely biological standpoint; undue emphasis was placed on the
biological nature of man, and factors pertaining to his social nature were
generally overlooked. This was particularly true with regard to questions
concerning the inheritance of intelligence. Eugenics was to fall into a
quagmire because I.Q. was taken as the only standard of intelligence. In
actuality, the intelligence of man is the result of the interaction of
prenatal-genetic and postnatal-social factors. By relying solely on
intelligence tests, it is exceedingly difficult to determine the extent to
which both genetic and social influences, as well as the role of the
individual, contribute to the aggregate result we call intelligence.(2) Due
to the above noted reasons, not an inconsiderable number of people came to
lose confidence in the scientific nature of eugenics and, as a result, much
time was to pass without further questions being raised about it in China.
In recent years, however, the requirements of modern science, technology
and production and the speed with which their development has taken place
have resulted in increasing societal demands for a population with
attributes of a high quality. Moreover, at the same time both the number
and kinds of genetic diseases have been multiplying. This situation has led
to eugenics being placed more distinctly in front of peoples from diverse
nations. China is in this respect no exception, and the People's Reputlic
of China has once again begun to regard this field with serious concern.
Our country is increasing its research efforts in this field and
popularizing its findings.
B. The theoretical basis for eugenics is genetics. So as to form a clear
and definite picture of this theoretical basis, it is necessary, first, to
examine briefly genetics as a separate field. To begin, we can divide
genetics into two general parts. a) Heredity. For example, the daughter of
the Zhang family resembles her mother. The son of the Li family looks like
his father, while the grandson of this family resembles his paternal
grandfather and a nephew looks like his uncle, etc. All of these are
examples of genetic phenomena. The philosopher Wang Ting-Xiang of the Sung
dynasty once noted that if an individual did not resemble his father, then
he would look like his mother. Subsequent generations would surely have
both the physique as well as the facial appearance of their ancestors. The
father of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, also noted that children
inevitably display certain characteristics derived from both parents and
their ancestors further back. The process of transmitting this kind of
biological constitution and physiological function among organisms from
generation to generation is thus what is known as heredity. b) Variation.
Whether we speak of the daughter of the Zhang family or the son of the Li
family, there will always be characteristics which do not resemble either
those of the mother or those of the father. A colloquial expression holds
that,"a woman who gives birth to 9 children, the 10 of them will still all
be different." Even if the birth of twins comes to pass, there will also be
(some) differences between them.(3) This phenomenon is what is called
variation. Genetics is thus a science which studies the laws of heredity
and variation. Yet one might ask why eugenics would take genetics as its
theoretical foundation. The answer to this question lies in the fact that
the multiplicity of man has been brought about by the processes of heredity
and variation. From the gibbon, to tailless ape, to contemporary man,
variation has been a condition of evolution; without variation in living
organisms, evolution and the rise of modern man would not have come to
pass. The human species has traversed one hundred centuries and one
thousand generations.(4) That man is still man is the consequence of
heredity. Had there been no heredity, but only variation, mankind early
onwards would have evolved into a very different form. However it is
necessary to come to terms with the fact that the genes transmit both
beneficial and harmful qualities to subsequent generations. Variation can
eliminate the undesirable aspects of man's natural constitution, and it can
likewise cause an increase in harmful qualities experienced generations
later. In light of this, we must learn the laws of both heredity and
variation. In so doing, we will be able to develop those factors which are
beneficial to mankind. By fostering the growth of those attributes which
are inherently good, and eliminating those features which are decidedly
bad, populations could thus increase gradually in number and quality, and
the consequences of eugenics could see fruition. From this overall
standpoint, it is not difficult to see that genetics serves as the
theoretical foundation of eugenics. Some claim, however, that the co-option
of genetics as the research foundation from which to conduct studies in
eugenics implies a strictly hereditarian view of man. This view is
erroneous. Eugenics in fact emphasizes the cardinal functions which both
the objective environment and subjective forces play in man's health and
development. It must be borne in mind, furthermore, that our genetic
foundation underpins intelligence, physical strength, life span, and other
aspects of human health. The outstanding gifts of talented individuals are
a joint function of both constitutional and post-natal factors. Our genetic
foundation determines the possibility of becoming gifted, while the social
environment and subjective forces inherent in one's post-natal conditions
are the subsequent decisive factors which determine whether or not the
potential for such a gift can be realized. With the view of increasing the
possibilities for man to become more gifted, the results of eugenic
research are directed toward more fully providing for that end. With
genetics as its basis, the field of eugenics is established on an
objective, materialistic foundation. In view of this, eugenics can hardly
be considered as strictly hereditarian and should be viewed simply in a
materialistic vein. At the present time, genetics has established that the
material foundation of both heredity and variation is the gene. It is well
known that the cell constitutes the most basic unit of the human body. The
basic structure of the cell includes the membrane, the cytoplasm, and the
nucleus. The nucleus of the cell is itself composed of various structures
and component parts. Among these are the chromosomes, which control
heredity and variation. The chromosomes are a group of clava of various
sizes. Only at the time when the cell divides can we observe chromosomes
under a powerful microscope. Their most important component is a kind of
molecular substance, deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. Heredity's smallest,
most basic unit is the gene. While the messengers of inheritance are genes,
the chromosome is the storehouse of the gene. The gene is the smallest
molecular component of DNA. Within its internal alkali lies the sequential
order which contains the genetic code. The messages of inheritance are
passed through these genetic codes on to later generations. This system is
somewhat similar to the messages sent by coded telegrams from one party to
another. Actually, without the gene, inheritance of traits would be
impossible. In sum, the material foundation for both heredity and variation
lies in the gene. Because every chromosome has countless numbers of genes,
the impact of a chromosome abnormality on descendants is significantly
greater than that of a gene abnormality. There are 23 pairs of chromosomes
in the normal cell. Twenty-two pairs are regular chromosomes common to both
males and females However, one pair is that which determines the sex of
the individual. For males and females they are different. We use symbols to
express the nature of the sex chromosome. The male sex chromosome is
labeled Y, while that of the female is known as X. The number of
chromosomes in the human cell nucleus is permanently fixed. If it were
otherwise, an abnormality would appear. For example, if a human being were
to have more than two #21 chromosomes, a deformity would occur. Congenital
dementia would be one manifestation, for instance. A woman having one less
X chromosome would suffer from glandular hypoplasia, manifesting itself as
dwarfism, insufficient development, etc. Hereditary diseases which result
from changes in the number and construction of chromosomes are called
chromosome abnormalities. Such abnormalities can come from either side,
male or female, and can also originate from both sides at the same time.
With regard to marriage and reproduction, we must carefully consider
genetic factors; this is because genetic diseases transmitted to offspring
are intimately related to the heredity of their mother and father, and to
that of their forefathers as well. With respect to mental disorders, for
example, one per cent of a population develops schizophrenia. Should either
parent be so afflicted, the rate of schizophrenic illness for later
generations reaches some 12%. Should both parents be diagnosed as
schizophrenic, the rate of illness for subsequent generations climbs to a
high of 39%.(5) According to an investigation of one clan where a certain
individual suffered from a mental disorder, out of 6 generations of
directly related and collaterally related individuals comprising 73
members, 25 were afflicted with mental disease, or 34.2%. The closer the
tie of blood, the greater the possibility of affliction. This makes it
abundantly clear that the factors of heredity must be carefully considered
when questions of marriage and reproduction are under consideration. One
must know, for example, whether either of the marriage partners has genetic
ailments or a family history of hereditary disease. Those suffering from
such critical illnesses as, for example, leprosy or nervous disorders,
should not marry. Individuals afflicted with, for example, acute infectious
diseases, tuberculosis, and serious heart, liver, or kidney ailments,
should refrain from marriage pending treatment and cure. Still other
individuals with ailments may marry but should not procreate. Those allowed
to have children should pay special attention to the physician's
instructions during pregnancy. They should undergo a prenatal diagnosis to
prevent an abnormal birth. It is especially important to point out how
inappropriate marriages are which take place between relatives, i.e.,
marriages between siblings - brothers and sisters - as well as marriages
between collateral relatives within the third degree of consanguinity (that
is, marriages between first cousins and between uncles and nieces).(6)
According to statistics, the incidence of congenital and genetic disease
among the issue of marriages consummated between relatives was some 150
times that among offspring of unrelated individuals. The death rate of the
offspring of closely related parents was more than three times that of
offspring of unrelated parents. What accounts for such statistics? Genetics
has shown that the chromosomes within the nucleus of the cell are the sites
of the genes of heredity. Half of these are passed down from the father,
with the remaining half from the mother. When both mother and father
possess the same harmful genes, and these genes are mixed together, an
unhealthy infant will be the result. Within the normal cell exists at least
50,000 genes; there are already some 2,600 kinds of genetic diseases and
some 300 types of chromosome diseases known to man. Every person has
individual genes which are harmful. However, under conditions where
marriage partners are not closely related, it is exceedingly unlikely for
both sides to have the same pernicious genes. Should one side possess one
or many destructive genes, it is not necessarily the case that the
corresponding gene of the other side shares the same defect. If they marry,
the defective gene of the one side will be subsumed by the normal gene of
the other side, and the infant will still be healthy. Marriages between
close relatives are quite different, however. As they share a common
ancestry, the opportunities for receiving similar defective genes are
significantly greater. For example, surprisingly 1/8 of the genes in first
cousins are the same; 1/32 of the genes in second cousins are held in
common. Should these individuals marry each other, it would be much easier
for a match of defective genes to take place than would be the case normal;
the birth of an unhealthy or abnormal child would be the likely result. A
popular saying during China's,"Warring States Period," held that the child
of a man and woman having the same last name would not thrive. In recent
years, genetic specialists have calculated that the complete prohibition of
cousin marriages would result in a 20% drop in the rate of births of
infants who are congenitally deaf mutes. It would also cause a decline of
some 15% in the rate of infants born afflicted with adolescent amaurotic
idiocy. As can readily be seen, the prohibition against marriages between
close relatives is in keeping with the tenets of eugenics.
The above makes obvious that eugenics possesses considerable significance
for mankind. In striving to produce better offspring, a significant number
of countries are promulgating eugenic rules and regulations explicitly
prohibiting marriages between close relatives as well as marriages between
and reproduction by people suffering from genetic and other disorders.(7)
China's new marriage law also includes eugenic provisions. Marriages
between people directly or collaterally related within three generations
are expressly prohibited. Persons who are afflicted with leprosy and who
have not received treatment and been cured, as well as with other illnesses
the nature of which is deemed by medical professors to make marriage
inadvisable for those so afflicted, will be prohibited from wedlock. But
these measures are still inadequate. As eugenic research becomes widespread
and acquires depth, the legal code of China will include more regulations
concerning the ways by which the idea of healthier offspring can be given
reality.
II. Eugenics: preventive and progressive methods by which healthier
offspring can be achieved. A. Measures which are preventive in character.
Genetic consultation. Physicians or specialists who advise persons
suffering from hereditary illness, as well as their family members, are
providing what is called genetic consultation. Individuals with normal
health do not ordinarily seek genetic consultation. However, where any of
the following 8 conditions obtain, they should do so: 1. persons who have
given birth to children with genetic diseases or congenital malformation,
e.g., infants diagnosed as having congenital dementia, cerebrum hypoplasia,
congenital heart disease, and ailments of the spinal column; 2. a history
of hereditary illness in one's family, or the birth of abnormal children
among persons directly or collaterally related; 3. marriages between close
relatives; 4. pregnancies after the age of 35; 5. exposure to chemical or
radioactive substances, or having had a viral infection, during the period
between the first four and seven weeks of pregnancy; 6. pregnant women with
hyperthyroidism, diabetes, asthma, epilepsy, or related medical syndromes;
7. pregnant women suffering from excess amniotic fluid; 8. indications of
amenorrhoea or repeated miscarriages. On the basis of a detailed history of
illnesses experienced by both male and female sides, and after considering
the genealogy of the subject, his or her physical examination and the
results of laboratory tests, the physician may determine whether the
offspring could suffer from hereditary illness and make a final judgment on
the probability of its occurrence. If the danger is relatively small, then,
on the basis of the overall situation, the physician can determine if the
pregnancy should be allowed to continue to term. On the other hand, should
the danger be comparatively great, it would be better to have an abortion.
This will prevent the birth of a defective child. B. Prenatal Diagnosis.
Diagnoses carried out with respect to the existence of genetic illness or
congenital abnormality in the fetus is called prenatal diagnosis. There are
many specific procedures. For example, laboratory tests of the mother's
blood or urine may determine whether or not the fetus has infant haemolysis
or prenatal metabolic illness; by carrying out an amnion puncture, that is,
by extracting a small amount of amniotic fluid from the mother's uterus, an
examination can indicate whether the fetus suffers from chromosome
variation or some other genetic and congenital disease. Prenatal diagnosis
is not needed for all pregnant women. What is important is that women
undergo the aforementioned genetic inquiry and consultation.. Should the
physician feel that this kind of examination is in the best interests of
everyone involved, then a prenatal diagnosis will be made. Prenatal
diagnosis and genetic consultation are, as a consequence, often done at the
same time. C. Precautionary measures against the effects of harmful
environmental agents. Many genetic illnesses as well as deformed children
are not the result of hereditary factors. Instead, they are the consequences
of parental exposure to harmful environmental agents. Among the most
harmful of influences in the environment are radiation, pathogenic
bacteria, and chemical products. Individually these agents are able to
induce abnormalities; they can introduce into the human body, offspring,
and the genes themselves, carcinogens; they can cause mutations. It has
been discovered that among all the persons born with congenital defects,
some 20% have resulted from exposure to various kinds of environmental
substances capable of inducing change. Approximately 60% of all cases are
due to both genetic factors and exposure to a damaging environment. High
blood pressure and malignant tumors are examples of the latter. In light of
the above, we should take preventive measures so as to guard against the
danger of such substances. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant, we must
endeavor to take extra precautionary measures in this regard. For instance,
one must not come into contact with poisons or be exposed to radiation. One
must guard against such infectious diseases as urticaria and influenza. One
must not abuse medicines. Hormones, sulphanilamide (SN), tetracyclines and
streptomycin all can cause damage to the cranial nerve or other
abnormalities in the fetus. The physician's directions concerning the use
of medicines must be strictly followed. Furthermore, both smoking and
drinking should be avoided. For the pregnan woman who smokes and drinks, a
miscarriage, an abnormal fetus, or the development of congenital heart
disease, is not unlikely. Lest we should forget, both the mother and the
fetus are affected similarly by the smoking of the husband. Drinking can
lead to poor growth and development of the offspring. Excessive drinking by
a pregnant woman can give rise to fetus alcoholism syndrome manifesting
itself in the formation of obstructions in the central nervous system and
the emergence of many kinds of abnormalities. In the past few decades, the
incidence of congenital illnesses and abnormal births has increased
steadily year by year.(8) One of the principal reasons for this trend is
the growing seriousness of environmental pollution. Many of the mutations
in the genes resulting from polluted substances are recessive or latent in
nature. They require generations to accumulate before becoming manifest.
Because of this, in light of the long-term benefits to be derived by all of
the peoples and all of mankind, the work of maintaining an ecological
balance and safeguarding the environment is absolutely imperative.(9) D.
Measures to enhance the birth of healthier offspring. Controlling
individual development. The process by which the fertilized egg develops
from the embryonic state to an infant is known as individual, or specific,
development. Controlling individual development means being able to improve
the living environment during the course of embryonic and infant
development in order that those factors making for better health can have a
fuller, more complete impact on the development of the fetus and infant.
For example, during the period of embryonic growth, if one were to employ
such means as were available to cause a spurt in brain cell multiplication
and reproduction, or if within six months of a birth, when the cells of the
brain are still multiplying and reproducing, one were to furnish substances
containing great amounts of proteins and nucleic acid, the intellectual
development of infants might be further enhanced. E. Genetic Engineering.
Genetic engineering refers to the artificial techniques of assembling
genes; it is also known as a technique for reorganizing DNA. At the present
time there are many methods with which to prevent and treat genetic
illnesses. However, none of these procedures is able to root out a
hereditary illness at its source; they are only able to effect cures for
the individual afflicted. These diseases thus reappear in later
generations. If one desires to eradicate a genetic defect, the ideal method
would be to repair or replace either the gene or the chromosome. The use
of such procedures effects a permanent cure, and this is what is known as
genetic engineering. While still at the exploratory stage, genetic
engineering has created a tempest of controversy. However it should be
borne in mind that the prospects for genetic engineering to effect a final
cure for hereditary illness as well as to make possible the birth of
healthier infants are very bright indeed.
III. Promoting the births of superior children, pushing family planning,
and quickening the pace of socialist modernization. At the present time,
over 3000 types of genetic diseases are known in the world. Between one and
three per cent of human kind suffer from various kinds of hereditary
illnesses, while between four and five per cent of newborns are afflicted
with genetic diseases. Many of these genetic illnesses are congenital or
hereditary in nature, and are extremely dangerous to mankind. On the basis
of incomplete statistics, it has been estimated that there are at least
1,200,000 Chinese in the PRC who suffer from congenital dementia. Their
number could be more than 3 million. The living and medical expenses
incurred for each person in the course of growing up are at least 5,000
yuan. When this figure is multiplied by 1.2 million, the expenditures made
on behalf of these individuals add up to at least 5.5 billion yuan.
Assuming a monthly grain ration of 25 catties (10), they consume some 360
million catties of food grains a year. China is a poor country. Having to
make so large an expenditure to feed and provide medical care for those who
suffer from the above disease and who, as a result, can contribute nothing
to society, is an extra burden for our socialist construction to bear. To
cite examples of genetic diseases which are area specific, there are
mountainous regions and even individual flatland areas in China where a
great many of the occupants suffer from cretinism. Though they consume food
and produce children, these deaf mutes are unable to engage in any
productive labor at all. According to one estimate, some 2 million people
suffer from this illness in China. In some areas, the incidence reaches as
high as 2-4% of the population, while in specific production brigades the
rate can exceed 10%. In these areas, it is exceedingly difficult to
increase production and to implement birth control. Taken together, these
problems represent a significant burden on our country. Currently, the
incidence of schizophrenia is approximately 0.2%.(11) There are currently
about 2 million schizophrenics in our country, and their number is
increasing. On the basis of statistics obtained in 1979, there are no less
than 4 to 5 million retarded children in China. However, among the newborn,
the proportion of abnormal children is still greater, accounting for
roughly 2% of all births. If one were to group together all of the children
who suffer from various kinds of birth defects, a figure of more than 10
million would be obtained. This number does not include children who will
develop these kinds of problems later in life. Much parental anguish is
caused by these children; they are unable to do anything useful; they are a
financial and mental burden on their parents; and they pose an increasing
burden on our country. It can be seen that socialist modernization urgently
needs a reduction or elimination of genetic diseases and hereditary
defects. Only by promoting the births of better offspring can we improve
the genetic quality of our population, reduce or eliminate a variety of
genetic diseases, and thereby lessen the burdens imposed on both family and
nation. Therefore, to promote eugenics is to secure immeasurable advantages
with no harmful consequences. Such a course of action would carry much
significance for the speed at which socialist modernization can proceed.
Eugenics can also play a considerable role in controlling population
growth. If a couple gives birth to a disabled or retarded child, they will
invariably want to have a second child. As a result, the proportion of our
population which is of poor quality increases as does the overall birth
rate. Naturally, this does nothing for the quality of our people and lies
at cross-purposes with our will to decrease the population of the PRC. If
we promote eugenics and make it possible for every couple to have a child
with superior physical and intellectual attributes, there will be no need
for the mother and father to worry about the health of their descendants.
This would also facilitate the control of population growth. In a word, to
promote eugenics is to advance family planning. It is also to hasten the
realization of the four modernization's. It is in accord with the
fundamental interests of all levels of our society: nation, collective,
family and individual. It is our earnest hope that eugenics should not be
construed as a purely expedient measure, but rather as a long-term mission,
which concerns the long-term prosperity of the Chinese race in the
centuries ahead. Each one of us, especially the members of the CCP (12) and
the Communist Youth League, must bravely endeavor to destroy and eliminate
outdated concepts, actively study and propagate the knowledge of eugenics,
and bring about the birth of healthier, superior children. By so doing, we
will be able to furnish the high quality builders required for the
realization of the four modernizations. (End of translation of an article
by Sun Dong-Sheng, Jinan Army Institute, People's Republic of China)
Translators' Notes:
(1) Translators' note: See Curt Stem, Principles of Human Genetics, 2nd
edition, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1960.
(2) Translators' note: It is obvious from these remarks that the author
considers I.Q. to measure only the genotypic component of phenotypic
intelligence. This view would find no support among psychologists in the
West. (Lysenkoists would agree with it: deprive a high IQ baby of sensory
input and it will be unable to learn even simple language easily).
(3) Translators' note: The author here obviously refers to fraternal rather
than identical twins. The latter, of course, are genetically identical.
(Wrong: thermograms of monozygotic twins show their differences. I.e., some
animals might be able to tell them apart, as might some blind people!
Lewontin also has data on monozygotic twins; one has a neurological
disorder, the other does not.)
(4) Translators' note: Literally, of course, this is in error, as
anthropological evidence indicates that the species, Homo sapiens, emerged
250,000 - 100,000 years ago. It is possible that the author refers here to
the Neolithic period forward, which began circa 10,000 BC and during which
the Chinese nation itself emerged. (In Lysenko terminology, you are born an
H.sapien animal; it is society that makes you into a human.) (It is also
possible that the author is being rhetorical, i.e.,,"the human species CAN
be around so long, so many generations, yet man is still man.)
(5) Translators' note: These seem to be the standard statistics for the
incidence of schizophrenia for the human population as a whole (see Eugene
Garfield,,"What do we know about the group of mental disorders called
schizophrenia? Part 1: Etiology," Current Contents 15 (25) 1983:5-13). The
author, however, reports a substantially lower incidence for the Chinese
population alone (see note 8 below).
(6) Translators' note: The 1980 Marriage Law in China prohibits marriages
between collateral relatives within three generations (see below and also
Y. Tien,,"China: Demographic billionaire," Population Bulletin 38 (2), p.
25). Such marriages would be, in the main, first cousin marriages, which
are naturally more common in a village-based economy, such as China's, than
in urban-based economies, such as those in the West. This, and the
following paragraph, make the now standard argument for forbidding first
cousin marriages, which is essentially to point to the statistics on
inbreeding depression. But one should note here, as the author does not,
that while it is true that defective phenotypes in the next generation will
decrease if inbreeding is prohibited, it is also true that the frequency of
deleterious recessive genes will increase.,"As population structure changes
from small isolated villages to large panmictic nations there will be a
considerable increase in deleterious recessives.," (p. 318, F.
Livingston,,"Cultural causes of genetic change," in G. Barlow and J.
Silverberg, Eds., Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?, Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press, 1980, pp. 307-329). inbreeding, in effect, makes possible
the identification and elimination of deleterious recessive mutants and
thereby acts to check the increase in the,"genetic load," of a population.
It is not without irony here that Charles Darwin himself married his first
cousin, Emma Wedgwood.
(7) Translators' note: These countries are not named by the author.
(8) Translators' note: There are reports of a similar phenomenon in the
United States. See Richard Lyons,,"Physical and Mental Disabilities in
Newborns Doubled in 25 Years," New York Times, July 18, 1983, pp. 1, IO.
(9) Translators' note: Some idea of how far environmental pollution has
gone in China may be gotten from Vaclar Smil,,"Environmental degradation in
China," Asian Survey 20 1980:777-788.
(10) Translators' note: One catty @ .60 kilogram.
(11) Translators' note: This is apparently the incidence for the Chinese
population alone (see note 5 above). (12) Translators' note: CCP - The
Chinese Communist Party.
Note: No one with the me-first-ism Western attitude, no one too focused on
individual-ism and selfishness, could possibly,"make it," in such a
society. Western people feel that it's a "human right" to have a child,
they are even outraged at the forced abortions. Socialism can't work if
it's only for "some," and not for all. Who is going to care for, say, all
those children born with brain damage and other damage due to crack cocain,
for instance? What is going to happen when those babies grow up, babies now
kept alive on the public dole while healthy people can't afford a doctor if
they get the flu or a sore throat? WHO is going to pay for them and what
are they going to become in the society? Monsters? Socialism, and what can
be done under Socialism, is the NEXT progressive step in the evolution of
man. The consciousness or the life-paradigms of humanity have to first be
changed in order for Socialist Construction to really take shape. People
have to start to THINK collectively and more cooperatively and less
selfishly. Einstein agreed. The Chinese are not,"going to do," this, they
HAVE BEEN doing it. All one need to do, the next time a phony leftist comes
along, is show them what real Communists are like.
This article is quite old - and it's law there now.
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04061...@posting.google.com...
Well, Nigerians, according to some that have seen this, seem to be very
smart. But GUESS WHO is involved in all that credit card identify stuff big
time? Heh - Nigerians. So you see, they do use their
intelligence...........
P.Comm
this AGAINST Jews - he's pointing out that they have developed excellent and
very smart strategies. But read on.
Jewish Strategies in society
The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in
Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Prager, 1998,
$65.00, 379 pp. -Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at California
State University-Long Beach, CA, USA
In "The Culture of Critique," Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th century
intellectual movements - largely established and led by Jews - have changed
European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of
Western man. He claims that these movements were designed, consciously or
unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were presented
to non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian. He concludes that the
increasing dominance of these ideas has had profound political and social
consequences that benefited Jews but caused great harm to gentile societies.
This analysis, which he makes with considerable force, is an unusual
indictment of a people generally thought to be more sinned against than
sinning.
"The Culture of Critique" is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's massive,
three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two previous
volumes are "A People That Shall Dwell Alone" and "Separation and its
Discontents," published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is written
from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a unique survival
strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic groups. Prof. MacDonald,
who is a psychologist at the University of California at Long Beach,
explains this perspective in the first volume, which describes Jews as
having a very powerful sense of uniqueness that has kept them socially and
genetically separate from other peoples. The second volume traces the
history of Jewish-gentile relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism
primarily in the almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of
gentile societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. "The Culture
of Critique" brings his analysis into the present century, with an account
of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.
The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume are
Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of sociology, and
Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a racial perspective, he
also traces the role of Jews in promoting multi-culturalism and Third World
immigration. Throughout his analysis Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view
that Jews have promoted these movements as Jews and in the interests of
Jews, though they have often tried to give the impression that they had no
distinctive interests of their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most
profound charge against Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty - that
while claiming to be working for the good of mankind they have often worked
for their own good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to
promote the brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
gentiles, Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group
solidarity they decry as immoral in others.
Celebrating Diversity
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews
have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity -
but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements
that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society:
patriotism, racial loyalty, and the Christian basis for morality, social
homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own
communities, and with regard to the state of Israel, they have often
supported the very institutions they attack in gentile society.
Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group loyalty
characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a society that does
not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish determination not
to assimilate fully, which accounts for their survival as a people for
thousands of years - even without a country - has invariably attracted
unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in nations with well-defined national
identities. In Prof. MacDonald's view it is therefore in the interest of
Jews to dilute and weaken the identity of any people among whom they live.
Jewish identity can flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.
Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silverman:
"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief -
one firmly rooted in history - that Jews are safe only in a society
acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity
of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval
of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to
endorse 'gay rights' and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called
'social' issues."
He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-strength
argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a society's
homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a Jewish agenda
in terms they think gentiles will accept. Likewise, as the second part of
the Silverman quotation suggests, Jews may support deviant movements, not
because they think it is good for the country but because it is good for the
Jews.
Prof. Silverman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish economist
who thought that Republicans had more sensible economic policies but who
voted for the Democratic presidential candidate anyway. His reason? "I'd
rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic
convention than those I saw at the Republican convention." This man
apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted for a racially mixed party
even if its economic policies were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to
come before what is good for the country.
Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandies University makes the
diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his satisfaction
with the prediction that by the middle of the next century whites will
become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the point where a
Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country." He is apparently
prepared to displace the people and culture of the founding stock in order
to prevent the theoretical rise of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears
to see whites mainly as potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their
culture and national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to
Jews. This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews
as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and
influence.
In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "[w] e [Jews] have
been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half
a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous
nature of our population tends to make it irreversible..." - just as it
tends to make the ultimate displacement of European culture also
irreversible.
Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to several
sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish immigrant Franz Boas
(1858-1942) almost single-handedly established the current contours of
anthropology, ridding it of all biological explanations for differences in
human culture or behavior. Prof. MacDonald reports that he and his
followers - with the notable exceptions of Margaret Meade and Ruth
Benedict - were all Jews with strong Jewish identities: "Jewish
identification and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests, particularly
in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western
societies, has been the 'invisible subject' of American anthropology."
By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted the
idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that environment counts
for everything. They completely recast anthropology so as to provide
intellectual support for open immigration, integration, and miscegenation.
They also laid the foundation for the idea that because all races have the
same potential, the failures of non-whites must be blamed exclusively on
white oppression. The ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that
since environment accounts for all human differences, changing the
environment could eliminate every inequality in achievement. This has been
the justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention
programs.
The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural consequence of
the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent, separation
was immoral. The color line also sharpened white self-consciousness in ways
that might make whites more aware of Jewish parochialism. Thus it was,
according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews almost single-handedly launched the
desegregation movement. Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might
never have been established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was
a Jew. Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist
Marcus Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he
stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization.
Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
"civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
American Jewish Congress who claims "many of these [civil rights] laws were
actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish staff people,
introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into being by Jewish voters."
While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial equivalence, it
was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words, "American culture as
overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and esthetically repressive
(especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this program was creating
ethnographies for idyllic [Third-World] cultures that were free of the
negatively perceived traits that were attributed to Western culture."
The Role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything about
Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof. MacDonald notes
that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples deliberately ignored
barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to contamination from the
West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to undermine the confidence of
Western societies and to make them permeable to Third World influences and
people. Today, this view is enshrined in the dogma that America must remain
open to immigration because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives
somehow lack.
Authoritarian Personalities
In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that would
transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity and
commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the basic
purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt School. What is
properly known as the Institute of Social Research was founded in Frankfurt,
Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish millionaire but was closed
down by the Nazis shortly after they took power. Most of its staff emigrated
to the United States and the institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley.
Max Horkheimer headed the organization, and its most influential members
were T.W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong
Jewish identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the
institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform itself
directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original)
Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of "The Authoritarian
Personality," which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was part
of a series called "Studies in Prejudice," produced by the Frankfurt school,
which included titles like "Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder." "The
Authoritarian Personality," which was particularly influential because,
according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish Committee heavily funded
its promotion and because Jewish academics took up its message so
enthusiastically.
The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it were a
sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion to family -
and race - loyalty are sign of a dangerous and defective "authoritarian
personality." Because drawing distinctions between different groups is
illegitimate, all group loyalties - even close family ties! - are
"prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the book leads to the
conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only by subjecting the
American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy - by treating
them as inmates of an insane asylum."
But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group loyalty,
respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish
identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in gentiles.
These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic
against dissidents: Anyone whose political views were different from theirs
was insane. As Prof. MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never
criticized or even described Jewish group identity - only that of gentiles:
"behavior that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary
strategy is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."
For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental
illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially sexual
repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was enthusiastic
about psychoanalysis, according to which "Oedipal ambivalence toward the
father and anal-sadistic relations in early childhood are the anti-Semite's
irrevocable inheritance."
In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt
school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald sees the
school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of the central attitudes of
the largely successful 1960s counter cultural revolution find expression in
"The Authoritarian Personality," including idealizing rebellion against
parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social
mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and
patriotism."
Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding ancient
loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he came later,
the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was in the same
tradition when he wrote: "The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct
the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to
deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the
metaphysics of native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm the
bombs... of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against
the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants... "
As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a
fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the
United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural
eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology." Needless to
say, this project has been successful; anyone opposed to the displacement of
whites is routinely treated as a mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and
whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as
psychologically inadequate. The irony has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The
ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by
a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric
group among all the cultures of the world."
Immigration
MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote open
immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting and it
keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the world. He
says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass immigration; a
few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic efforts to make it
easier for their own people to come, but only Jews have consistently
promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover, whatever disagreements they
may have had on other issues, Jews of every political persuasion have
favored high immigration.
This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in considerable
detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort. Israel Agnail, author of
the eponymous 1908 play "The Melting Pot," was of the view that "there is
only one way to World Peace, and that is the absolute abolition of
passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses... " He was nevertheless an
ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish intermarriage.
Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening the
World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to American
political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus helped change it
into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of the statue several
decades after its contraction, the poem welcomes to America "huddled masses
yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
Prof. MacDonald has discovered that Jews have made implausible arguments
about diversity being a quintessentially American strength for a long time.
He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish Committee was urging Congress to
believe that "Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has
traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all
nationalities." Of course, there had never been such a tradition. In 1952,
the American Jewish Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our
national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies
in the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S.
immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white majority.
It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in 1965,
scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law would change
the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald disputes this, arguing
that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from the beginning.
Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of
immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups were the
most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews led the
effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason for which was
cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat: "The strengthening
of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance
policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian
Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a
Jewish Australian." Like Earl Raab writing about the United States, this
Australian Jew is prepared to sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and
identity of Australia to specifically Jewish interests. It would not be
surprising if such an openly expressed objective did not have the opposite
effect from the intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.
Jews and the Left
It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the left,
and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail.
Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements that
advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation, Jews met
resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose ground to
competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries. However, in Prof.
MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist causes has often been
motivated by the hope that communism, especially, would be a tool for
combating anti-Semitism, and by expectation that universalistic social
solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile loyalties that might
exclude Jews. The appeal of universalistic ideologies is tied to the
implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be exempt: "At the
extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles would result in
gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social category at all, while
nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a strong personal identity as
Jews."
Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for
supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for its
anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet Union seemed
to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism, tried to
eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual Jews, and
preached a "classless" society in which Jewishness would presumably attract
no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism taught that all conflict was
economic rather than ethnic, many Jews believed it heralded the end of
anti-Semitism.
Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached both
atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they took pains to
preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports that Lenin himself
(who had one Jewish grandparent)** approved the continuation of an
explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in 1946 the Communist Party
of the United States voted a resolution also supporting Jewish peoplehood in
Communist countries. Thus, although Communism was supposed to be without
borders or religion, Jews were confident that it would make a place for
their own group identity. He writes that despite the official view that all
men were to be brothers, "very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during
the entire soviet era."
NOTE: this is factually incorrect. Lenin had a Kalmuck grandparents. Where
his father worked under the Czar, had Lenin been any part Jewish, his father
would not have been able to have that job. Lenin did not approve the
formation of a Jewish state and that caused many Jews to walk out and caused
a split in the party. Having a "Jewish identity" meant nothing; they
couldn't have synagogues or organized religious services. Lenin's name was
Ulyanov. Ulyan in the Tatar language means Red. Lenin also had red hair
and the name given to such nomadic type peoples was usually given in a
shamanistic way, like something in their appearance. The fact of the matter
is that under Stalin, the majority if not all of those discovered to have
"other agendas" and found guilty (with proof) during the Show Trials, were
Jews. Stalin was not anti-Semetic. It just so happened that these Jews had
another agenda and they got caught (just as MacDonald has "caught" them).
The NKVD may not have known exactly what it was, but they knew the agenda
was there and it was contrary to the Soviet State and its peoples. Stalin
declared Socialism in one country: Nationalism. He broke with the
Comintern.
Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof.
MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The Jewish
people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and human community
in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people would signify the death
of humankind, the final transformation of man into a wild beast." This seems
to attribute to Jews an elite position incompatible with "unity and human
community."
Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from Communism only
after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews had been
the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary Russia, Jews
became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet Union. A similar
pattern can be found in the imposed Communist governments of Eastern Europe,
which were largely dominated by Jews. The majority of the leaders of the
Polish Communist Party, for example, spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and
they too maintained a strong Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism
many stopped being Polish and emigrated to Israel.
Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist
government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that at the
time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with Jews that
the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues that in the United
States as well, the hard core among Communists and members of Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish. Here, too, a revolutionary,
atheist, and Universalist world-view was fully compatible with strong
identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald quotes from a study of American
leftists:
"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have married a
spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could have
married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found it
difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had always
taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted." Their commitment as Jews was
even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment to the left.
Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned Communism as
it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number, the Soviet Union's
severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the 1967 war was the last
straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for many when he explained, "If
I must choose between the Jewish cause and a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS,
I shall choose the Jewish cause. If barricades are erected, I will fight as
a Jew." According to Prof. MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be
described as a surface shift in external politics that leaves the more
fundamental commitment to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists
abandoned an ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned
American conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of
which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high levels of
immigration and were active in excluding white racial identification from
the "respectable" right.
Objections
There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The first is
that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are dishonest. It is
always risky to assume one understands the motives of others better than
they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought of themselves as a
benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the nations" or a "chosen
people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self-image as champions of the
excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time what passes for "social
justice" has the effect of undermining the traditions and loyalties of
gentile society, but are Jews deliberately undermining these things rather
than righting what they perceive to be wrongs?
Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support for
liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing, "The best
deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words, many Jews who
are actually working for Jewish interests have first convinced themselves
otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to become less white may also have
convinced himself that America benefits from a multitude of cultures. Having
convinced himself he can more effectively convince others.
Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the extent to
which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their political
views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his surprise at how
passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war: "I had not
known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting statement from a man who was
thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual leader of his time. And
whether or not it affects their politics, Jews certainly appear to have a
very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof. MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene
Borowitz as saying, "most Jews claim to be equipped with an interpersonal
friend-or-foe sensing device that enables them to detect the presence of
another Jew, despite heavy camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends
or foe" is no insignificant matter.
Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface
declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading." He
notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence of
American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as "anti-Semitic"
if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who has said "they want
to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen as Jews by Gentiles. They
want to pursue their own distinct interests while pretending that they have
no such interests... "
Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual movements
has been possible only because their Jewish character was hidden. If
Orthodox Jews had promoted multiculturalism or mass immigration or "The
Authoritarian Personality" (the book) in black coats the Jewish element
would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in fact, "the Jewish
political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and the theories themselves
had no overt Jewish content. Gentile intellectuals approaching these
theories were therefore unlikely to view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile
cultural competition or as an aspect of a specifically Jewish political
agenda." Prof. MacDonald also claims that Jews have often tried to conceal
the Jewish character of an intellectual movement by recruiting token
gentiles for visible positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was
so common in the American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it
and resigned.
But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a
difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased to
have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that they
perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In the absence
of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it remains possible
that different political choices among ethnic Jews are only differences in
tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interest." This standard may seem
unduly harsh - until it is applied to white gentiles. Third-World
immigration, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, and forced
integration are clearly not in the interests of whites, yet many whites
embrace them, thus demonstrating how completely they have abandoned their
racial identity.
Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some Jews,
because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate gentile
society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental motivation of
Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of
the gentile-dominated power structure perceived as anti-Semitic." He
describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine as "using his
skill, reputation and popularity to undermine the intellectual confidence of
the established order."
In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes Benjamin
Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile relations on Jews:
"They may have become so odious and so hostile to mankind as to merit for
their present conduct, no matter how occasioned, the obloquy and
ill-treatment of the communities in which they dwell and with which they are
scarcely permitted to mingle."
Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of numbers.
Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that minority there
is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect Jews. How can Jews
possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the intellectual landscape?
In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation lies in the intelligence, energy,
dedication, and cohesiveness of Jews. He attributes a great deal to the
average IQ of Jews - at 115, a full standard deviation above the white
gentile average - and to "their hard work and dedication, their desire to
make a mark on the world, and their desire to rise in the world, engage in
personal promotion, and achieve public acclaim... " He also believes Jews
have worked together unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for
survival: "Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive
groups out compete individual strategies." He notes that there has never
been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white
immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the
disorganized resistance of the majority.
Prof. MacDonald believe that because of the effectiveness of some Jews, it
was not even necessary that most Jews actively support anti-majoritarian
movements, but that Jewish activity was still decisive. As he puts it,
"Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were a critical factor (necessary
condition) for the triumph of the intellectual left in late
twentieth-century Western societies." This, of course, can never be tested,
but there can be no doubt that American Jews have had a disproportionate
effect on the American intellect. Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr,
writing in 1968, to the effect that "what has happened since World War II is
that the American sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish
as it is anything else... The literate American mind has come in some
measure to think Jewishly."
Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the further
question of what difference it makes if he is right. If correct, his thesis
certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which whites lost their will.
Just a few decades ago whites were a confident race, proud of their
achievements, convinced of their fitness to dominate the globe. Today they
are a declining, apologetic people, ashamed of their history and not sure
even of their claim to lands they have occupied for centuries. It is very
rare for fundamental concepts to be stood on their heads in the course of
just a generation or two, as has happened with thinking about race. Such
speed suggests there has been something more than natural change.
END.
DesertCactus
Well, Isn't it possible and indeed probably likely that there are
several 'races' of africans/black people in a place as large as africa
which has bound to have groups of people isolated from eachother
evolving differently under different pressures, with different
characterisitcs, if the intelligence difference is more genetic than
environemntal then perhaps the inhabitants of Nigeria mainly come from
one of the smarter african 'races'/tribes.
They're notorious for fraud/theft, but who can blame them, I've seen
documentaries about it on TV, it's relatively easy for them to become
millonaires if they pull it off.
DesertCactus
> Well, Nigerians, according to some that have seen this, seem to be very
> smart. But GUESS WHO is involved in all that credit card identify stuff big
> time? Heh - Nigerians. So you see, they do use their
> intelligence...........
I have seen posters on here talk about Nigerians being smart, I
remember a guy who said Nigerians do well in his kid's math class.
Crime is not limited to the stupid, indeed this kind of mass credit
card crime is probably far more economically damaging than the
occasianly burglary or whatever.
MIB529
Well, duhh . . . That was my point.
MIB529
Why should he? Because he started to speak about us. And that's not ignorance;
it's basic math. I'm pretty sure counting to six is 'g'. *g*
> > > > Who do you think is bringing in these anti-discrimination laws etc etc
> > > > anyway? The idiots of society? No, the educated and intelligent
> > > > politicians etc. It's usually or at least it's presented by the media
> > > > as being the stupid people who join these nationalist movements etc.
> > >
> > > Who cares what the media says? The Chinese? HA! Forced integration has
> > > been a disaster. PC is a disaster hoisted on society by the Frankfurt
> > > School.
> >
> > PC is just changing the language. Really it's stupid. It means that saying
> > "nigger" is racist but a policy of not hiring "African-Americans" isn't.
>
> Yeah, and everyone knows that saying "African American" is as stupid as
> anything else - Africa is a continent, not a country. Who cares what they
> want to be called. One BIG whatever.
LOL When I see someone spell woman with a Y, I think "omg j00 = 50 l33t".
And when I read "handi-capable", I want to "vomi-taste".
DesertCactus
> > > than head size. Head size and intelligence? Oh, maybe one-tenth
> > > of an IQ point.
> >
> >
> > I think the head/brain size of an individual is related to his/her body size.
>
> Well, duhh . . . That was my point.
And this is the reason for the smaller head/brain size for women
compared to men aswell? I know the woman's brain actually functions
slighty different, but women seem to have the same intelligence as
men.
Women are shorter and usually much smaller. More Brain matter needed
to control more cells/greater body size?
Interestingly in Rushton's studies, he uses US Army helmet
measurements, to point out that black heads are smaller, although
there is only a MINUTE difference. Even non-racists claim that black
and white head sizes are equal. But Blacks are usually bigger and
taller, so if you removed the brain matter associated with the greater
body size, would blacks actually have less brain matter associated
with intelligence functions?
Just a question. Thanks.
DesertCactus
Thank you.
P.Comm
news:<k5nAc.4247$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
> > anything else - Africa is a continent, not a country. Who cares what
they
> > want to be called. One BIG whatever.
>
> LOL When I see someone spell woman with a Y, I think "omg j00 = 50 l33t".
> And when I read "handi-capable", I want to "vomi-taste".
HA, some of the gang down here once invented Politically Perfect speech -
and it was HILARIOUS to hear it. It got so that I couldn't even understand
what the fuck they were saying. Here is one sample of it that I saved, if I
can find it: Oh no, not handi capable. It's "challenged."
Relatively sized muffet
positioned on a tuffet
comsuning the curds and wheys
along came a WM
and positioned self beside the one who digested
and said all the wrong shit.
Someone had a sized being
whose covering was photon deflective
and everywhere/when someone and being went
WM went too. It tasted relative.
LMAO.
OH specific chronometric measurement!
The stars are reflecting many photons.
It is the specific time of one's coming into Being
For a time, lay many worlds,
In relative behaviors emoting variously about it.
Till one became visible and
the bioessence felt a non-concept called "worth."
A thrill of fallacious perception
The world, in need of sleep, cheered.
For a distance away brakes
A different chronometric period.
Fall on your knees!
Oh hear the voices of fallacious biobeings.
Oh relatively perceived time period,
Oh time period when someone came into biobeing.
repeat last two lines.
Those are the politically perfect words to "OH HOLY NIGHT."
Remember, there can be no Queen of Sheba. It has to be the Monarche of
Beingba.
There can be no Hercules. It has to be Beingcules.
There can be no antihistimines. It has to be antibeingstamines.
Any word that has she or he, her or him, even inside it, has to be changed,
fixed.
Any kind of discrimination that denotes age, has to be fixed;
"chronometrically different" is the correct term. LMAO. There can be no
exclusivity. "I" is a forbidden word. And so forth.
HAAAAAAAA.
P.Comm
Sure, just like Asia or Europe. There are nationalities and they are
different from each other, just like Italians are different from Germans.
>
> They're notorious for fraud/theft, but who can blame them, I've seen
> documentaries about it on TV, it's relatively easy for them to become
> millonaires if they pull it off.
Well, I tend ot notice it's more of the same, even when they ARE
intelligent. Same shit. Sure, they aren't the only people that defraud and
do shit like that. But is even ONE of them a physicist? A brain surgeon?
P.Comm
I think what you need to look at, regarding the brain, is the way it's
hooked up, the mass of it, convolutions of it, which parts are more active
in some than in others, etc. Neurology. Not size but actual STRUCTURE and
CHEMISTRY. You will not find this information on the web - it will be hard
to find - very hard.
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04062...@posting.google.com...
DesertCactus
> I think what you need to look at, regarding the brain, is the way it's
> hooked up, the mass of it, convolutions of it, which parts are more active
> in some than in others, etc. Neurology. Not size but actual STRUCTURE and
> CHEMISTRY. You will not find this information on the web - it will be hard
> to find - very hard.
And if I do find it, am I seriously going to be able to understand it?
lol Brains... not the easiest thing to understand.
DesertCactus
I have non-racially defined brain diagrams they're pretty useless.
DesertCactus
somewhere, probably a unreliable source but just wondering if it's
true or not? Obviously the black cranium is thicker then this would
leave less volume for the brain. Although even so, only by a minute,
probably negligible amount.
P.Comm
Well, you might not understand it. Some of what I got my hands on (from a
neurotoxicologist in England) my own family doctor said was over his head.
Well, if you want to know it from a source - that's where to get it - or
like I did with round about finding clues buried in studies that seem to
have nothing to do with the subject! You'll have to TRY to understand it,
or find out what it means.
A few years back, neurologists figured something out and what I got to hear
about it, they were doing brain PET scans to test for alexithyumia and/or
serotonin deficiency or something like that - and no sooner that I got to
hear a LITTLE about it - black organizations all over went BERSERK over the
studies and bitched and moaned "you ain't gonna drug us, no way" shit.
Demonstrated outside the place and stuff like that. And so I never really
got to find out just WHAT triggered THAT kind of reaction at all. But they
were neurologists! And that was black organizations that were bitching
about SOMETHING these scientists found out. Just what it was I never got to
hear!
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04062...@posting.google.com...
> I have non-racially defined brain diagrams they're pretty useless.
One study did show that their brains have a higher development of the region
having to do with hearing, musical tones, that kind of thing. So the
studies are out there.
P.Comm
Well, their jaws are bigger, denser etc - and when jaw is different, cranium
is also different.
P.Comm
the theory are comparing other species to hominids (such as dinosaurs) -
and/or they are connecting modern humans to ALL the finds of the past, as if
ALL of them are our ancestors. this is just one site, and it's on the web.
I didn't look much further past the first page on google.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2004/dc-04-02.htm
Blacks are the only people with extented jaws - or prognathism - VISIBLE
prognathism.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2001/phillips.htm
You can find MENTION that change in jaw changed cranium - like here - in an
unrelated topic.
QUOTE Differences in cranial features, the main archaeological evidence
used, were regarded as gradual changes in morphology due mainly to changes
in diet that reduced the mastication muscles and stress on the teeth and
jaws, which changed the cranial features. Changes were not due to
hybridizations with non-Nubian peoples. They proposed the variations were
geographic and not racial UNQUOTE.
And there is this, too
There are problems with the data. The original 'out of Africa' hypothesis
was based upon phylogenetic trees which in turn reflected the DNA structure
of population from all over the world. A shortest possible tree was
constructed to relate all these samples to each other. Subsequent
re-analysis has shown at least 10,000 other possible trees with 5 less steps
than the original - some not based on Africa. So there are two more
problems: the shortest tree isn't and there are another 10,000 choices, all
as good as each other. Also the preferred trees do not reflect similarities
in morphological traits.
So, we don't have a detailed pedigree of where we came from.
That is, we have DOGMA! No time to look more - and not everything is on the
internet - some things you have to be a "paid member" of something to read -
and much of it is very much over most heads.
Even the definition of species, from what I've just seen, is a crock of shit
and murky. For instance, using GENES and genetic distance, I recnetly
posted how coyote, jackal and dog are three separate species that are HIGHLY
cross fertile and produce healthy fertile offspring. So, no cross fertility
is not an option ALL of the time. and the fact is, plants can breed across
genus and family lines - not just across species lines.
So this becomes a problem to be fixed - heh, in come the daffynitions. Now
they have to REdefine species. Well, god dammit, if they want to make
humans the same species as chimps, 1.6 genetic distance I think - go ahead -
but they either use the SAME GENETIC DISTANCE criteria with everything - or
they are full of shit. Now they have a NEW one I just saw - separate
species is either 1. groups that can not interbreed, or 2. groups that
CHOOSE NOT TO interbreed even if they can. HUH? That's bullshit. Of
course, the saying goes, "well, because all humans interbreed, we are one
species." Arguments come when people point out populations of HOMOGENOUS
people that do NOT tend to do that (race mix), or who - get this, RARELY do
it. Whatever. It turns out that coyotes and jackals also RARELY mix with
dogs. But they CAN. The dogmatists always love to bring up, drag in the
mule - which by the way, a mule gave birth to a mule - both parents were
mules - I do not have a citation - but they are not TOTALLY sterile after
all. Then again, how VIABLE are race mixed people after generations of
offspring? Are th ey haveing uh, Low Birth Weight baby problems right now?
he he he.
They either use the SAME genetic distance criteria - or they are full of
horse shit. So then, if coytes, jackals and dogs are 3 different species
(the same GENUS) and are highly cross fertile - that just MIGHT, oh oh, oh
oh, open the door for people seeing HUMANS coming in species too. Oh oh. I
doubt we are - but some biologists HAVE said that if you apply the SAME
CRITERIA to animals that have been recognized and accepted to be different
species, then there is LESS difference between them than there is in some
human groups. Go figure.
It's all horse shit because you can't just FIND OUT. Most people would not
marvel at the idea that humans are also different species, not just races -
they'd use that information for something else - just like they still use
the race information for something else. Still. The information SHOULD be
out there.
So the bottom line is - are there races, is there such a thing as race?
Well, yes and no - as I said in my article on website. It all depends on
HOW you lump and split. As far as SOCIETY and social relations go, the
lumpers are so fullashit that they can be laughed at. People's eyeballs
seem to agree with most of the splitters.
Now, since some of this classification goes by behavior and mating habits
and such things, not just genes and morphology in animals - that would
pretty much MIRROR the society of the animal known as HUMAN - for after all,
we are animals TOO.
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04063...@posting.google.com...
DesertCactus
> One study did show that their brains have a higher development of the region
> having to do with hearing, musical tones, that kind of thing. So the
> studies are out there.
That might explain why blacks often excel in musical things, just as
they excel in many sports because of their physical differences.
DesertCactus
> Well, I tend ot notice it's more of the same, even when they ARE
> intelligent. Same shit. Sure, they aren't the only people that defraud and
> do shit like that. But is even ONE of them a physicist? A brain surgeon?
Lack of morals? Would you steal millions like that if you could? And
if not why not? Is it because you would be scared of going to prison?
Or because you believe stealing is immoral? Or because of your
religious beliefs?
Personally I would not steal like that because I would consider it
immoral, I would think about how all the people who would have lost
money from me would feel.
DesertCactus
> Twin studies suggest that 70% of IQ differences are genetically caused.
Really? Source please? If this is true, then we have our answer of the
cause of racial IQ score difference. But I doubt it is. The quality of
the results of these twin studies are limited to how effective this
type of experiment is and how it is carried out.
> Think about it--if IQ differences were 100% enviornmentally caused the hominid
> line could not have evolved increasingly higher intelligence over the last
> million years. And think about it a little more---If there were no
> correllation between head size, intelligence and genes, our species would not
> have evolved an increasingly larger head (with all the problems that causes)
> over the last million years
True but even researchers who are LOOKING for a brain size difference
find a negligible or no difference. Rushton found almost no difference
and differences in brain size were a KEY part of his theories.
DesertCactus
> Sure, just like Asia or Europe. There are nationalities and they are
> different from each other, just like Italians are different from Germans.
Maybe the american blacks would be better behaved and more successful
if the americans had imported slaves from nigeria (or whereever the
smarter groups of blacks lived) instead? heh
DesertCactus
> > Well, Isn't it possible and indeed probably likely that there are
> > several 'races' of africans/black people in a place as large as africa
> > which has bound to have groups of people isolated from eachother
> > evolving differently under different pressures, with different
> > characterisitcs, if the intelligence difference is more genetic than
> > environemntal then perhaps the inhabitants of Nigeria mainly come from
> > one of the smarter african 'races'/tribes.
>
> Sure, just like Asia or Europe. There are nationalities and they are
> different from each other, just like Italians are different from Germans.
Maybe the american blacks would have been better behaved and more
successful if the americans had imported smarter slaves from Nigeria
(or wherever the Nigerian's originally came from) or one of the more
smarter black groups - If such a heirarchy exists among the african
peoples.
DesertCactus
> > Well, Isn't it possible and indeed probably likely that there are
> > several 'races' of africans/black people in a place as large as africa
> > which has bound to have groups of people isolated from eachother
> > evolving differently under different pressures, with different
> > characterisitcs, if the intelligence difference is more genetic than
> > environemntal then perhaps the inhabitants of Nigeria mainly come from
> > one of the smarter african 'races'/tribes.
>
> Sure, just like Asia or Europe. There are nationalities and they are
> different from each other, just like Italians are different from Germans.
It complicates matters though doesn't it, when we're trying to discuss
racial differences we have to take into account that there is not just
one black race one white race and one asian race, it's much more
complicated.
Does anyone know what race the Nigerians are? Anyone know what the
average Nigerian IQ is? I mean they have names for the races of blacks
I believe. Anyone know what the different groups are in africa and
what different characteristics are? It'd be interesting to see if
certain groups of africa have more successful countries than others,
if groups are more or less living by themselves.
I don't know what part of Africa the African-Americans came from, (I'm
not american myself) but I believe there's a country that many
African-Americans created called Liberia? after they were given
freedom many returned to Africa and created Liberia? And I don't think
Liberia has ever been that successful, some african countries are more
successful than others.
Thanks.
DesertCactus
DesertCactus
> Here's the article on Professor MacDonald: Note, MacDonald is not saying
> this AGAINST Jews - he's pointing out that they have developed excellent and
> very smart strategies. But read on.
P.Comm, thank you for posting it. It was an extremely interesting
read. I've read a lot of Jewish conspiracy theories but never one
written like this, with so much evidence and logic. I had kind of
dismissed Jewish conspiracy theories that I had previously read,
because I felt they didn't really have any evidence, they just pointed
out that Jew's dominated things like media etc.
I don't believe it is a big conspiracy in the sense that all the Jews
in the world are organized and have meetings plotting things, but that
this is a small group of people that are minorities in every country
in the world except Israel, achieve academic success, and often rise
to influential positions in society. The reason for them to exert such
influence is I think because they all have the same goals, they have
JEWISH goals, or they wouldn't be Jews.
They all individually promote Jewish interests in whatever position in
society they're in, they may not even be aware of how effective the
combined effort is, (if MacDonald is right) e.g a Jewish movie
director, as a Jewish person he might slip in a few anti-christian
messages into his movie, not because he's been instructed to as part
of the conspiracy, but because he personally has a grudge against
christians.
I think the above applies to all individuals who are in a position of
influence, they're going to put their PERSONAL values and viewpoints
into what they influence, the reason for the Jewish influence, is
because there are millions of individuals with the same values and
interests, JEWISH values and JEWISH interests.
You should do some research into how christians are treated in Israel,
they're not treated well.
If you were a Jew and in a position of influence, you would consider
if your DUTY to use that influence to exert pro-Jewish interests
wouldn't you? Or at least your interests which may be the same thing.
Similiarly in all occupations if a lot of Jews exert pro-jewish
interests the effect can be massive.
I think as MacDonald covered in his article, the reason for the Jews
being this way is because there is no other group that is ONE RACE,
with ONE RELIGION, and with ONE HISTORY, and probably no other group
that is so concerned about it's survival (holocaust and historic
persecutions), also there is no other group that is such a tiny
minority in most countries, but yet has a influence far greater than
it's size.
After reading the artile it left me kind of scared, unsafe, uneasy, as
a white person I am who the Jew's hate the most?, thanks to centuries
of christian persecution (who they see as white as you said) and other
forms of persecution, not to mention the Nazi's. Jews are the most
influential and powerful group in most of the countries of the world?
Canada, the USA and probably most of Europe.
Seriously I am a little worried, are the Jews going to be tracing this
message and write me down on a list of problem people to deal with?
LOL. Probably a bit paranoid.
Obviously not Africa, they'd think it was a bit weird if people in
important positions of their media etc, had very light skin, LOL or
the Asian countries though and i'm guessing not Iran at the moment?
LOL.
Don't you think they'll edventually seek to exert influence in the
rest of the world too, and they might succeed, there goes your theory
for China being the nest dominant race perhaps?
If they're not directly influential in countries they're going to be
indirectly influential. WMD's in Iraq? LOL. They've found none. (at
the time of writing, apologies if they have planted them since me
writing this and you reading it, LOL)
Iraq was a threat to Israel, I'd say that was probably the main reason
for going in there. I can't think of any good reasons for the massive
foreign aid the USA gives to Israel, I believe it's the highest
recipitent of US foreign aid in the world, despite it obviously not
being the most needy.
All this support to a tiny little country thousands of miles away from
the US, with a different religion, no historic connection with the US,
no cultural connections, and would have no real power or sigificance
if not for the US support.
Is the support of Israel worth the cost of the relationship? The US
being hated by every muslim country in the world? I don't think so.
http://www.Ifamericansknew.com
But what I thought was probably the most significant thing in there
was this:
Considering this is a anthropology group, LOL. What do you think about
this?
This is why I said about what information that supposedly comes from
reliable sources can be trusted? I knew there were racial-nihilists
from every race who desire for it to be accepted that there are no
racial differences of importance, despite what the truth may be, but
as I said I had dismissed all the Jewish conspiracies, so I didn't
think of them being responsible, but as MacDonald points out, they are
the group that has the biggest reasons for wanting to cover it up,
after the blacks themselves, of course.
DesertCactus
6 out of the seven biggest newspapers in Sweden (those with a
circulation exceding 100,000 copies) are owned by Jews, the families
Bonnier (formerly Hirschel) and Peter Hjärne (formerly Kaplan). The
largest production company in Sweden, strix television is owned by
Robert Aschberg, a Jew. The Bonniers and Hjärne own 30- and 10% of
Swedens most influential news agency, TT. The Bonniers are also the
biggest book publishers in Sweden through their publishing company
Bonniers.
I´ve omitted figures for smaller companies and ownership totalling
less than 20% of any given company.
I wonder why they changed their names? To appear Swedish and not
Jewish?
DesertCactus
Jewish conspiracies etc, is how it mentions that Blondes are always
portrayed as idiots in the hollywood movies, you know you even have a
saying a "blonde moment" meaning a moment where I was stupid/did a
stupid thing. Being blonde is now associated with being stupid/worthy
of contempt.
The significance of this the site said was that you blonde haired and
blue eyed Germans to be the best, to be the most 'Aryan' as he
described them, in his racial ideas, so it might be another minor aim
for the Jews to destroy this concept of blonde haired, blue eyed
people being somehow superior, but not just destroy that concept, make
people think they are inferior instead.
The site could be right about it, just a thought.
DesertCactus
One interesting thing I remember reading from a racist site about
Jewish conspiracies etc, is how it mentions that Blondes are always
portrayed as idiots in the hollywood movies, you know you even have a
saying a "blonde moment" meaning a moment where I was stupid/did a
stupid thing. Being blonde is now associated with being stupid/worthy
of contempt.
The significance of this the site said was that you know Hitler
thought blonde haired and blue eyed Germans to be the best, to be the
DesertCactus
> Here is a post (with some commentary inside it) from Chinese military.
>
> Eugenics in China
>
Very interesting.
DesertCactus
> Consider that the Frankfurt School et al et al guys had very high IQs - and
> look at the shit they've done against Europeans predominantly of Christian
> faith.
Who are they?
DesertCactus
Does anyone know if this is true? Even if it is, the Jews may have
just been seeking to expose the absolutley flawed science of the
1920's(and the science of race was complete rubbish at that time),
they may have sympathised with the blacks in america, even more so
after the holocaust.
This whole article is the usual anti-semitic rubbish. I'm going to try
and find some information which exposes this as the anti-semitic,
rubbish it is.
DesertCactus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 26, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Although the administration's Jewish neoconservatives share the same
policy positions as their gentile compatriots, they are being
portrayed – at times subtly, at times not so subtly – as the
instigators of the administration's blunders, but more seriously as
being agents of Ariel Sharon and his Likud Party, essentially doing
Israel's bidding.
The chatterboxes promoting this wild-eyed view will concede that most
rational people at the time saw through the lies that took us to war.
They imply, however, that this was beyond Mr. Bush's ken and
responsibilities. Neither was it, apparently, his duty to abide by his
campaign commitment to a humble foreign policy. Mr. Bush was simply
"bamboozled" – this manifestly neoconservative (and unrepentant)
president is not responsible for his blind quest for power.
In other words, the Jewish neoconservatives ate the president's
homework.
Patrick J. Buchanan, for instance, is perfectly capable of
entertaining the "complicity of the president of the United States in
perpetrating fraud" when it comes to FDR, who, he claims, lied the
U.S. into war with Germany, aided by a forged document. But when it
concerns Mr. Bush, Mr. Buchanan finds it impossible to believe the
president would deliberately lie to the nation. Either he was misled,
or he was deceived."
Perhaps there were fewer Jews to blame in FDR's administration. Either
way, too many paleoconservatives are ignoring that Wolfowitz is not
the only thug pressed up against the famous bow, screaming, "I'm the
king of the world." Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Bolton, Rice and
Powell are right there beside the Jews, hollering, "Me first."
Equally, and on the lower decks, Richard Perle is flanked by
neoconservative Christians like Gary Bauer and William Bennett.
Kevin MacDonald, at least, comes straight out with it. Instead of the
cowardly, infantile, and frankly nauseating nudge-nudge, wink-wink
insinuations about Jews, he offers grand conspiracy. Jewish neocons
recruited all the non-Jews and now manipulate them like marionettes.
No mortal (read gentile) could possibly resist a Jewish intellectual –
that a cabal of Jews allegedly hijacked the administration is because
gullible gentiles are powerless in the face of Jewish persuasion, or
so it goes according to MacDonald's unique Science of Jews.
The argument that Jews act collectively to promote interests which are
exclusively Jewish, also means, says MacDonald, that Jewish
neoconservatives are in cahoots with the larger "organized Jewish
community," all working to promote a Jewish agenda that is "arguably
only tenuously related to the interests of the U.S."
MacDonald has proof. Immigration policy "provides a valuable acid test
for the proposition that neoconservatism is actually a vehicle for
perceived Jewish ethnic interests." "In their attitude to race and
immigration," neoconservatives differ from mainstream conservatives,
but resemble attitudes held by the Jewish community, he warns.
However, in his messy habit of mind, MacDonald omits that on issues of
race and immigration, neocons are not that different from liberals.
Jews, of course, are incorrigible liberals. Inasmuch as neocon views
are leftist on race and immigration (and the welfare state), Jews
would share their opinions. And so would countless other American
egalitarians.
Indeed, liberalism (and I don't mean classical liberalism) is a
pathology Jews share with a good many Americans. Most Jews don't like
the Right and that, incidentally, includes the Israeli Right,
represented by Ariel Sharon. It is far from clear that Jews, at large,
identify with neoconservatives. Considering that most Americans
supported the war in Iraq, Jews, to the extent they supported it, were
wrong but not unique.
Jewish organizations, as a rule, do promote liberal causes and
policies such as multiculturalism. But it isn't obvious that this
practice is conducive to the health of the Jewish community. At the
very least, there is a contradiction between the leftist ideology so
many Jews embrace, with its indifference to assimilation and its
extreme tolerance for alternative lifestyles, and the survival of the
Jewish religion and people.
MacDonald's assertion that Jews support open immigration policies so
that they can bring about a more diverse society in order to diminish
anti-Semitism" and promote "Jewish ethnic interests" must be
questioned, especially in the post-Sept. 11 world.
Jews have little to gain by advocating for minority communities with
which they haven't much in common, culturally or socioeconomically,
and who are likely to be hostile to them. How does promoting
immigration from Muslim countries, for instance, benefit Jewish
interests?
Jewish activism, if anything, is self defeating as a group strategy.
The community's egalitarianism is thus more accurately seen as a
function of liberal pathology, the same pathology so many Christian
denominations exhibit – they all believe, mistakenly, that they are
promoting justice.
All in all, the paleoconservatives' attempts to blame Jews for
pervasive gentile madness, such as Mr. Bush's war in Iraq, his
lingering presence in Afghanistan, multiculturalism and "mass,
non-traditional-immigration," is too silly to sustain, but, at the
same time, a little sinister. (Next, MacDonald will hold Jews
responsible for loading the Episcopal Church with homosexuals.)
About the Jewish psyche, MacDonald shows complete ignorance: Justified
or not, Jews are petrified of anti-Semitism. I used to think they were
mistaken. I still believe Jews express this deep-seated fear
shamefully and inappropriately. But in light of recent scapegoating, I
am no longer sure about anti-Semitism's obsolescence.
The MacDonald Fe-Fi-Fo-Fum Science of sniffing out Jewish intellectual
habits makes me (as a Jew) wary of mentioning Sigmund Freud in any
capacity. (Certainly not much store should be put on his theories
about human nature.)
Nevertheless, there's no harm in a joke. When Freud was once quizzed
about his incessant cigar smoking, he humorously chose to sidestep
what was, according to the very theory he invented, a manifestation of
his own oral fixation. He replied: "sometimes a cigar is just a
cigar."
And sometimes, anti-Semitism is just anti-Semitism.
DesertCactus
Or maybe it's just a reflection of how blondes are, considering that
very few people are naturally blonde, relatively speaking, but a lot
of people dye their hair blonde and these people are obviously going
to be more concerned with their appearance, and other things like
that, and therefore have less time to do things that people percieve
as intelligent.
Or it could mean nothing.
P.Comm
strategy BECAUSE THEY ARE SMARTER - and have HIGHER IQ! More power to them,
I say. I don't think MacDonald is anti Jewish at all - read his actual
BOOKS. He's approaching it all from an evolutinary strategy perspective.
What I posted was a review OF his book - a good one, very succinct.
What I have to offer is that Jews really DO and DID feel threatened by white
Chrstian people - but felt comfortable in a mixed diverse setting. They
need to realize that inferior people tend to wnat to KILL superior ones (as
with Nazis - who wanted to kill Jews) - and that this Black Jewish alliance
they formed, out of some wrong-headed idea that "someone held them back as
they tried to h old Jews back" is a FALSE conclusion. If anyone is
seriously dangerous to the Jews - it would BE those other Semites - the
Arabs and such who have stupid dirt shit compared the technologically
advanced Israel - and definitely the blacks are a threat to them. . To the
blacks - Jews are just more white folks!
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04071...@posting.google.com...
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04071...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Indeed, liberalism (and I don't mean classical liberalism) is a
> pathology Jews share with a good many Americans. Most Jews don't like
> the Right and that, incidentally, includes the Israeli Right,
> represented by Ariel Sharon. It is far from clear that Jews, at large,
> identify with neoconservatives. Considering that most Americans
> supported the war in Iraq, Jews, to the extent they supported it, were
> wrong but not unique.
80% of Americans want to be rid of the illegal immigrants and sent Vincente
Fox home to stay.
>
> Jewish organizations, as a rule, do promote liberal causes and
> policies such as multiculturalism. But it isn't obvious that this
> practice is conducive to the health of the Jewish community. At the
> very least, there is a contradiction between the leftist ideology so
> many Jews embrace, with its indifference to assimilation and its
> extreme tolerance for alternative lifestyles, and the survival of the
> Jewish religion and people.
That would seem true on the surface of it, however, deeds say otherwise.
When the Hispanic Santeria religion came under scrutiny because they do
animal sacrifices (satanists do not do these things, neither do wiccans or
pagans!) - it was the Jewish groups that won it for them - the Supreme Court
said it was legal to have Santeria animal sacrifices! How does that help
Jews? It doesn't. Jews founded the NAACP and, for a very long time, were
the only people running it. How did that help Jews? It didn't. I would
imagine they thought it would - but maybe in a round-about way. Perhaps
it's more beneficial, a better strategy, to get GROUPS OF OTHER PEOPLE to go
against the Christian white and male establishment - than having these
groups "like them as Jews. " What I see happened is that heh, groups were
used almost like weapons against the society as it was before - primarily
white, Christian! Think about it. That IS what they DID. I remember them
doing some of it and told them that it would BACKFIRE in their faces. One
of their Rabbis agreed with me! No one else did except the poor Jews that
had to endure the wrecking of whole areas and deterioration in schools.
They HATED it.
>
> MacDonald's assertion that Jews support open immigration policies so
> that they can bring about a more diverse society in order to diminish
> anti-Semitism" and promote "Jewish ethnic interests" must be
> questioned, especially in the post-Sept. 11 world.
That IS what Jews did - and some admitted to doing this. One would have to
actually read all of MacDonald's books - not just what I or others say he
said - with HUGE chomp outs and snips and short summaries.
>
> Jews have little to gain by advocating for minority communities with
> which they haven't much in common, culturally or socioeconomically,
> and who are likely to be hostile to them.
They had everything to gain from it. Blacks were the weapons used against
the white society here. HEH. Blacks could not possibly have done it on
their own - without a lot of help and money given to them. Blacks had NO
CLOUT here - none at all. It took clout, money, pressure to give them
clout. That clout was not used against Hispanics or Turks or even Jews. It
was used against WHITES. But let a black say something anti Jewish - HOOO
boy. That's not allowed.
How does promoting
> immigration from Muslim countries, for instance, benefit Jewish
> interests?
Moot point. They aren't doing THAT kind of promotion, DOH.
>
> All in all, the paleoconservatives' attempts to blame Jews for
> pervasive gentile madness, such as Mr. Bush's war in Iraq,
Well, now let's look at that. The ONLY people that would have BENEFITED in
taking down Saddam Hussein were: 1. ISRAEL and 2. TERRORISTS.
>
> About the Jewish psyche, MacDonald shows complete ignorance:
Heh, OH NO he doesn't! He is amazingly on the money - and he's NOT ANTI
JEWISH. And I say also, more power to them, man. I can definitely
appreciate diabolical cunning at work! I'm a Turk :)
Justified
> or not, Jews are petrified of anti-Semitism. I used to think they were
> mistaken. I still believe Jews express this deep-seated fear
> shamefully and inappropriately. But in light of recent scapegoating, I
> am no longer sure about anti-Semitism's obsolescence.
Jews feel that primary anti-Semitism - with DIRE results - come from the
Christian white nations. They know what I know - without helps, blacks
would be no threat to anyone and,if anything, strong Christianity makes the
blacks pretty docile. That's how they were when they used to be SO NICE.
Very very Christian.
Nobody said that the strategies that Jews used are infallable. They almost
backfired in Nazi Germany when the Christians also became a huge COLLECTIVE.
They aren't infallable - but they are damned GOOD strategies.
>
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04071...@posting.google.com...
news:<f25f7f62.0407...@posting.google.com>...
> > I messed up the above post, reposted here with correction to error.
> >
> > One interesting thing I remember reading from a racist site about
> > Jewish conspiracies etc, is how it mentions that Blondes are always
> > portrayed as idiots in the hollywood movies, you know you even have a
> > saying a "blonde moment" meaning a moment where I was stupid/did a
> > stupid thing. Being blonde is now associated with being stupid/worthy
> > of contempt.
> > The significance of this the site said was that you know Hitler
> > thought blonde haired and blue eyed Germans to be the best, to be the
> > most 'Aryan' as he
> > described them, in his racial ideas, so it might be another minor aim
> > for the Jews to destroy this concept of blonde haired, blue eyed
> > people being somehow superior, but not just destroy that concept, make
> > people think they are inferior instead.
> > The site could be right about it, just a thought.
>
> Or maybe it's just a reflection of how blondes are,
Personally speaking, in my youth and teen years, the blonde headed people I
tended to meet were just plain DUMB - like wide-eyed naive fools. They were
wimpy too. That's just what I saw in that location a lot. I can't say
that all blondes are like that. I know Scandinavian people that are VERY
smart - and very blonde. Most Germans are not blonde - btw.
considering that
> very few people are naturally blonde, relatively speaking, but a lot
> of people dye their hair blonde and these people are obviously going
> to be more concerned with their appearance, and other things like
> that, and therefore have less time to do things that people percieve
> as intelligent.
Or they'll pretend to be dumb if they are women - because they think men
like that. I've seen that happen. A grown woman, blonde, having a HEAVY
discussion about mathematics and physics - all of a sudden she's talking
BABY talk and flirting with some guy.
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04071...@posting.google.com...
> >
They controlled the media, education and psychiatry - heh. They pushed the
ideas of Franz Boas.
The Frankfurt School's people resulted in the NEO-Leftists in the USA - and
they (the neo-left) were crazy people. I posted elsewhere about this, I
think... maybe it was an egroup convo, don't remember.
Much of what resulted was a kind of sick reverse racism - but of course
that's NOT "racism" at all, heh.
They mixed Freud's bs with Marx and came to the conclusion that anyone that
had strong feelings of kinship with their own ethnic group (if it was a
European group that is) was sick and in need of shock therapy. They equated
it with authoritarian personalities. Hold on, they mean assertive people.
I'll try to find the info. Here it is..
Subject: Origin of Political Correctness
It starts with the Frankfurt School of Herbert Marcuse, included are Nathan
Ackerman, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Bruno Bettelheim, Ernst Bloch,
Erich Froman, Carl Gruenberg, Julian Gumperz, Max Horkheimer, Otto
Kirchheimer, Leo Lowenthal, Kurt Mendelbaum, Franz Neumann, Friedrich
Pollocik Ernst Schachtel, Andries Sternheim, and Felix Weil.
Most notable were Marcuse the "father of the NEO Left" (which we consider
NOT left at all since they are the opposite of Marx-Lenin-Stalin). Marcuse
was the primary theoretician that totally went away from the hard science
neurophysiology of the Pavlov Soviet school, and blended Marx and Freud -
emphasis on Freud. He was the primary theoretician of the New Left. Bruno
Bettelheim attained fame as a CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST; and Paul Lazerfeld and Leo
Lowenthal became prominent in MASS MEDIA studies. Ah ha!
It was judged by these people, who had a pyramidal structure of lackeys with
a lot of clout, that anyone feeling ANY KIND of ethnic feeling, was mentally
deranged. They had the Institute of Social Research at Columbia. This
largely ended in 1975 with the death of Horkheimer. These are the guys that
threw out all concepts of freedom of choice, freedom of association and free
feeling/thinking in favor of suffocating political correctness.
To make a long story short, this is the reason why today, if a white person
gets into a fight with a black person and hurts him - it's a hate crime.
But when blacks yanked people out of cars during the Cincinnati riots
BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE, when they targetted whites, beat them up badly and
screamed racist stuff - it's NOT a hate crime, same goes for Asians or
anyone else who is targetted for racist reasons. Heh.
These people were able to successfully penetrate all areas of learning and
consciousness and the mass media. They treated the American public and kids
to "therapy" as if they were inmates of an insane asylum.
This is what I KNEW was going on, I just couldn't get a solid handle on it.
The origin of PC is the Frankfurt School. The main weapon they used was the
concept of race.
DesertCactus
> How does promoting
> > immigration from Muslim countries, for instance, benefit Jewish
> > interests?
>
> Moot point. They aren't doing THAT kind of promotion, DOH.
There are 10 million arabs in the USA (mostly muslims of course). Also
your article accuses Jews of being behind the promotion of immigration
to Britian and France, most immigrants to Britian have been MUSLIM.
> >
> > All in all, the paleoconservatives' attempts to blame Jews for
> > pervasive gentile madness, such as Mr. Bush's war in Iraq,
>
> Well, now let's look at that. The ONLY people that would have BENEFITED in
> taking down Saddam Hussein were: 1. ISRAEL and 2. TERRORISTS.
>
Indeed. I've seen quotes from Jewish leaders saying something like
"thanks to President Bush's actions against Iraq, Israel is now
safer!" LOL.
I don't see how Bush can say that it was "for the protection of
american people." Saddam Hussein never had the range to hit beyond his
neighbouring countries in the Middle East... most importantly ISRAEL,
LOL.
Sadamm Hussein could never have fired a WMD anywhere NEAR US soil, he
simply DIDN'T HAVE THE RANGE. Colin Powell even showed a diagram of
where Sadamm could hit, and it wasn't far, and let's face it he
probably only had one country in mind.
To my knowledge Sadamm was funding Palestinian terrorists who limit
their targets to Israel. I don't think they've found a connection to
him funding anti-american terrorists, although he may have.
>
> Heh, OH NO he doesn't! He is amazingly on the money - and he's NOT ANTI
> JEWISH. And I say also, more power to them, man. I can definitely
> appreciate diabolical cunning at work! I'm a Turk :)
I don't appreciate immorality. A minority of Jews 2% in america, a
tiny fraction of a percent of the world's population, raising their
own interests at the expense of negatively effecting the majority of
gentiles. Yes it may be cunning but still, LOL. If MacDonald is right.
> Jews feel that primary anti-Semitism - with DIRE results - come from the
> Christian white nations.
Who can blame them. That was the environment from which Hitler rose
and killed 6 million Jews, WW2 could easily have gone the other way
and EVERY JEW IN THE WORLD could have died, who can blame them for
being terrified of that happening again?
I'd say the present-day threat to the Jews come from muslims. They are
terribly anti-semitic, mainly due to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and
religious reasons, such as the Israeli's taking over cities they
consider holy, like Jerusalem etc, they're also over a billion and
growing. Have you seen the news about attacks on Jews in France?
France has a large muslim population.
DesertCactus
> strategy BECAUSE THEY ARE SMARTER - and have HIGHER IQ! More power to them,
> I say. I don't think MacDonald is anti Jewish at all - read his actual
> BOOKS. He's approaching it all from an evolutinary strategy perspective.
> What I posted was a review OF his book - a good one, very succinct.
>
> What I have to offer is that Jews really DO and DID feel threatened by white
> Chrstian people - but felt comfortable in a mixed diverse setting. They
> need to realize that inferior people tend to wnat to KILL superior ones (as
> with Nazis - who wanted to kill Jews) - and that this Black Jewish alliance
> they formed, out of some wrong-headed idea that "someone held them back as
> they tried to h old Jews back" is a FALSE conclusion. If anyone is
> seriously dangerous to the Jews - it would BE those other Semites - the
> Arabs and such who have stupid dirt shit compared the technologically
> advanced Israel - and definitely the blacks are a threat to them. . To the
> blacks - Jews are just more white folks!
LOL. The Arabs had a great civilization in the past, they made great
advancements in science, medicine, literature etc.
They were overtaken by the Europeans.
Besides, the Jews and Arab genetics are the same, aren't they? The
Jews did originally come from that area, after all.
You're right that the current threat from the Jews come from muslims
though in my opinion, I've commented on that in another post on this
thread.
You're also right about genocide always seems to be the 'inferior' or
less successful group killing the more successful group. History
repeats itself, if you create a situation that is close enough to an
historic situation the same outcome will occur.
The Jews can't help but dominate, in this supply and demand economy,
there's a large supply of uneducated useless people to flip burgers at
McDonalds, LOL. So they are paid little. However there is a limited
supply of extremely intelligent and educated people, so they rise to
the top, and get paid huge amounts, and are successful. The smart
people are the winners in our society.
Yes the blacks are a threat to them. Imagine if blacks became a
majority of americans, you asians along with the Jews and whites,
hispanics, Native americans etc, would be dead, or thrown out of the
USA, or you'd have to live under a affirimitive action society where
blacks are pushed into jobs they're not capable of doing to make it
'fairer', that is if blacks were still struggling like they are now,
on the bright side, the academic performance gap has been narrowed.
Whites and Jews really don't look that different. A black man who is
struggling, full of hate, and looking at the society he's in, will
look up at the people he percieves as responsible for his struggling,
he will see the mass of relatively successful whites and be resentful
of them, and then he will look up at the very TOP LAYER of society,
and see that's where the Jews dominate, and he will be even MORE
RESENTFUL of them, you only have to look at the black rap music which
includes, "kill Jew" comments aswell as "kill whites' comments, and
the comments of black nationalists like the nation of islam, who HATE
Jews.
He won't care about the assisstance Jews have supposedly given the
blacks in the past, such as setting up the NACCP, or whatever. As
we've discussed blacks are ingrates.
As we've talked about in the past to many blacks there are two kinds
of people 'black' and 'non-black', I mean look at their music and
writings etc, even the non-extreme music, without 'kill-them'
comments, has things about black-unification. They'll call people they
don't know 'brother' because they're black. There's a black club, no
non-blacks allowed.
I don't know why society seems to allow the less-intelligent people to
reproduce more, it's essentially resulting in the devoloution of the
human race.
make...@worldnet.att.net
The DAFN problem won't get fixed until a politically significant
number of folks speak out forcefully demanding change...
DesertCactus
are superior, LOL. The below quote I found while looking at sites. The
site doesn't matter, but it just shows how common the anti-white
feelings seem to be.
"That year me and Leonard would sit in the back of geometry class and
blame all of the world's problems on white people while we would exalt
the status of black people above all other races. At that time in my
life I thought that Islam was the religion for black people, but
unfortunately the Islam I was talking about was nothing more than
black nationalism with a slight touch of true Islam. It was very
similar to The Nation of Islam. As time went on I began to see that my
black nationalist views and my perception of what Islam was about
became tired. It was useless to hate almost all white people and to
blame this on Islam. Around the same time I totally denounced
Christianity as my religion."
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04071...@posting.google.com...
And again, pasting it again in case you miss it - THIS
QUOTE
It is not uneducated blacks in the inner cities that believe all or some
form of this "long conspiracy of evil whites," (see below, please) but their
professors believe it. I don't believe you can find a black person anywhere
that isn't aware of this paradigm - and as you may know, paradigms are very
hard, if not impossible, to oust.
A very good analogy was made on another thread: as Hitler blamed and wanted
to exterminate the Jews; the blacks are blaming whites, and some of them are
blaming *Jews*, for everything that's either wrong with them, deficient in
them, or their own fault. This is *very* alarming and upsetting.
`What really convinced me of an inherent, dangerous weakness in black ways
of thought, however, was their widespread belief in Afrocentrism and the
notion that whites were committing "genocide" against blacks. In September
1989, ABC News did a program on the condition of blacks in America,
followed by a special edition of Nightline with a panel consisting of
several of ABC's black correspondents and other *noted* blacks. With the
exception of Professor Shelby Steele, these *accomplished, successful*
blacks *all* endorsed the notion of a white conspiracy to commit "genocide"
against blacks. The fact that it was not just ignorant street people, but
*successful, articulate* black professionals who believed these insane and
wicked conspiracy theories made a devastating impression on me. It shook
my former belief that blacks and whites could more or less get along in the
same society.
The wide acceptance of Afrocentrism had a similar effect on my views of
blacks. I was appalled when I heard commentator Tony Brown, a *reasonable
and intelligent* black (who, moreover, had just joined the Republican
Party), say in a speech to the Heritage Foundation that, given the fact
that mankind began in Africa, "all civilizations are African." More than
anything else, Afrocentrism, with its claims that European civilization was
"stolen" from Africa and that people like Hannibal and Cleopatra were black
because they lived on the African continent, confirmed my growing
conviction that blacks were often incapable of distinguishing their wishes,
feelings, and resentments from objective reality. There is also the
growing "black Bible" movement, which teaches that the main figures in the
Bible, including Abraham, Moses, Mary, Jesus, and Paul, were black-a truth
which (naturally) those tricky whites have systematically hidden from
blacks so as to maintain their dominance over them. As far as I can see,
the blackness of the people in the Bible constitutes the sole teaching of
this sect. Their interest in the Bible is exclusively racialist. (Once
again, the fact that a large number of blacks do not believe in
Afrocentrism does not change the fact that a large number of them do, and
are *acting* on it and spreading it and institutionalizing it throughout
the whole society.)
The most extreme form of black conspiracy thinking is the Nation of Islam
claim that whites are demons who were created by a mad scientist 5,000 years
ago, and who ever since then have robbed blacks of their birthright.
Whether blacks believe in that myth, or are just fixated on a general
feeling of historic grievance, the notion of their historic victimhood tends
to *justify* in their minds every crime and injustice that they might now
commit against whites. Over and over, polls and statements reveal that
blacks feel they should not be held to moral standards for the crimes of
blacks against whites, because blacks have been the victims of this vast and
still unacknowledged evil by whites for several thousands of years. Blacks
thus tend to see every issue in purely racialist terms-as we can see when
black juries excuse black killers of whites, or when the great majority of
blacks say that O.J. Simpson is innocent, or when a high percentage of
blacks agree that Colin Ferguson's mass murder on the Long Island Rail Road
was a justified act of rage against white racism. The above attitudes all
increasingly suggest that blacks and whites cannot truly live as equal
co-citizens in the same society.
Of course, blacks have suffered real historic crimes at the hands of
whites. Is there any group of people that has *not* suffered real historic
crimes at the hands of others? It is blacks and liberals that are *not*
simply viewing this as "*man's* inhumaity to *man*"; they see it as
distnictly racial. If I were to give an antibiotic to three patients, one
black, one white, one Chinese, and if that antibiotic didn't work - would
that enable the white and black to accuse me of racism? What about the
Chinese patient? It is not so unusual for an antibiotic not to work. Just
as it is *not* unusual for one group of people to suffer at the hands of
another. Human history is full of this. But that (blacks having suffered
at the hands of whites) does not explain the contemporary, *intensifying*
sense of black grievance, which finds its most flagrant expression in
fantasies of white devils and 5,000-year-old conspiracies. Most
importantly, the fact that the black feeling of grievance is *augmenting,
rather than diminishing*, as slavery and legal discrimination recede into
the distant past, suggests that the grievance has little to do with any
actual crimes committed by whites.
Even more alarming, the more blacks advance, the *more*, not less, they
resent whites (and Asians, whom they don't distinguish between). The more
America does to overcome its "racism," the more "racist" America appears.
The reason for this is built into the dynamics of human nature. Very
simply, the more equal blacks become with whites, the more unbearable and
unjust seem the *remaining differences*. Thus what started as a demand for
basic civil rights mutated into a demand to *overturn the whole society*,
along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history
and heroes, since in all these things blacks are still not "equal."
An example of what happens when blacks gain power can be seen in the
current imbroglio at Rutgers University, where President Francis Lawrence,
through his own affirmative action policies, created the very student body
that is now trying to *destroy* him. When blacks gain numbers and power,
they inevitably subject whites to intimidation and tyranny, just as they do
to their own people. End Quotes
It is hard to forget Jefferson's chilling premonitions in this regard:
(Thomas Jefferson said) Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into
the State, and thus save the expense of supplying by importation of white
settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep-rooted prejudices entertained
by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries
they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature
has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and
produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination
of the one or the other race. [Italics added] [Notes on Virginia, Query
XIV, 1782].
I, and many others, have quiely observed this for many years.
UNQUOTE
DesertCactus
> number of folks speak out forcefully demanding change...
DAFN? If you mean the black 'problem', It isn't going to get 'fixed',
let's face it, if they couldn't fix it decades ago when people had
much more freedom of speech on subjects of race, and when whites
weren't becoming a minority in the USA, then they're not going to be
able to 'fix' it now.
DesertCactus
> UNQUOTE
I've come across most of that before. I know about the Nation of Islam
and the beliefs that the people in the bible were black, I know that
the white genocidal conspiracies are even believed among some educated
blacks, you can look at people like *Dr* Welsing, obviously she is
educated and fairly intelligent, yet she believes such crazy
conspiracy theories.
I really think the USA needs to EITHER get rid of the blacks from the
USA once and for all, or ASSIMILATE them (that is racially mix with
them), so that everyone in the USA is a mix of races, and maybe the
whole thing of races will die, because these problems created by RACE
are not going to go away.
The Jefferson speech is interesting particularly: "the real
distinctions which nature has made", I don't think he's reffering to
just appearance. I know that the leaders of the time of Jefferson did
WARN of consequences of allowing the blacks to stay and tried to get
them sent back to Africa, obviously they were not listened to, and
their attempts failed.
A multi-racial, multi-cultural society, is inherently dysfunctional.
Karl
Unfortunately, whites are a way from being the minority. As a result,
the US still spreads and condones old-style white, colonial behaviour -
like raping Iraqi boys.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=541472
'Secret film shows Iraq prisoners sodomised'
By Charles Arthur, Technology Editor
16 July 2004
Young male prisoners were filmed being sodomised by American soldiers at
the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to the journalist who
first revealed the abuses there.
Seymour Hersh, who reported on the torture of the prisoners in New
Yorker magazine in May, told an audience in San Francisco that "it's
worse". But he added that he would reveal the extent of the abuses: "I'm
not done reporting on all this," he told a meeting of the American Civil
Liberties Union.
He said: "The boys were sodomised with the cameras rolling, and the
worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking. And this is your
government at war."
He accused the US administration, and all but accused President George
Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney of complicity in covering up what he
called "war crimes".
DesertCactus
> Personally speaking, in my youth and teen years, the blonde headed people I
> tended to meet were just plain DUMB - like wide-eyed naive fools. They were
> wimpy too. That's just what I saw in that location a lot. I can't say
> that all blondes are like that. I know Scandinavian people that are VERY
> smart - and very blonde.
It's probably a reflection of how blondes are then.
The Devil's Advocate©
<petersenk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Unfortunately, whites are a way from being the minority. As a result,
>the US still spreads and condones old-style white, colonial behaviour -
>like raping Iraqi boys.
Lesson to be learned: Keep gays out of the military, hehheh. Just
joking, but couldn't resist...
MIB529
LOL Hey, you know the guys from Queer Eye designed the terror alert
system. Of course, it leaves a question: Who wears orange in winter?
DesertCactus
> Unfortunately, whites are a way from being the minority.
>
Actually only 50 years away, and I think they may be the minority
among children already.
P.Comm
> >
> > Unfortunately, whites are a way from being the minority.
> >
>
> Actually only 50 years away, and I think they may be the minority
> among children already.
Well, it depends on what you call white. Rebecca, who is NA - is considered
white by everyone. She works in the city, HEH. My people are lumped in
with whites too, these days. I see MANY very good looking Hispanics - when
they get Americanized they do what every other eth nic group did, Italian,
Sllavic, Irish, etc. They marry outside their ethnic group. White
Hispanics, or the ones with that indian kind of look - blend in with the
whites. And they DO NOT tend to like blacks.
Is see it as a black versus NON-black thing here. It's clearly that.
P.Comm
Depends on what you mean by multicultural. HEAPS of multicultural does
work - chinese food, pizza, etc. See how I mean?
make...@worldnet.att.net
Hispanics don't even like *Hispanics*.
Many TV cable and satellite systems have a number of channels with
Hispanic programming, apparently originating in Mexico, in Spanish
language. Game shows, soaps, pop-music/dancing, news/talk, etc, same
kind of stuff otherwise as mainstream American programming.
It's really funny to look at the hosts, stars, and supporting casts:
They mostly all look like *white* people. Except for the language
and music, and sometimes the audiences, you couldn't otherwise
detect that this stuff was Hispanic...
DesertCactus
> Well, it depends on what you call white.
Well I was just using the "USA population to grow to 400 million by
2050" projection that I posted.
>
> Is see it as a black versus NON-black thing here. It's clearly that.
It is. In the USA, the blacks don't assimilate, the black with
non-black couples are still extremely rare.
DesertCactus
> They mostly all look like *white* people.
Hm well according to the CIA world factbook country profile of Mexico:
mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly
Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%
So most mexicans are a mix of the indian peoples and spanish.
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04072...@posting.google.com...
> >
Again, it depends on what you call white. How people get listed on there for
those stats. Once upon a time, the Irish were not classified as white.
"Whiteness of another color" by Jacobson - very good book and very
informative. Once upon a time, Slavic people were seen as Orientals! My
people were called Turanians - we are not Indo-Europeans, not Semites.
Hell, Semites (Jews) were considered non-white and they became "officially
white" quite recently!
I tend to logically see things as more like black and non-black - because
that's the way it really ends up when things settle down.
P.Comm
"DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.04072...@posting.google.com...
Hey - I'm not using google, so posts that are fresh do NOT show up first in
line. I have to fish to find - and mark them "watched" to catch them. Plus
I'm not online every day anymore.
Desert - I've seen those mestizo types - and they are the ones that look
like ME. Really. You saw my picture. I'm mistaken by Hispanic ALL the
time - BY other Hispanics. Those people are, heh - PRETTY :)
P.Comm
<make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:41021A0E...@worldnet.att.net...
I know. What I mean by a kind of Indian (Native) look - I have that look
myself. You've probably seen my photo. Bob LeChev said that the Russian
kids he saw looked a lot like me. Yup. That KIND of look. Sharp features.
Cheekbones. Almond eyes. Definitely not any kind of Afro look - no way.
You know, it's funny that guy Alberto saying that "everyone gets along" in
Brazil - and I have also personally heard ENOUGH about that, and for
decades - and FROM people from there and other Hispanics as well, to know
that Afro types are definitely NOT preferred at all.
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
> "DesertCactus" <desert...@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
> news:f25f7f62.04072...@posting.google.com...
>
>>>Well, it depends on what you call white.
>>
>>Well I was just using the "USA population to grow to 400 million by
>>2050" projection that I posted.
>>
>>
>>>Is see it as a black versus NON-black thing here. It's clearly that.
>>
>>It is. In the USA, the blacks don't assimilate, the black with
>>non-black couples are still extremely rare.
>
>
> Again, it depends on what you call white. How people get listed on there for
> those stats. Once upon a time, the Irish were not classified as white.
Possibly a bathing issue.
> "Whiteness of another color" by Jacobson - very good book and very
> informative. Once upon a time, Slavic people were seen as Orientals! My
> people were called Turanians - we are not Indo-Europeans, not Semites.
> Hell, Semites (Jews) were considered non-white and they became "officially
> white" quite recently!
This may simply have been the conflating of ethnicity and race. With
assimilation, the fundamental similaritities and differences of
appearance are all that remains, and the racial division adapts. Note
that black, white and oriental remain separate, no doubt because of
obvious differences in appearance.
> I tend to logically see things as more like black and non-black - because
> that's the way it really ends up when things settle down.
Things between black and white never settle down.
make...@worldnet.att.net
ekur...@WhoKnowsWhere.com wrote:
>
> P.Comm wrote:
> >
> > I tend to logically see things as more like black and non-black - because
> > that's the way it really ends up when things settle down.
>
> Things between black and white never settle down.
Right. They will get increasingly worse as jobs become ever more
high tech, limited DAFN IQ'z will be even less able to compete. The
economic damage of trying to pretend DAFN equality will reach the
point where the genetically obvious truth cannot be denied.
DesertCactus
> white" quite recently!
In my opinion Jews shouldn't be considered as white. It allows them to
be considered among the majority of people when it comes to racial
quotas for employment etc, I think you have laws which ensure that a
proportionate amount of each race should be employed in a company
according to the racial makeup of the population of the area.
Considering Jews White would allow them to continue to dominate jobs
which have an effect on other people like media, movies, politics, it
doesn't seem like fair representation to me.
make...@worldnet.att.net
DesertCactus wrote:
>
> > Hell, Semites (Jews) were considered non-white and they became "officially
> > white" quite recently!
>
> In my opinion Jews shouldn't be considered as white. It allows them to
> be considered among the majority of people when it comes to racial
> quotas for employment etc, I think you have laws which ensure that a
> proportionate amount of each race should be employed in a company
> according to the racial makeup of the population of the area.
I think you should have laws that ensure employment of
the most capable/qualified people available for the job,
regardless of race/ethnicity in the area...
DesertCactus
> I think you should have laws that ensure employment of
> the most capable/qualified people available for the job,
> regardless of race/ethnicity in the area...
I agree, a blind system based on merit is best for the companies and the customers.