US Murder Rate Not Less Than Europe - If Blacks Are Excluded

[klaatu]

Gelding wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 12:14:00 +0100, Thomas Mohr
> <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote:
>
> >Gelding wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:47:33 +0100, Thomas Mohr
> >> <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote:
> >
> >> >Gelding, I have explained again and again and again that *no* causal
> >> >realtion between low IQ and race has been established yet. No. Nada.
> >> >Keine. All we have are a bunch of studies, nothing else.
> >>
> >> And I have explained again and again that there are.
> >
> >Okay, I challenge you to following: Either cite a strudy giving a causal
> >correlation between race and IQ or admit that you're too stupid to do
> >so. Not citing will result automatically in assuming the latter.
>
>
>
> The concept of heredity in Western thought: Part three
> from Mankind Quarterly Sept. 1, 1995

Slightly dated isn't it? Well, you shall have some comments interspersed.

>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The revival of interest in genetics
> Introduction
> The Egalitarian Onslaught
> The Revival of Interest in Genetics
> Twin Studies Reveal the Role of Heredity in Shaping Human Personality
> Blood Groups and DNA
> DNA Profiling
> The Human Genome Project
> Opposition to the Human Genome Project
> Genetics and Modern Medical Practice
> The Enhanced Potential for Positive Eugenics
> Critique of the Neo-Lysenkovian Opposition to Eugenics
> Concluding Remarks
> Footnotes
> References

> As noted in the two preceding articles in this brief series,1 European
> and American thought had historically recognized the role of heredity
> in shaping both human physiology and human personality. The early
> beliefs of the Classical and Medieval worlds were reinforced by an
> improved understanding of plant and animal breeding, which made
> especially rapid progress in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
> Subsequently, the discoveries of Darwin and Mendel led to an even
> clearer recognition of the significance of the role of heredity in
> human affairs, and this reinforced interest in the possibility of
> applying to human beings the breeding techniques used so successfully
> with plants and animals.
>
> Most early eugenicists were motivated by a philosophy close to the
> workings of nature. They perceived evolution as being competition not
> only between individuals carrying disparate genes but also between
> divergent populations and subspecies, each seeking control over the
> available resources, and in consequence they primarily contemplated
> the improvement of their own national stock. Nations were perceived as
> micro-races in the making. While not directly opposing the extension
> of eugenic goals to rival human populations, they regarded this as an
> objective which was not only beyond their power but beyond their
> responsibility and - under the laws of evolution - extraneous to the
> proper function of altruism. Altruism is a biological necessity where
> it assists genetic copies contained within the same breeding
> population or phylogenetic continuum to survive. In the course of
> hominid evolution, altruistic behavior emerged because it enhanced the
> survival chances of the breeding population to which the altruistic
> individual belonged: it enhanced the competitive effectiveness of the
> altruist's own phylogenetic continuum2 This was in keeping with the
> evolutionary conditions that shaped the survival chances of all
> complex life forms in the material universe, and the purpose of
> scientific investigation was perceived to be the development of sound
> principles on which to base rational patterns of intelligent behavior.
>
> In Britain and America, however, early twentieth century eugenics was
> also motivated by the perception of dysgenic trends within the
> national population. The defeats suffered by units of the British
> regular army at the hands of a Boer civilian army further reinforced
> the growing idea that Britain had lost too many of its more
> adventurous, dynamic and creative stock in the course of three
> centuries of empire- building and overseas colonizing activities. This
> awareness of the need to maintain the competitive quality of the
> British gene pool promoted a demand for eugenic policies that might
> increase the birthrate among those who were deemed to be its more
> dynamic and creative citizens. As it happened, this goal was never
> attained - attempts at progress in that direction were totally
> frustrated in World War I by the gigantic and heavily selective loss
> of the cream of the nation's youth on the battlefields of Flanders, in
> the air above the battlefields, and along the ocean supply routes on
> which Britain depended.
>
> America's losses were not as heavy as those of the European nations
> that participated in this fratricidal conflict, but many Americans,
> such as David Starr Jordan, Chancellor of Stanford University,3
> recognized the severity of the genetic impact.

Ah yes. Early in the century, this was a popular theory, that too many of
the "good ones" had been killed off in adventurism.

Science has advanced considerably since then.

>
> The Egalitarian Onslaught
> World War I benefited only one European group, the Marxists - who in
> general had been careful to avoid involvement in this bloody and
> totally mad internecine carnage. Russian losses were so heavy amongst
> those who would normally have contained Marxist revolutionary violence
> that the Bolsheviks were able to seize control of the entire Russian
> empire. There, and during a similar reign of terror after a similar
> seizure of power in Hungary, they eliminated untold numbers of the
> elite, not only at the level of the ruling elite but also among the
> more successful of the peasantry. A genetically depleted Hungary was
> wrested from Marxist control, but the process of dysgenic selection
> continued in Soviet Russia until the eventual death of Stalin.
> Unfortunately, even those European countries which remained free of
> open Marxist rule also suffered from a vast expansion of
> Marxist-Lysenkovian ideology, as the ranks of the old elite who would
> have counterbalanced Marxist doctrines had been heavily thinned.4
> Furthermore, the economic depression that followed the ravages of
> World War II turned most peoples' attention to the problem of sheer
> economic survival, and made interest in the genetic well being of
> future generations a luxury to which few felt inclined to devote their
> attention.
>
> Unlike the altruistically-minded members of society who had readily
> given their lives to defend what they had so wrongly regarded as their
> nation's interests, most Marxists survived World War I by avoiding
> front line duties. With the massive winnowing of those who would
> normally have opposed them, they were therefore in a strong position
> to take advantage of the leadership vacuum that existed even in the
> Western countries which did not fall into their hands through violent
> revolution. This new generation of Marxists preached opposition to the
> natural law of biological competition, and blindness toward the facts
> of biology was acclaimed as though ignorance of such facts was a
> social virtue. Both Marxists and non-Marxist egalitarian activists
> began to attack all and any scholars who persisted in stressing the
> link between genetics and human ability. In America, the Nobel
> Prize-winning University of Texas geneticist Hermann J. Muller, who
> saw eugenic improvement as a means of reducing inequality by raising
> the level of the weaker members of society closer to that of the more
> gifted, resigned his membership of the U.S. Communist Party after
> being obliged to hastily terminate a visit to the USSP, in order to
> avoid arrest for criticizing Lysenkovian theory which became the only
> "politically correct" and legally permissible genetic doctrine under
> Stalinist rule. In Britain, J. B. S. Haldane also eventually resigned
> from the Communist Party in protest against the new biological
> egalitarianism which now became Marxist orthodoxy. Other legitimate
> scholars similarly cut their ties to the new Marxism, but this did not
> stop the belief in biological egalitarianism from becoming a basic
> tenet of those remaining Marxists who accepted Neo-Lysenkovianism and
> sought to use the university lecture rooms and academic media to
> advance their egalitarian ideology.

And those same Marxists and their adherents are resoundingly mocked by any
scientist today. Lysenkoism is bunk, pure and simple, and that is all that
it has ever been.

>
> Political pressure can retard the progress of knowledge, but in a
> relatively free country it cannot suppress the search for truth
> altogether. In Britain and America, a few scholars retained the
> courage to continue their research into behavioral genetics and their
> findings drew passionate condemnation from the extreme egalitarians
> who were determined to advance the now-cherished and comfortable. myth
> of biological equality - not being content with the concept of
> equality before the law. Even when Lysenko's theories were demolished
> by further advances in scholarship, biological egalitarians strove to
> suppress public recognition of the importance of heredity in order to
> prevent such knowledge from influencing social and political policies.

This is a bit speculative as to motivation, don't you think?

>
> As has been revealed by Snyderman and Rothman in The IQ Controversy:
> The Media and Public Policy (1988), these stubborn and pedantic
> ideologues found willing collaborators in the media. The intimidation
> of "hereditarian" scientists, as the radicals liked to call behavioral
> scientists, became a major plank in the politics of what has more
> recently come to be dubbed "political correctness."

This is the most immense crock of shit it has been my sorry misprivelege to
see in quite some time.

Behavioral sciences came far to the forefront with the advent of Skinner and
the subsequent explosion of the SKinnerian school of psychology and
education throughout the late 60s and 70s. By the time the 80s rolled
around, "behavioralism" was the educational standard. There _never was any
linkage with "hereditarian" science (if you want to call it "science") and
the Skinnerians_.

>
> During the 1960s and '70s, this intimidation often took the form of
> violent Marxist-organized campus riots. The story is documented in
> Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (Pearson 1991), and in more
> specific detail concerning the harassment of Nobel Prize-winning
> William Shockley in Shockley on Eugenics and Race (Pearson 1992).
> Marxist student organizations and their sympathizers, encouraged by
> similar- minded faculty members, rioted on campuses, disrupted
> lectures, threatened faculty members, and attacked the right of
> scholars interested in human behavioral genetics to report their
> research findings or to express their opinions either on and off the
> campus. During the 1980s, a degree of order returned to academe, but
> by now many of those who had been student activists in the 1960s and
> '70s followed the course advocated by the Italian Marxist Antonio
> Gramsci (1977, 1978): that of abandoning attempts to seize control of
> society by violent revolution, in favor of tactics aimed at
> revolutionizing it from within - by the peaceful infilltration of
> existing institutions. Many of the far Left student activists of the
> 1960s and '70s consequently abandoned their schemes for open
> revolution and without abandoning their political ideologies became
> the faculty members, the university administrators, and the government
> bureaucrats of the late 1980s and '90s. Whereas universities such as
> the University of California, Berkeley, had hitherto defended the
> right of faculty members to express their opinions, many universities
> now began to yield to the pressure of the political activists now
> ensconced within the system, bending to the will of those who sought
> to restrict freedom of speech and research by faculty members
> interested in human behavioral genetics. "Political correctness"
> became a requirement at universities such as Delaware and City
> University of New York, which actively sought to silence scholars who
> uttered opinions that challenged the shibboleths of biological
> egalitarianism.

Document this.

This may well have occurred within the literary and political academic
communities; certainly _that_ much is stipulated.

But scientists have their own academic associations and principles, and
accepting laughable non-science is something that scientists do not readily
do.

I well remember when in the early 1980s a huge backlash arose in the
scientific community when the American Association for the Advancement of
Science's _Science_ periodical actually printed editorials calling for the
recognition of Marxism as "the only scientifically-originated theory of
governance" and about 90 percent of hard-sciences investigators assiduously
sought to be published _anyplace but_ the (and I quote a very common
expression) "goddamned pinko AAAS".

>
> As the Stalinist-Lysenkoist myth of biological egalitarianism gained
> ground,

It _never_ gained ground! It was laughed at outright, everywhere except in
Russia!

> it began to inhibit not only individual scholars but also
> grant-making foundations. Even foundations which had been originally
> established by eugenic-oriented benefactors, such as the Carnegie
> Institute and the Kellogg Foundation, began to eschew support for
> research that might favor genetic rather than exclusively
> environmental solutions to human problems. For a while, only a very
> few foundations, such as the March of Dimes, remained interested in
> funding scientific research into the relationship between heredity and
> environment in a detached and unbiased manner, free from deliberate
> attempts to deny the importance of heredity in determining the
> behavioral proclivities of the individual. Consequently, research into
> human genetics was largely limited to medical genetics, a subject to
> which we shall shortly return.

ALL GENETICS ARE MEDICAL GENETICS!

Even where there apparently are genetic causes for specific disorders,
they're generally far from being the "exclusive cause" that you seem to
believe they are.

> Few grant-making foundations groups
> other than the small, New York based Pioneer Fund were willing to
> contribute to non-medical behavioral genetic research in such valuable
> areas as twin studies. During the dark post World War II period, the
> Pioneer Fund massively assisted Thomas Bouchard's ground-breaking
> Minnesota twin and adoption studies program, Tony Vernon's Ontario
> twin studies program, much of the work of Berkeley psychologist Arthur
> Jensen, as well as research into such topics as Linda Gottfredson's
> studies of the impact of heredity in the workplace.
>
> The Revival of Interest in Genetics
> Despite the post-Boasian malaise which continued to spread throughout
> the social sciences as a result of the post-World War II victory of
> Marxian anti-hereditarian concepts, a few outstanding scientists
> nevertheless continued to do key research into the critical role of
> heredity in shaping human personality and abilities, and even into the
> relationship between intelligence and the level of civilization.
> Typical of these was the world-renowned botanist and geneticist, C. D.
> Darlington, author of numerous books including The Genetics of Man
> (1964) and The Evolution of Man and Society (1969), who warned that
> selection changed the character of the world's population in every
> generation, and that "[t]he nation which takes most serious thought
> for its own genetic future is, therefore, most likely to have a
> future".5

And he made that remark in the context, I believe, of containing radioactive
wastes from getting into the groundwater!

> In 1968 F. Osborn argued for the increasing need for
> eugenics to replace the reduced role of nature in eliminating harmful
> genes from the human gene pool in a well-worked book entitled The
> Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modem
> Society. Similarly John R. Baker, emeritus reader in cytology at
> Oxford University, compiled a landmark study entitled Race (1974).
> This catalogued human subspecies and populations around the world and
> throughout recorded history, and linked these to the different levels
> of civilization attained by humankind.

And _he_ got laughed at, himself, as a leftist.

>
> C. H. Waddington also published two significant books at this time,
> The Evolution of an Evolutionist (1975) and The Man-Made Future
> (1978), but it was E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
> (1978) that truly created shock waves amongst the ensconced
> egalitarians. This was shortly followed by Berkeley psychologist
> Arthur R. Jensen, who more than almost any other contemporary
> psychologist was responsible for bringing the role of heredity to the
> attention of social scientists by his paper entitled "How Much Can We
> Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" which took up virtually an
> entire issue of the Harvard Educational Review in 1969.6 His
> subsequent books, notably Genetics and Education (1972), explained the
> importance of genetics in determining human intelligence in even
> greater detail.

And this at a date when they hadn't even the concept of "genome", much less
had sequenced any genes.

> Another notable scholar who pressed for serious
> research in this area, but was howled down by the media and organized
> Marxist groups on campuses wherever he sought to lecture, was the
> Nobel Prize-winning physicist and co-inventor of the transistor,
> William B. Shockley, many of whose writings on the subject have been
> reproduced in the book Shockley on Eugenics and Race (Pearson, 1992).
> 7

Shockley, for all of his contributions in electronics, was not a geneticist,
nor a psychologist. He was in fact known as a "crank" in almost all matters
outside of physics.

>
> Major public attention was also drawn to the subject of human heredity
> by Richard J. Herrnstein of Harvard University, with his now-famous
> Atlantic Monthly article (1971) and his book IQ in the Meritocracy
> (1973), on the heritability of intelligence and its increasingly
> critical role in today's complex civilization. He explained that, as
> intelligence is largely hereditary, an inborn lack of ability would
> bar certain individuals from career success, and that, as technology
> advanced, "biological stratification" would become increasingly
> obvious. More recently Herrnstein co-authored with Charles Murray of
> the American Enterprise Institute The Bell Curve: Intelligence and
> Class Structure in American Life (1994), which was completed shortly
> before his death from cancer in September 1994. This has had an even
> greater impact on the public and scholastic world alike - despite an
> organized and devastatingly adverse media reaction by committed
> egalitarians who saw their moral base crumbling beneath them. The two
> authors warned that today's massive social problems cannot be solved
> without recognizing the role of heredity in determining the limits of
> human behavior, including its impact on social issues such as crime,
> illegitimacy, welfare dependence, productivity, and social
> stratification. Differential birthrates, they pointed out, impact on
> national intelligence, and the failure of school integration and other
> experiments intended to raise group educational performance despite
> massive governmental expenditures can only be understood in light of
> the essentially hereditary basis of human abilities.

That's one possible interpretation.

But a better one was to recognize that if you raise multiple generations
receiving handouts, they get lazy. Hence the end of Welfare as we know it.

> Although American
> academe has lost a powerful voice with the passing of Herrnstein,
> other writers and scholars, particularly those associated with medical
> research, are now turning more and more to genetic research to explain
> behavioral problems that refuse to yield to environmental solutions.8
> Some of this work has been summarized in Race, Evolution and Behavior:
> A Life History Perspective by the noted Guggenheim scholar, J.
> Philippe Rushton.9
>
> These and other scientists have since produced a wealth of evidence
> demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt

Have they? Cites please. I'll take abstracts from any recognized
peer-reviewed journal.

> the gross absurdity of
> biological egalitarianism, and shown how many environmentally-based
> social programs could have seriously dysgenic implications. The even
> more dramatic possibility is that with the present demographic
> international trends the percentage of the intellectually well-endowed
> members of the total world population is likely to undergo a dramatic
> decline relative to those who are less-well endowed in this respect.

I really don't know how to answer this... except to say that if you're so
smart and you're so concerned about your children being surrounded by
dummies, why don't you just go pick up a bunch of idiots and knock 'em up
and "spread your blessings". as it were.

>
> Twin Studies Reveal the Role of Heredity in Shaping Human Personality

Regarding schizophrenia, mostly.

> In the field of psychology, twin studies in particular have produced a
> collation of data which demolishes the fanciful theories of the
> proponents of biological egalitarianism, providing objective and
> quantitatively measurable evidence substantiating the importance of
> heredity in determining human behavioral potential. The Minnesota Twin
> Studies project has shown that the evidence supporting the existence
> of genetic influences upon human cognitive abilities, as well as on
> general aspects of personality, is overwhelming. As one of the
> researchers, Nancy Segal, has reported, the degree of similarity
> between twins reared apart in different environments is much greater
> than between fraternal twins raised in the same family. The results of
> personality tests also reveal striking similarities in cases such as
> that of the personality profiles of a set of identical twins, one of
> whom had been raised in Trinidad by a Jewish father and the other in
> Germany by a Catholic mother. Medical life histories also provide
> extremely powerful evidence of the importance of genetic influences on
> behavior. Brain patterns show a higher degree of similarity between
> identical twins reared apart than between fraternal twins reared
> apart, and medical and even dental case histories show a close
> parallel even where identical twins have been reared under quite
> separate circumstances.10

Since they're clones, it's hardly surprising.

what's a lot more interesting are the studies done on fraternal twins raised
in the same environment, considerably more germane to your line of argument.

>
> Thus, identical twins separated by adoption after birth and reared in
> disparate environments reveal strong similarities which
> environmentalists cannot explain away. In fact, the similarity in
> personality and intellectual ability of identical twins reared apart
> is little different from the similarity shown by identical twins
> reared together.11

Possibly because they're clones.

> These traits include not only shared psychological
> and vocational interests, but even psychological proclivities such as
> conservatism, sociability, self-control, flexibility and religiosity
> as measured by academically accepted standards of assessment. This
> suggests that the members of distinct breeding populations (i.e. gene
> pools) must be expected to inherit diverse proclivities for different
> kinds of cultural behavior,

It absolutely does not.

It absolutely doesn't because those distinct breeding populations are
nowhere as genetically similar as are two clones!

> and that patterns of life style and even
> the character of developed civilizations might well be shaped by
> inherited personality biases in addition to the obvious limitations
> imposed by disparate levels of intelligence.12 As a result, committed
> egalitarians such as Leon Kamin strive to denigrate the findings of
> twin research such as that conducted at the University of Minnesota by
> suggesting that twins reared apart might "have particularly strong
> motives to downplay previous contacts and to exaggerate
> similarities."13 One suspects that these critics are pushing their
> arguments beyond the limits of their own logic, and that they know in
> their own minds that such twins could hardly fabricate similar brain
> waves, blood pressure, heart rate, cardiovascular functioning,
> pulmonary functioning, electrodefinal response amplitude, occurrence
> of dental cavities, and reaction time to various novel tasks - and
> that such physiological similarities as these could not be modified by
> occasional or even frequent meetings, had these in fact taken place.

You have to expect clones to be almost identical in almost every way.

they represent two instances of the same genome.

A race of people mostly represent one heck of a lot of genomes which share
probably three or four (at most, out of millions) of genes which produce
superficial "racial markers".

It is grossly improper in scientific terms to draw from a small exceptional
case, to a universal non-exceptional set of cases.

>
> Blood Groups and DNA
> The days when pro-egalitarian propagandists, totally disregarding what
> was known even in their time, could persuasively argue that individual
> and group differences were "only skin deep" are gone forever. The days
> when it was claimed that the technique of blood transfusions, first
> widely practiced in World War I, demonstrated the egalitarian unity of
> all members of the human race are also gone, for it is now known that
> while some of the major blood groups are shared by all races, they are
> also shared with primates and various other mammals. During World War
> II great emphasis was laid by egalitarian propagandists upon the fact
> that the A, B, AB and O blood groups (so essential for successful
> blood transfusion) could be found among all human races, without
> realizing that these basic blood group categories were shared by
> virtually all human populations, but were also shared with other
> primate and mammalian species. Indeed, the vast majority of human
> nucleotide bases, out of an estimated total of some three billion, are
> shared with other non-human life forms: it has been estimated that of
> these three billion only between two to ten million differ from person
> to person. According to one estimation of genetic relationship, human
> DNA differs from Chimpanzee DNA by no more than 1.6 per cent overall.
> It is time that we stopped promoting the specious concept of the
> uniformity of humankind, and on the one hand recognized the unity of
> humankind with the primates and all other living organisms, while on
> the other hand appreciating the immense significance of what have
> hitherto been regarded as relatively small differences between human
> individuals and human breeding populations.

And there is a point to the fact the human diversity is a tiny slice atop a
mountain of shared essentials of all living-theing's _metabolic codes_?

>
> As John H. Beckstrom commented in 1993:
>
> All humans alive today share, in common, the vast majority of their
> genes. But over and above those genes that prevail in the entire
> species, additional gene commonality exists between close relatives
> because they received their genes from close ancestors whom they have
> in common . . . 'familial' genes." (Beckstrom 1993, p.15)

Well _DUH_!

>
> Thus, with respect to blood groups it is now common knowledge that not
> only does the frequency of distribution of blood groups vary from one
> population to another, but that many populations, especially
> genetically isolated populations such as certain South American Indian
> and Central African tribes, Lapps and Inuit, reveal rare blood group
> polymorphisms which are unique to their own populations, distinguished
> as these populations are by different evolutionary histories. Such
> distinctive genotypes are to be expected among groups separated by
> long periods of genetic evolution.

This is incredibly basic 9th-grade introductory biology. Is there a point to
this?

>
> Numerous human microraces or breeding populations possess blood groups
> which are unique to their members.

Mutations are also known to exist.

> That it was possible to classify
> races by blood groups was early revealed by William C. Boyd in his
> Blood Group and the Races of Man: An Introduction to Modem Physical
> Anthropology (Boston, Little Brown. 1950), by A. E. Mourant in his The
> Distribution of Human Blood Groups (Oxford, Blackwells, 1954), and
> confirmed by a host of later researchers. Mourant's work showed that
> contrary to popular biological propaganda, some blood groups were
> unique to particular populations. Since then the courts of law have
> come to accept genetic evidence when faced with legal disputes
> regarding paternity; and it is now widely recognized that marked
> variations in the frequency of specific blood groups distinguish
> genetically separate human populations from each other. Furthermore,
> these patterns carry within them a coded guide to the racial history
> of each breeding population.

It's also a history of migrations of populations across land-bridges, etc,
but again, there's a point?

>
> DNA Profiling
> In particular, the ability to analyze and classify human DNA has
> advanced rapidly in recent years, and DNA testing is supplementing if
> not supplanting blood group analysis for forensic purposes. An
> individual's DNA is as unique as his fingerprints, but also indicates
> with which other people he has close genetic kinship or racial links.
> A single hair, a sliver of skin, even a dandruff flake can often
> reveal an individual' s genetic identity. Some artists are reportedly
> incorporating a sample of their DNA into the signatures on their
> paintings to authenticate these and to facilitate the detection of
> forgeries. In this age of unprecedented population growth,14 and the
> resultant invasion of national breeding grounds by the surplus
> population from alien stocks, illegal immigration could be more
> readily controlled through the issue of identity cards impregnated
> with small portions of the carrier' s own unique DNA. This would
> establish a forgery proof method of identification, as well as provide
> a key to the phylogenetic of the individual.

This last is a huge problem. One can know a bit far too much about someone
from that DNA. The possibility of insurance discrimination is, all by
itself, staggering in the implications.

>
> DNA profiling has already begun to be used to assist historians in
> determining the racial history of populations by revealing their
> genetic components. Going well beyond the early studies of A. E.
> Mourant,15 several scholars have worked to throw further light on the
> demographic history of the Jewish diaspora, utilizing blood group
> patterns, genetic polymorphisms and DNA profiles to determine the
> extent to which the different Jewish communities have interbred with
> the diverse local populations amongst which they had resided at
> different times over the centuries.
>
> Even more recently, L. L. Cavalli-Sforza (1988, 1993), with coauthors
> Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazzi, has embarked in The History and
> Geography of Human Genes (1994) on a pioneer odyssey into the
> historical and genetic relationships that demarcate living populations
> of humankind throughout the world. Although based on a mere 120
> alleles drawn from only 42 living populations, this study points the
> way to further research which in time could untangle the complex web
> of historic migration and genetic admixture with a degree of precision
> which would have been impossible with the more primitive techniques
> known to physical anthropologists just fifty years ago. Summarizing
> the worldwide data in a singular 42 by 41 matrix illustrating genetic
> distance, Cavalli- Sforza and his co-authors find that the English
> differ from the Danes, Germans and French by a mere 21-25 measures of
> genetic distance, whereas they differ from North American Indians by
> 947 points, from the African Bantu by 2288 and from Mbuti Pygmies by
> 2373. An erstwhile dedicated environmentalist, Cavelli-Sforza,
> genuflects in a few mandatory paragraphs to the crusade against
> "racism," but concludes that the collected data show that "North
> Eurasians," - a term he uses to group Europeans, Mongols, Japanese,
> Koreans, and Northern Chinese - are more closely related to each other
> than to Africans and Australoids. 16 In short, their findings as to
> the degree of similarity and difference between surviving populations
> of Homo sapiens are essentially parallel to those of the older-school
> physical anthropologists represented by Carleton Coon.17

And there is a point to this astounding recitation of BIO-101?

>
> Interestingly, this latest Cavelli-Sforza study supports the findings
> of mitochondrial DNA research, which implies that at one time the
> ancestors of all living hominids originated in Africa, and that the
> major racial differences arose as a result of an early migration of
> certain hominid groups out of Africa. These were subjected to
> subsequent rapid evolution in colder more northerly zones, while those
> that remained in Africa were not affected by the selective forces
> associated with the harsher new environment. This is illustrated by
> the evidence of DNA which reveals a primary divide between the
> contemporary sub-Saharan populations, whose ancestors remained in
> Africa, and those that evolved their present genetic characteristics
> in Eurasia, under different and presumably more challenging
> environments.

And this monograph was written before they discovered that there are in fact
_several_ familes of "Mitochondrial Eves". There have been migrations into
and out of Africa about every 10,000 years.

>
> The Human Genome Project
> The growing appreciation of the role of genetic forces in determining
> human qualities has consequently led in recent years to the
> establishment of numerous human genome research projects.18 Despite
> the hangover of anti-biological environmentalism still found in the
> social sciences, this project is focusing the attention of the more
> perceptive scientists on the reality of human biology. Breakthroughs
> in molecular biology have made possible the construction of a human
> genome map, consisting of a schematic representation of each
> chromosome, showing the bands and the approximate location of each of
> thousands of genes. Work is advancing continuously in several
> different countries on the construction of genetic linkage maps, with
> special attention to those responsible for human defects, tracing the
> loci assignable to specific human chromosomes. Already, a database
> comprising over 6,000 loci, including anonymous DNA segments, has been
> constructed by those engaged on the U.S. project, with work also
> progressing in Britain and other countries. This has been vastly
> facilitated by computers, for the development of which science owes an
> eternal debt to that much-maligned genius, William Shockley, who
> headed the small three-man team which made a breakthrough in
> developing the transistor and who, ironically, was castigated for
> urging the need to research the genetic basis of human personality in
> order to enable humankind to guard against dysgenic decay.

And Shockley's being a "crank" has exactly _what_ to do with J. Craig
Venrnter's Celera project?

>
> While the human genome project already points to new strategies to
> diagnose, treat and prevent human diseases, and may be expected to
> become the basis of extensive medical benefits for posterity, its
> utility in revealing human ancestry should not be overlooked.

In a short phrase: Why The Fuck Should Anyone Care.

>
> The genome project has two major implications: firstly the potential
> for promoting eugenic remedies by pointing to the genetic
> predisposition to disease as distinct from the actual occurrence of
> disease; and secondly, the light that it promises to throw on the
> nature and extent of human racial diversity. As Marc A. Lappe has
> said,

And who the hell is Marc A. Lappe?

>
> The products of the genome project may throw into stark relief the
> paradox of a society based on the premise of equal standing at
> creation and one that is found to be composed of a genetically
> heterogeneous group of subpopulations with quantitatively different
> frequencies of heritable traits. As a society, we will have to ask if
> we can in fact collect information that reveals these individual
> differences and still continue to treat all individuals the same. . .
> .
>
> What is clear is that even a partial picture of the genetic landscape
> that defines the molecular differences among human individuals will
> reveal more its nonuniformity than its hoped for universality.19

And how is this clear?

>
> Human racial history is being clarified: as new gene sequences are
> revealed by the genome project it is possible to cross-relate them
> with detailed maps of other genetic loci in the genome. This
> increasingly facilitates a more complete picture of gene action and
> the analysis of polygenic traits, which are so important to any true
> picture of the character of distinctive human breeding populations. As
> the history of genes is traced, the genetic profile of different
> breeding populations is becoming much sharper.20

And this helps or harms anyone _how_?

>
> The human genome project helps to remind us that we are, after all,
> biological organisms just like other animals, and even plants. It
> should make us realize that we need to bring ethics into line with
> biological reality, into line with the reality of evolution and the
> universe. It is essential that human culture and human ethics should
> be in line with the realities of the universe, and those realities
> include our own human biological nature. It should also serve to
> remind us that racial or genetic differences are real and important,
> and that the culture on which we rely for survival itself depends on
> biology and hence on our genetic heritage. The uniqueness of each
> individual' s genetic makeup is thus today well-established. DNA
> fingerprinting is so distinctive that the likelihood that an
> individual member of even that widely heterogeneous group contained
> within what we call the Caucasoid race may have the same DNA imprint
> as another is something in the region of one in a hundred million, and
> between individuals of different races this possibility becomes
> virtually zero. However, to date less publicity has been given to the
> significance of the fact of group differences in the frequency of
> major genetic loci.

And that significance _is_?

>
> Contrary to previous egalitarian supposition and propagandizing,
> significant genetic differences distinguish historically isolated
> populations or gene pools. A prime question for the future is the
> extent to which historically separate populations, some of which have
> evolved further in certain directions than others, will be able to
> preserve their distinct genetic characteristics in an increasingly
> overcrowded and mobile world. Evolution was able to proceed amongst
> hominids, as amongst other life forms, as a result of genetic
> isolation, which was initially facilitated by geographic isolation.

Resulting in adaptation to environment, etc etc, but so far, nothing
resembling speciation has occurred.

> Only after geographic isolation had created a wide variety of
> subspecies

There are no human subspecies unless you want to go all of the way beck to
_homo habilis_.

> and quasi-subspecies possessing markedly different
> genotypes did subspecific or "race" prejudice - - what C. G. Simpson
> (1971, 1980) describes as a psychological restraint on cross-breeding

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> - come into being as an evolutionary mechanism serving to preserve
> subspecific identity amongst increasingly mobile species.21

If the subspecies are increasingly mobile, then there's no good evolutonary
reason for them to retain traists _specific to the climate that selected
preferentially for those traits_.

> The
> co-habitation of individuals of diverse genetic origin in the same
> geographical location, and the probable further decline of "race
> prejudice," may reverse the prehistoric evolutionary trend toward
> subspeciation and initiate a reversal of nature's evolutionary
> tactics.

Good. With all of the racists out there, I can't imagine what they'd do if
there was a New Species of hominid sharing the earth with them. Oh, actually
I _can_ imagine it. http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/tracy.html

> William Shockley, whom we mentioned earlier,

And whom the world has dismissed as a "crank" outside of his formative
discoveries in solid-state electronics,

> was deeply
> concerned with the possibility that indiscriminate mating could result
> in dysgenic trends which would effectively usher in a period of human
> "devolution. "

Oh, it's possible. But it's far more likely that since we use tools to
change our environments insted of our environments evolving us, failure to
be exposed to Darwinian risks will devolve us far faster than race-mixing
might.

>
> Opposition to the Human Genome Project
> Biological egalitarians are fearful that the knowledge acquired as a
> result of the human genome project will destroy the plausibility of
> their universalist ideology. They are particularly concerned about the
> revival of scientific interest in group differences which will
> unavoidably result from the construction of 'demic maps' tracing the
> genetics of regional populations of different evolutionary ancestry
> since these will reveal the true extent of group differences in
> genetic potential.

Why should this be worrisome?

> Such maps will trace the varied genetic heritage of
> human demes (breeding populations or micro-races) with scientific
> precision; and by throwing a sharp and revealing light on what had
> hitherto been a debatable area of human knowledge will explode the
> anti-evolutionary myth of universal biological uniformity.

That would in fact be quite desirable because at long last the scientific
community will be able to slap you down with science that even you can
accept.

And in no case does _anyone_ support the theory that humans are biologically
uniform. We're very _similar_. If we were biologically uniform, we'd be a
species of clones.

>
> Such people apparently regard equality before the law as an inadequate
> basis for societal justice, and are prepared to condemn limitless
> numbers of future generations to the evils of ignorance and genetic
> disease in order to protect the egos of those who are alive today.

This author is out of their mind.

Nobody except for racists/seperatists is against depending on equality
before the law.

> Egalitarian activists such as Barbara Faye Waxman have complained that
> the human genome project will foster a revival of negative eugenics.
> They appear to be unconcerned about the fate of future generations and
> - either consciously or unconsciously - willing to doom untold
> billions to genetically-dictated misery to satisfy their own
> biologically unreal concept of morality.

Actually, the fear is that people with one predisposition to something quite
rare and _almost guaranteed to be activated only by environmental factors_
(such as oncogenic sensitivity to a particular solvent, etc) will be
unfairly targeted by insurance companies.

>
> It was therefore not surprising that, when in 1988 the European
> Commission proposed the establishment of a human genome project to aid
> predictive medicine, an anti-eugenic coalition immediately sprang into
> existence and succeeded in inducing the European Parliament to
> establish a committee to report on the proposal.

And excellent idea.

>
> The rapporteur appointed for the committee was a certain Benedikt
> Harlin - a member of the Green Party, which has strongly opposed
> genetic research and the genome project. The Harlin report
> consequently recommended that tight restrictions be imposed on
> scientific research into human genetics, seemingly preferring to live
> in an age of darkness. The Green Party, for all its laudable claims to
> protect the non-human environment, turns a blind eye upon the ongoing
> destruction of the human genetic heritage,

_What_ ongoing destruction of the human genetic heritage?

> arguing that the prime
> responsibility of the European Parliament is to block any eugenic
> trends that might result from human genome research. The ultimate
> result was that the project was severely emasculated, narrowing the
> opportunities of securing information helpful to predictive medicine,
> prohibiting both human germ line research and eugenic intervention -
> with a portion of the approved money being diverted to fund "ethical
> issues arising from genome research." Cynics might well see this
> latter as a carrot offered to scientific Luddites.
>
> Genetics and Modern Medical Practice
> Progress in genetic science is also transforming medical science by
> facilitating new opportunities for the remedial treatment of genetic
> defects, and by offering the possibility of reducing human suffering
> by identifying fetuses suffering from severe incurable defects at the
> prenatal stage. Medical geneticists have identified the genetic roots
> of numerous illnesses, and family medical history records are now
> increasingly important in assisting the medical fraternity to
> determine appropriate courses of treatment. Such records have usually
> been poorly kept, however, and the knowledge that can be gained
> therefrom is far from definitive as an indicator of genetic defects or
> weaknesses in individual offspring.

> Eugenic decisions are far more
> precise when the phenotype of the infant can be examined by means of
> techniques such as ultrasound sonar examination.

This last canot be stressed strongly enough.

> By this process an
> ultrasound transducer is placed on the mother's abdomen and sound
> waves travelling through the amniotic sac will reveal the size and
> shape of the fetus within the womb. In addition, laparoscopy has been
> developed, which involves the use of a flexible fiberscoptic rod,
> inserted through the abdomen, which in addition to permitting an
> examination of the abdominal cavity and fallopian tubes, makes it
> possible to obtain blood samples from the fetus which can then be
> analyzed for evidence of genetically determined diseases.
>
> Another technique utilized today in promoting practical eugenic
> treatment is amniocentesis. This involves the extraction of a small
> quantity of amniotic fluid, which carries in it cells shed by the
> fetus, and these reveal the genetic make-up of the fetus. Already,
> some genetic defects can be cured, while others may be deemed
> sufficiently serious to indicate the desirability of terminating the
> pregnancy.22
>
> However, for those concerned with the transmission of a healthy gene
> pool to future generations, we must not forget that there are two
> sides to advances in medicine: improved medical skills that help the
> individual to overcome genetic handicaps are commended by all, but at
> the same time they often heighten the chances that the genetic
> problems responsible for the condition will be passed on to future
> generations. Medical science does not benefit mankind when it has
> dysgenic impact -when it defeats nature's normal tendency to reduce
> the likelihood of harmful genes being transmitted in perpetuity to
> future generations or when it assists organisms which are genetic
> "basket cases" to evade nature's sifting mechanism and to pass on
> their collation of inferior or deleterious genes as a curse laid on
> future generations.
>
> However, many who inherit the finest collection of genes are also
> cursed by a genotype that includes one or more dysfunctional genes.
> Clearly, modern medicine increases the likelihood that harmful genes
> will be transmitted to future generations; and the permeation of our
> society with such genes is now so advanced that it is imperative that
> geneticists should be encouraged - not discouraged - to search for
> techniques which will make it possible to substitute healthy genes for
> faulty genes. There is no reason why it should not soon be possible to
> substitute healthy genes for many dysfunctional genes.

Absolutely agreed.

>
> The Enhanced Potential for Positive Eugenics
> Both eugenic approaches, "negative" (the reduction of harmful genes in
> the gene pool) and "positive" (an increase in the percentage of
> "healthy" genes in the gene pool), are currently being greatly
> facilitated by modern science, and an increasing number of medical
> personnel are already making eugenic choices in the conduct of their
> duties. When eugenics first became popular, genetic knowledge was too
> limited to facilitate negative eugenics in any but the most crude
> manner, and much was done that was tragic, and sometimes repulsive.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Can you say... Hitler?

> Without getting into the history of legally enforced sterilization,
> there were also many instances where individuals of superior genetic
> quality were persuaded not to have offspring where there was reason to
> believe that a solitary defective gene had revealed itself in the
> phenotype of a family member. Today there is an increasing ability to
> detect genetic defects in foetuses, and the future holds the
> possibility of "genetic surgery" to replace deleterious genes with
> healthy genes, thus making it possible to free future generations from
> certain specific weaknesses in a discriminating fashion. Thus
> competent individuals whose genotype is cursed by only simple genetic
> problems may in future be able to contribute their superior genes to
> posterity without fear of transmitting genetic defects which are
> identifiable and subject to manipulation by such techniques. We can
> now look forward to the days when the breeding of reliably more
> healthy and competent stock can be promoted by ethically sound medical
> intervention.
>
> As another example of what can be done, in vitro fertilization has
> already become common practice in Western countries when married
> couples who wish to have children are prevented from doing so by the
> infertility of one of the prospective parents. Such situations offer a
> perfectly moral opportunity to influence the course of human evolution
> in a rational and eugenic manner, by ensuring that the couple should
> have available to them a choice of germinal donors of healthy and
> genetically sound stock. It was Hermann J. Muller who first widely
> publicized the idea of establishing repositories for germinal plasma
> as a means of maintaining eugenic quality; and it was Dr. Robert K.
> Graham (an ophthalmologist who aided mankind by developing the
> scratch-resistant plastic lens) who converted Muller's idea into a
> reality. Aided by an advisory panel of medical specialists and
> geneticists, Graham established the Repository of Germinal Choice in
> Escondido, California, in 1980. Here, would-be parents can obtain
> germinal plasma of high quality and be advised of the physical and
> mental qualities of a donor's family background (without, of course,
> being informed of the donor's name). Up to the time of writing, the
> Repository has already been responsible for the birth of several
> hundred bright, lively, and healthy infants. 23
>
> Critique of the Neo-Lysenkovian Opposition to Eugenics
> The morality of this technique does not prevent those whom Bernard
> Davis dubbed "scientific Luddites" - because they sought to restrict
> research into behavioral genetics - from continuing to condemn even
> the mildest of voluntary eugenic programs such as this, seeking to
> ridicule such programs at every opportunity.24 Such opponents of
> eugenics prefer to overlook the words of the young woman who was
> tested and found to be free of the gene for Huntington's disease, who
> stated that:
>
> After 28 years of not knowing, it's like being released from prison.
> To have a hope for the future . . . to be able to see my
> grandchildren. (Jerry E. Bishop and Michael Waldholz, 1990, p. 274).
>
> Unfortunately, while knowledge can help us to perceive the human
> condition more clearly and to evaluate the results of our behavior,
> human beings unfortunately do not always act rationally. As J. Murphy
> observes (1982, p. 100), the ends that individuals accept as ultimate
> goals "are given by the passions and, at this level, reason is the
> slave of the passions." Only a passion that takes into consideration
> the welfare of those yet to be born is justifiable in moral terms. It
> is the welfare of the entire phylogenetic continuum, not the of the
> individual alone, that should shape our passions and our morality.
>
> Apart from the obvious outward physical differences which distinguish
> the diverse human breeding populations, behavioral tendencies which
> have major importance for determining the viability of civilization
> and for the better scientific understanding of the universe also seem
> to have a predominantly genetic basis. We do not here refer solely to
> intelligence, of enormous significance as all must surely concede that
> quality to be. The ability to direct one's actions toward achieving
> long-term goals, rather than to yield to the siren call of instant
> gratification, is another of the many qualities that are of supreme
> importance to modern man. General physical health and the propensity
> for properly directed altruistic behavior are other desirable
> qualities which also have strong genetic roots. On the other hand,
> specific diseases, sociopathic behavior and many forms of mental
> illness similarly have a genetic basis, and call for the attention of
> eugenicists. The genetic basis of such behavioral traits is likely to
> be complex or polygenic, but the study of animal models as well as of
> human twins has shown that all biological characteristics have a
> genetic basis, and that the environment can only work on the material
> provided by heredity, occasionally modified by mutation.
>
> The argument against eugenics is based on the clearly erroneous
> assumption that genes are spread evenly throughout human populations,
> or in more extremes cases, on the idea that no one gene is more
> desirable than another. Such views would imply a degree of genetic
> panmixia which could not have existed in evolutionary time; otherwise
> evolution could not have occurred. It has been said that when a
> species is reduced to a single subspecies (e.g. panmixia), it is
> nearing extinction.

It was said by whom? And what are their credentials?

> Long-term evolutionary survival is by way of
> speciation and this necessarily involves subspeciation.

No it does _not_. It requires the greatest avaible genetic diversity within
a population, and when some calamity decimates a local population
sufficiently so as to wipe out all but those with a certain gene or set of
genes, repeatedly, until the differences make interfertile matings between
those with the genes and those without them.

> Evolution
> cannot occur unless "favorable" genes are segregated out from amongst
> "unfavorable" genetic formulae. The entire history of evolution from
> biological simplicity to biological complexity and from biological
> uniformity to biological diversity involves genetic segregation just
> as it involves genetic selection. Furthermore, human behavior is
> shaped by environmental forces operating on the genetically determined
> potential, and we should remember that even the capacity to learn from
> accumulated culture is genetically influenced.25

Barely. The classic example of this is Down's Syndrome or acerebria.

>
> Examples of legislation that has been successfully introduced to
> suppress the utilization of genetic science can be found in many
> states. In some states, such as Wisconsin and Iowa, genetic screening
> as a basis of employment is illegal [Iowa Code Ann. 729-6 (West 1992),
> Wisconsin Statutes 111.372 (1991-1992)]; while a Louisiana Statute
> (La. Rev. Stat. #9: 122) rules that "a viable in vitro fertilized
> human ovum is a juridical person which shall not be intentionally
> destroyed?
>
> It is entirely true that the opportunity to interfere with nature - in
> the wilful selection by parents, for example, of the sex of their
> offspring - could lead to serious social problems if foolishly
> applied; but on the whole, knowledge must be deemed always to be
> desirable, and the search for knowledge about human heredity should
> not be suppressed or discouraged at the whim of the scientific
> Luddites. How humankind chooses to use this knowledge is a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> sociological and philosophical problem, not an argument for
> suppressing knowledge. We are on the verge of a new phase in the
> history of genetics, one which has major implications for the possible
> future of mankind provided political forces do not prevent the
> utilization of this knowledge and that contemporary dysgenic processes
> do not deprive future generations of an adequate proportion of those
> very genes which make that possibility a reality.
>
> Concluding Remarks
> The genome project is clearly exposing the fallacious assumptions on
> which the egalitarian cult is based. The idea that the individuals
> that comprise any society - particularly a multi-racial society, which
> by definition will be genetically more heterogeneous than one
> comprising individuals who share a common ancestral heritage - could
> be of uniform biological potential is exposed as a fabrication, a
> logical absurdity. Equality before the law remains a realistic social
> goal, but equality of ability can never be a biological reality,
> except between identical twins. Some individuals - especially in a
> more heterogeneous society -will possess genetically determined mental
> and physical qualities which will enable them to be more creative,
> more productive, or physically more healthy than others, even when the
> cultural or environmental playing field is level. If that were not the
> case, there could have been no possibility of evolution. The belief
> that humankind could benefit from being levelled into a single
> subspecies also flouts the laws of evolution, since evolution is
> rooted in differentiation.
>
> The need for eugenic intervention is today increasingly urgent due to
> the fact that human culture and human technology have blunted nature'
> s biological pruning knife. At all times a degree of genetic selection
> is necessary if any breeding population, subspecies or even species is
> to survive, since mutations (mostly harmful) occur continuously.
> Medical intervention is unquestioningly humane when it assists those
> born with genetic handicaps to cope with them, or those who suffer
> from accidental handicaps to survive; but eugenic goals make it highly
> desirable that research aimed at advanced techniques of "genetic
> surgery" be developed to enable the substitution of healthy genes for
> deleterious genes. Too many individuals in contemporary society, of
> high genetic potential, now carry one or two undesirable genes to
> permit us to argue, as the early eugenicists did, that anyone with a
> known genetic defect should simply not reproduce. Yet research aimed
> at techniques for replacing faulty genes with healthy ones is the one
> area of study which anti-eugenicists most stringently oppose.
>
> To foretell the future of eugenics, the question we must ask is: how
> will human societies react once the full truth about individual and
> group genetic ability becomes known? It is arguable that whatever
> happens will be the result of causal forces, not of "free will," since
> there is no reason even to hypothecate the existence of non-causal
> forces in human decision-making, and competing "ethical" concepts are
> probably as causally determined as any other aspect of the real world.
> Unfortunately, nowhere is it written that a society's ethical views or
> any other aspect of its cultural baggage should have eugenic value.
> Only in the long term can we say that dysfunctional ethico- cultural
> systems are doomed to extinction, simply because if they persist they
> will doom the biological communities which are guided by them. There
> is only one law in the universe: that which does not survive ceases to
> exist. Consequently, an ethic which has dysgenic implications will
> eventually eliminate the society which adheres to it. While altruism
> evolved as an evolutionary device that promoted the survival of the
> distinctive gene pool which gave rise to it, any population that
> adopts a perverted or dysgenic form of altruism - one which encourages
> a breeding community to breed disproportionately those of its members
> who are genetically handicapped rather than from those who are
> genetically favored, or which aids rival breeding populations to
> expand while restricting its own birth rate - is unlikely to survive
> into the indefinite future.

Accepted as stipulated.

>
> Once science can determine which individuals and populations have
> disproportionately high gene frequencies for advantageous traits, and
> which are handicapped by deleterious genetic qualities, societies
> which are prompted by a higher altruism dedicated to the wellbeing of
> future generations, rather to the sole gratification of the selfish
> needs of those who are currently living, will be able to effectively
> select eugenic over dysgenic reproduction. If true altruism prevails,
> the result will be eugenic decisions, made voluntarily and without
> coercion. By contrast, if the ethical level is low (a categorization
> in which I would include dysfunctional ethical systems, however
> ardently such devout but unrealistic value systems are held by the
> individual), or the altruistic drive is distorted into unnatural
> directions, then the choices made are likely to be dysgenic.
>
> Timothy H. Goldsmith, the Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Biology at
> Yale University, has stated that "[T]he concept of morality's
> producing the greatest good for the greatest number is consistent only
> when the interests of the individuals are very similar. This has
> probably frequently been the case with small homogeneous groups in
> competition with other groups; it is less obviously so when groups are
> large and heterogeneous."27 He correctly surmises that evolution
> normally involves inter-species competition. However, even in the
> unnatural, highly heterogeneous human communities that are emerging
> today, the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is
> still valid if we raise our horizons from the selfish horizons of our
> own generation to consider the wellbeing of that much vaster number of
> future generations of humanity yet to be born. It is their wellbeing
> that should concern us, not just the wellbeing of those with whom we
> share this crowded planet at the present time.
>
> Forced, state-imposed eugenic systems are wisely feared by many well-
> intentioned people for good reason: human governmental bureaucracies
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> seldom achieve the virtue anticipated by high-minded philosophers such
> as Plato, and tend too often to foster corruption and to permit
> unworthy individuals to seize positions of power and influence.
> Indeed, the leadership of most if not all nations, intellectual as
> well as political, appears to have currently fallen into the hands of
> individuals and pressure groups which promote dysgenic policies that
> match, in their impact upon humanity, the overall destruction of the
> ecosphere which is currently taking place around the world, and which
> few governments or interest groups seem capable of preventing.
> Possibly the best that we can hope for is that an intelligent and
> informed populace, freed from the distorted myth of biological

> egalitarianism and any belief in the near-divinity of humankind as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> either the "apple of God's eye" or the supreme lord of the universe
> who can do no wrong, may exert a realistic and humane influence on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> public policy as to the critical problems today facing humanity.
>
> J. Stan Rowe, in a final chapter to Planet Under Stress: The Challenge
> of Global Change (Editors, Constance Mungall and Digby J. McLaren,
> p.332) writes that if people are regarded as being the central reality
> of the universe
>
> then the sole focus of ethical concerns will be their rights and
> values . . . but if things other than humans are of surpassing
> importance, as today's events lead many of us to suspect, then a new
> purpose - Salvation of this Planet - is revealed . . . [science] has
> inadvertently opened a new chapter in the book of knowledge whose
> dazzling insights can change fundamental ideas about the planet/people
> relationship, about values, and about the way we know the world.
>
> While the present writer shares the same concerns as Rowe, logic
> should make it perfectly clear to even the most anthropocentric of
> philosophers that the fate of mankind as a species requires that we
> recognize the evolutionary realities that govern the workings of the
> universe - a reality in which mankind plays only a very subordinate
> and minor role, and in which the laws governing survival reign
> supreme. Every generation is a genetic bottleneck, holding in its care
> the genetic and environmental heritage bequeathed to it by past
> generations. Nothing would seem more tragic to the present writer than
> the fact that much of the irretrievable harm that this generation is
> wreaking on both the biological and the non-biological character of
> the planet on which all life depends for its survival could be avoided
> if those who are altruistically motivated would only concentrate their
> attention on how their actions will impact on future generations.
> Those who are genuinely motivated by altruistic impulses need to
> extend their horizons to take into consideration not just the
> immediate welfare of our present generation but the greater good of
> that far greater number of individuals hopefully yet to come. Any
> species that adopts patterns of behavior that run counter to the
> forces that govern the universe is doomed to suffer a painful, harshly
> enforced and totally involuntary eugenic process of evolutionary
> reselection and readaptation - or an even more 'severe penalty,
> extinction.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FOOTNOTES
> 1 See The Mankind Quarterly, Volume XXXV Number 3 (Spring 1995) and
> Volume XXXV Number 4 (Summer 1995.
>
> 2 For an explanation of the extent o which misguided altruism
> -altruism that is directed beyond the limits of the individual's own
> genetic breeding pool - can threaten the evolutionary process, and
> with it the very survival of humanity, see Garrett Hardin, The Limits
> of Altruism: An Ecologist's View of Survival 1977, Bloomington, IN:
> Indiana University Press, and subsequent books by the same author.
>
> 3 See Jordan's War and the Breed, published in 1915, during the second
> year of European participation in World War I. This clearly reveals
> the vastly dysgenic effect of modern warfare.
>
> 4 Ibid. Jordan details the impact of World War I on the British
> intelligentsia. The British universities were emptied of their younger
> faculty members, who died in large numbers in the mud of Flanders.
> Typical of the impact was the story of the elite Rugby School, which
> normally had a body of some 600-700 pupils at any one time. In World
> War I over 600 were slain, mostly youths or young men, straight from
> school, unmarried and childless. In short, a number equivalent to the
> entire school body was eliminated in just four years of one of the
> most bloody wars history had ever recorded.
>
> 5 From the conclusion of his article "The Control of Evolution in
> Man," published in The Eugenics Review, Vol. 50, No. 3, October 1958.
>
> 6 HER Vol 39 (1): pp. 1-123.
>
> 7 Roger Pearson, Shockley on Eugenics and Race, 1993, Scott-Townsend
> Publishers, Box 34070, NW Washington DC 20043. Introduction by Arthur
> R. Jensen.
>
> 8 Lay writers also are beginning to explore these subjects and make
> them understandable to the general public. Daniel Seligman, senior
> editor of Fortune, has published a highly readable book called A
> Question of Intelligence (1992) covering what scientists know and do
> not know about intelligence and why intelligence is so important to
> human beings. Although Seligman is not a scientist, the book received
> very positive reviews by scientists Ernest van den Haag, James Q.
> Wilson (1993), and Richard J. Herrnstein (1992). Writer Peter Brimelow
> (1993, 86) of Forbes magazine said that Seligman "defies one of the
> most powerful contemporary taboos" by reporting the importance of
> intelligence and its heritability. Scholar Charles Murray (1992, 63)
> stated that the Seligman book reveals "labyrinthine ramifications for
> our culture and our polity."
>
> 9 New Brunswick: Transactions, 1995.
>
> 10 See Nancy Segal, "The Nature vs. Nurture Laboratory" in Research,
> July/August 1984.
>
> 11 See amongst other literature "Personality Similarity in Twins
> Reared Apart and Together," By A. Tellegin, D.T. Lykken, T.J.
> Bouchard, K. J. Wilcox, N.L Segal and S. Rich, in The Journal of
> Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, No 6 (1988).
>
> 12 There is a mountain of literature dealing with twin studies, but a
> synopsis of the racial implications may be found in "Comment on the
> Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study" by Michael Levin, published in
> Intelligence, Vol 19, 13-20 (1994).
>
> 13 An objection that the similarities between twins might be due to
> contact between twins prior to testing was raised by the dedicated
> biological egalitarianist T. J. Rose, in respect of a sample of
> Finnish twins, but this possibility has been fully considered by T. J.
> Bouchard and Matthew McGue (1990). One leading scholar engaged in twin
> research has observed that the determined effort of Lewontin, Rose and
> Kamin to demonstrate that individual human differences are not
> significantly influenced by genetic factors leads one to believe that
> their writing reflects their ideology and that findings in support of
> significant genetic influences would be threatening to their world
> view.
>
> 14 World population is currently increasing at the rate of some 97
> million annually, and even assuming that the rate of increase will
> decline, it is estimated to reach 10 billion by the year 2050. The
> population of China, where strict attempts are being made to limit
> population growth, is currently 1.25 billion, but even assuming that
> government efforts to restrict population growth continue, the World
> watch Institute projects a Chinese population of 1.66 billion by the
> year 2045. Women in Africa have for some decades been averaging six
> live births per female, whereas in areas like northern Italy and east
> Germany the birthrate is far below replacement level. Whereas the
> population of Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) was around 40
> million when the area was first separated from India only 48 years
> ago, it is today more than 125 million. Needless to say, Bangladesh
> supports this population increase only as a result of massive aid from
> the countries of the Western world, whose share of the world's
> population is annually declining. The population of India increases
> every five or six days by the total population of Europe's oldest
> democracy, Iceland. The changing character of the human population is
> also reflected in disparities in the birthrate between the more
> successful members of industrialized countries and the less
> successful, who worldwide tend to produce more offspring. The
> population of native Europeans is actually declining, and it is
> anticipated that Europeans will eventually be largely replaced by
> increasingly massive immigration from Africa, Asia and the Far East.
>
> 15 See his publication, The Blood Groups of Jews, 1959
>
> 16 In their determination to ignore the traditional anthropometric
> terms which classify living populations along racial lines, Cavelli-
> Sforza and his co-authors have chosen to use purely geographical or
> national terminology, which actually has little to do with genetic
> realities in many parts of the modern world. Yet even though they are
> working with nonracial genetic markers which were chosen because they
> had no known evolutionary implications, the racial patterns that are
> revealed coincide very closely to the conclusion of traditional
> anthropologists. The argument about whether or not "races" exist has
> become purely a matter of semantics - of what exactly the debaters
> understand by the term "race." Distinct gene pools and breeding
> populations have existed since soon after sexual reproduction first
> evolved; otherwise, there could have been no speciation and no
> evolution. If we accept the term "race" in its original sense, as
> referring to any group of people of essentially common ancestry, who
> as a result of mutation, genetic drift or evolutionary selection have
> come to share, to a recognizable extent, certain distinctive genetic
> patterns, the term presents no scientific difficulties whatsoever.
>
> 17 Where contemporary DNA and mitochondrial DNA theorists primarily
> differ from Coon and more traditional physical anthropologists is in
> assessing the antiquity of the race differences which distinguish the
> living populations of Homo sapiens. Coon and many paleontologists
> believe that surviving skeletal evidence indicates that some of the
> present-day racial characteristics, such as the Mongolian
> shovel-shaped incisor, were already present in pre-sapiens populations
> in that area and indicate either separate regional evolution of
> contemporary populations from pre-sapiens ancestors or at least
> significant interbreeding of expanding Homo sapiens populations with
> local pre-sapiens populations. Mitochondrial DNA enthusiasts in
> particular insist that early Homo sapiens populations maintained total
> racial separation, and did not crossbreed with females belonging to
> other subspecies of Homo when expropriating the territories of the
> latter. This raises the old dispute about evolutionary history of the
> Neanderthals (today regarded as sapiens because their distinguishing
> skeletal characteristics can be matched among various extant living
> populations) and their subsequent displacement by Cro-Magnons.
>
> 18 The application of genetic engineering to agricultural and other
> industrial uses is also encouraging the scientific world to appreciate
> the opportunity that is rapidly developing for humankind to plot its
> own destiny.
>
> 19 "Justice and the Limitations of Genetic Knowledge," Marc A. Lappe,
> in Justice and the Human Genome Project, editors T.F. Murphy and Marc
> A. Lappe, California University Press, Berkeley, 1994.
>
> 20 However, in the countries of the Western world the distinctness of
> evolutionary separate populations is becoming more blurred with every
> generation, as a result of out-breeding. This is not happening so
> rapidly in other parts of the world.
>
> 21 Simpson points out that without some mechanism to discourage
> interbreeding (what we call "race prejudice") no subspeciation could
> have occurred among more advanced species whose mobility rendered
> geographical barriers inadequate to sustain evolutionary speciation.
> Since speciation is one of the major factors in evolutionary
> advancement, some kind of psychological barriers had to develop to
> prevent new experimental species from being eliminated at the
> subspecific stage by re-merging their specific collation of genes with
> that of other subspecies. In the absence of biological or culturally
> inspired prejudices, "miscegenation" would eliminate new subspecies
> before they had time to become so genetically differentiated from each
> other that they had lost the biological ability to interbreed.
>
> 22 The Washington Post, September 17, 1995 (p. A3), carries a story
> entitled "After Years of Birth Defects, Pain and Mystery Linger in
> Brownsville." Author Sue Anne Pressley reports on the high rate of
> neurological birth defects in Brownsville, Texas, believed to be
> caused by air pollution from dirty factories in the neighboring
> Mexican town of Matamoros (where maquiladoras and other Mexican
> industry is promoted by trade agreements which enable Mexican
> industries to benefit because of the absence of pollution controls
> corresponding to those which govern U.S. industrial competitors). The
> article reports that among the many serious birth defects recorded in
> Brownsville between 1986 and 1991, 47 involved babies born without
> brains. The ability to detect this condition in fetuses now
> facilitates eugenic abortions, which spare the parents and the
> community much emotional and economic hardship. While the genetic
> defects responsible for anencephalic births are hardly likely to be
> passed on to future generations, many other defects of a less
> crippling but almost equally disastrous effect often do enter the gene
> pool of a population and increase the genetic load of hereditary
> defects which will be passed on to future generations.
>
> 23 An account of the Repository has been provided by Jamieson in an
> article published in The Mankind Quarterly under the title "Concerning
> Scholarly Creativity: Hermann J. Muller and Germinal Repositories"
> (Jamieson, 1993).
>
> 24 Davis likened the opponents of genetic research to the Luddite
> rioters of eighteenth century England, who sought to stop the
> industrial revolution by breaking newly installed machinery.
> Scientific Luddites oppose the search for knowledge even though it
> could free future generations from the dysgenic impact resulting from
> the faulty social policies of today. They do not realize that policies
> rooted in ignorance are far more dangerous for the future of mankind
> than policies based on factual knowledge.
>
> 25 See Beckstrom, 1993, p. 14.
>
> 26 Interestingly, the legislators did not prohibit the freezing of
> such embryos, which in effect renders them non-viable.
>
> 27 The Biological Roots of Human Nature: Forging Links between
> Evolution and Behavior. Timothy H. Goldsmith, p. 123. Oxford
> University Press, New York, 1991.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> References
> Andrews, Lori B.
>
> 1987 Medical Genetics: A Legal Frontier. Chicago: American Bar
> Foundation
>
> 1992 "Torts and the Double Helix: Malpractice Liability for the
> Failure to Warn of Genetic Risks." University of Houston Law Review.
> 29:149- 184
>
> Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr., and Matthew McGue
>
> 1990 "Genetic and Rearing Environmental Influences on Adult
> Personality: An Analysis of Adopted Twins Reared Apart. Journal of
> Personality. 58.1 March.
>
> Beckstrom, John H.
>
> 1993 Darwinism Applied: Evolutionary Paths to Social Goals. Westport,
> CT: Praeger
>
> Bishop, Jerry E., and Michael Waldholz
>
> 1990 Genome: The Story of the Most Astonishing Adventure of our Time
> -The Attempt to Map All the Genes in the Human Body. New York: Simon
> and Schuster. p. 274
>
> Cattell, R. B.
>
> 1972 A New Morality from Science: Beyondism. New York: Pergamon Press
>
> 1982 The Inheritance of Personality and Ability. New York: Academic
> Press
>
> Cavelli-Sforza, L. Luca, Paoio Menozzi and Alberto Piazza
>
> 1994 The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ:
> Princeton University Press
>
> Darlington, C. D.
>
> 1958 "The Control of Evolution in Mall." The Eugenics Review 50:3,
> October
>
> 1964 Genetics and Man. London: George Allen and Unwin
>
> 1969 The Evolution of Man and Society. London: Lowe and Brydone
>
> Haldane, J B. S.
>
> 1924 Daedelus, or The Science of the Future. London: Kegan Paul
>
> Huxley, J.
>
> 1947 Evolution and Ethics. London: Pilot
>
> Jensen, A.R.
>
> 1969 "How Much Can we Boost IQ and Scholarly Achievement?" Harvard
> Education Review. 39; Methuen
>
> 1972 Genetics and Education. London: Methuen
>
> Levin, Michael
>
> 1994 "Comment on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study."
> Intelligence. 19:13-20
>
> Murphy, J.
>
> 1982 Evolution, Morality, and the Meaning of Life. Totowa NJ: Rowman
> and Littlefield.
>
> Murphy, Timothy F., and Marc A. Lappe (Eds.)
>
> 1994 Justice and the Human Genome Project. Berkeley: University of
> California Press.
>
> Osborn, F.
>
> 1968 The Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in
> Modem Society. New York: Weybright and Talley
>
> Rushton,J. Philippe
>
> 1995 Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. New
> Brunswick: Transaction Publishers
>
> Simpson, G. C.
>
> 1971 The Meaning of Evolution. New York: Bantam Books
>
> 1980 Splendid Isolation. New Haven: Yale University Press
>
> Tellegen, Auke, David T. Lykken, Thomas Bouchard, Jr., Kimerly J.
> Wilcox, Nancy L. Segal, Stephen Rich
>
> 1988 "Personality Similarity in Twins Reared Apart and Together."
> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 54, No 6.
>
> Waddington, C. H.
>
> 1975 The Evolution of an Evolutionist. Ithaca: Cornell University
> Press.
>
> 1978 The Man-Made Future. London: Croom Helm
>
> Wilkie, Tom
>
> 1993 Perilous Knowledge: The Human Genome Project and Its
> Implications. Berkeley: University of California Press.
>
> Wilson, E. O.
>
> 1978 Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University
> Press
>
> Zirkle, C.
>
> 1949 Death of a Science in Russia: The Fate of Genetics as Described
> in Pravda and Elsewhere. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
> Press
>
> 1959 Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene. Philadelphia:
> University of Pennsylvania Press Book Review Article

======================================================================
======================================================================
======================================================================
>
>
> Now Mohr. I am sure you can find a politically-influenced liberal
> pack of lies to try and discredit this. But we know your kind will
> lie to ne end to support you dastardly position.

This is somewhat slanted in favor of eugenics and genetic research, but
mostly it's good science outside of the guy's favoring Shockley as someone
with valid input on a field outside his area of expertise...

But I see nothing in that to support your contention that blacks are
inferior.

>
> >> I have also
> >> shown that your kind will lie at every opportunity in order to further
> >> your philosophy.
> >
> >Cite where I have lied. Just try.
>
> Good god. Almost everything you say is a twisted argument meant to
> cloud an issue. Saying that mental funtions are not shaped by
> genetics is not only stupid, it goes against the clear experience of
> every breeder of animals there has ever been. The brain is physical
> Mohr. It is you who needs to show it is somehow separate from the
> body that is shaped by selction and genetics.

It is YOU who need to show the truth of your assertions that blacks are
inferior.

> It coincides with many
> practices in breeding, and therefore is a reasonable assumption.
> And you tell a huge lie when you say that Human populations have not
> been separated long enough for mental differences to occur. The brain
> is physical, and the slightest difference in its shape or size could
> effect its functions. You are not this stupid, so you told a lie. I
> will be nice though and let you decide which one. Are you completely
> stupid, or are you a complete liar? I would guess both.

YOU have yet to show that any major mental differences have in fact
developed. And YOU have yet to show that any which may have developed are
_detrimental_.

>
> > McKinney tries since months, yet he
> >couldn't.
>
> McKinney has been far more reasonable than you. His statements have
> been based on clear, rational observations. Yours, on the other hand,
> have been politically motivated. The willingness of the champions of
> your philosophy to lie and twist the truth has been shown over and
> over.
>
> > I on the other hand can *easily* cite tons of posts where
> >racists lied so heavily that steelbeams bend.
>
> Yeah right Mohr.
>
> >
> >> White liberals in the media refuse to report the
> >> horrors of black on white crime. This alone shows a willingness to
> >> hide the truth when it serves their philosophy. Hundreds of
> >> studies show the IQ difference, and many show it to be genetic.
> >
> >Cite *one* study that gives a causal linkage between IQ and race. Just
> >one.
>
> I gave you one.

THAT STUDY SAYS NOTHING ABOUT IQ AND RACE. NOT A SINGLE THING.

Furthermore, it isn't a Study, it's a Summary and an Opinion.

I don't see where the hell you get off slapping a fairly good is
slightly-political piece of work down and touting an argument for continued
research into genetics as justification for your racist spew.

> Now Mohr. There are many diseases that scientist
> know are handed down genetically from parent to offspring. They
> haven't found the actual gene that causes the disease. Does that mean
> they are stupid for assuming that the disease is genetic in origin?
>
> >
> >> Not
> >> only that Mohr, even an idiot like you can make a simple observation
> >> of the blacks around them. They definitely display an aggressive
> >> posture. They are mentally incapable for the most part.
> >
> >The blacks *I* know are *not* aggressive and they are - intellectually
> >speaking - lightyears ahead of you racists.
>
> yeah yeah yeah. Individuals have no place in this discussion. I, nor
> any other racist has said that there can be no idividually smart
> blacks.
>
> > Can *you* pass an LSAT test
> >among the top 10% nationwide ?
>
> Probably.
>
> > Do YOU have the right to study at any
> >European university without entry exam because of proven academic
> >excellence ?
>
> They are giving that to her because she is black.
>
> >
> >> The history,
> >> the environment, the current status, the IQ tests, the poverty--all
> >> these things can be explained with one simple stroke.
> >
> >Gelding, I told you - history, poverty and such are dangerous arguments
> >for you.
>
> No they aren't Mohr. They are obvious arguments for me. They are
> clear observations that can be used to draw conclusions. just like
> the scientist that conclude a disease can be genetic in cause even
> though they have not isolated the actual gene or genes that cause it.
> We infer from the observations we make. We accept those inferences
> until they are disproven. That is why observation in science is
> important. You can draw a conclusion from even a small amount of
> data. And if more data is added, then the conclusion can be changed.
>
> >- racism has a violent history, and violence is according to you coupled
> >to low IQ
>
> Another lie. Racism is a political idea based on truth. It bears
> little resemblence to the actions of individuals. Our violence is
> directed in a certain way to acheive a certain goal. The violence in
> blacks in indiscriminate and acheives varied goals depending on what
> the black desires at the time. Again, you are either stupid, or you
> are a liar, I think you are both.
>
> >- racism attracts poor people more than rich people, and being poor is
> >coupled to low IQ, according to you.
>
> racism attracks anyone who cares about their people. It is no
> different than any political movement.
>
> >
> >- racism attracts low-educated people far more than highly educated
> >ones, and that again is a sign for low IQ, according to you
> >
> >i.s.w. Racism is an ideology mad by and mad for people with a low IQ.
>
> Wrong. It is a politcal movement. The fact that our universities are
> bastions of leberalism speaks volumes for the so-called "educated."
> What you call educated I call indoctrinated.

Clearly the problem you've got is that you're not educated enough to see
that the monograph your provided has _nothing in it linking race and IQ_.
Nothing. Zip zilch nada.

>
> >
> >> Yet you refuse
> >> to make the obvious conclusion, and you would lie to no end in order
> >> to keep others from doing it. hey, that's a fine philosophy Mohr.
> >
> >Cite, Gelding or be called an idiot.
>
> I have, and you are an idiot.

You have totally misread that entire paper.

You are, in fact, just intelligent enough to prove the adage "a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing".

>
> >
> >< snip >
> >
> >> >Having a phenomenon and presenting a causal explanazion
> >> >without the slightest proof for it.
> >>
> >> There are two things that could effect it: environment and genetics.
> >> Seeing as the genetic explanation would explain almost all of the
> >> other observations about the black race, that is the one that is more
> >> reasonable.
> >
> >Gelding, there is not even clear how much genes contribute to IQ, not
> >even IQ measuring is undisputed and you draw such definite conclusions ?
> >Idiotic.
>
> It is disputed by your own kind Mohr. You know, with a political
> agenda? It is disputed by the kind that would refuse to report
> horrible violent crimes against whites, but would sensationalize a
> white crime against a black. If I can show you a few casses, would
> you admit that your philisophical partners cannot be trusted to be
> reasonable?
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >Gelding, aside that, the IQ of a *race* is irrelevant. Completely
> >> >irrelevant.
> >>
> >> What a stupid statement. It is what is causing the elevated crime
> >> numbers Mohr. Are these peoples lives nothing to you? It is why
> >> blacks cannot function in a modern society anywhere on earth.
> >
> >< snip >
> >
> >> >In short words, she is far brighter than you,
> >>
> >> She comes from a group that has a far lower IQ on average. They
> >> cannot function in a modern, white society. That's all we need to
> >> know.
> >
> >
> >
> >> > McKinney and crusader
> >> >together. So, if you all apply for a job where intelligence is needed,
> >> >what do you think will happen ?
> >>
> >> I think the performance of her group would and should be a factor in
> >> the employer hiring me. he would be proper in taking the stats into
> >> consideration. I would get the job.
> >
> >Gelding, *this* statement alone proves that you are a complete idiot. If
> >an employer hires somebody with approx 20 IQ points less for a job for
> >which highest intelligence is requierd, then this employer is doomed for
> >bankruptcy.
>
> Take it easy Mohr. I was just pulling your chain.
>
> >
> >Gelding, as I said. your argument is very dangerous for you yourself.
>
> My argument is based on observation, and the conclusions I draw are
> reasonable. Anytime you wish to show them to be wrong, then have at
> it. So far, you have done nothing but twist the truth and spout
> silly, liberal, pollitically-motivated concepts.
>
> >Racists as a group have a higher crimerate, have a higher rate of
> >college dropouts and trash. Your own logic applied and judged by the
> >characteristics of your "group", you too are trash.
>
> There's that lie again. I disposed of this earlier.
>
> Gelding

--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be
purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - P. Henry
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/

[klaatu]

Gelding wrote:

>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:07:33 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> >Gelding wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 12:14:00 +0100, Thomas Mohr
> >> <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Gelding wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:47:33 +0100, Thomas Mohr
> >> >> <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Gelding, I have explained again and again and again that *no* causal
> >> >> >realtion between low IQ and race has been established yet. No. Nada.
> >> >> >Keine. All we have are a bunch of studies, nothing else.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I have explained again and again that there are.
> >> >
> >> >Okay, I challenge you to following: Either cite a strudy giving a causal
> >> >correlation between race and IQ or admit that you're too stupid to do
> >> >so. Not citing will result automatically in assuming the latter.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The concept of heredity in Western thought: Part three
> >> from Mankind Quarterly Sept. 1, 1995
> >
> >Slightly dated isn't it? Well, you shall have some comments interspersed.
>

> And your comments are worth what? Wow, I am surprised that you
> couldn't free yourself from the chains of your silly philosophy.

I don't have a silly philosophy, in my opinion -- clearly your opinion
differs.

> Isn't it funny how modern liberal science just seems to fit exactly
> with your nutty philosophy?

Possibly because my "nutty philosophy" is based on science, whereas your
isn't?

You can't have science be valid if you've got preconceived notions which
eliminate the null hypothesis or the falsifiability of a hypothesis, which
you don't allow, thus your hypothesis is tautological and self-proving no
matter what data one plugs into it. Thus, you're practicing bad science if
at all.

> Amazing that our liberal universities
> just happen to find out that their wacko philosophy happens to be
> scientifically correct.
>
> He he, yeah right.

Amazing that you do the exact same thing. Not. Not amazing. Expected.

>
>
> >>
> >> Now Mohr. I am sure you can find a politically-influenced liberal
> >> pack of lies to try and discredit this. But we know your kind will
> >> lie to ne end to support you dastardly position.
> >
> >This is somewhat slanted in favor of eugenics and genetic research, but
> >mostly it's good science outside of the guy's favoring Shockley as someone
> >with valid input on a field outside his area of expertise...
> >
> >But I see nothing in that to support your contention that blacks are
> >inferior.
>

> Inferior? what do you mean by this? I said they have a lower IQ on
> average than whites. I said they are more violent as well. I also
> agreed that these traits would be fine for fighting lions. I said
> that some of these traits would be more valuable than others in
> certain situations. Do you deny this?

I deny that there is a lower IQ average. I also deny the violence as being
hereditary.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >> I have also
> >> >> shown that your kind will lie at every opportunity in order to further
> >> >> your philosophy.
> >> >
> >> >Cite where I have lied. Just try.
> >>
> >> Good god. Almost everything you say is a twisted argument meant to
> >> cloud an issue. Saying that mental funtions are not shaped by
> >> genetics is not only stupid, it goes against the clear experience of
> >> every breeder of animals there has ever been. The brain is physical
> >> Mohr. It is you who needs to show it is somehow separate from the
> >> body that is shaped by selction and genetics.
> >
> >It is YOU who need to show the truth of your assertions that blacks are
> >inferior.
>

> See above. My claims are backed up by the history, current situation,
> and crime stats of blacks.

Cites. Post 'em. All we have are your claims. We don't have whatever your
claims are based on.

> All you came up with was silly excuses of
> a wide variety to explain the observations we have. Poor science
> indeed. Science will take the explanation that can tie the most
> observations together.

No it _doesn't_. Science rather takes what can be demonstrated, and what can
be reliably reproduced elsewhere.

Science is _well aware_ that quite commonly the explanation that can tie the
most observations together has historically turned out to be incomplete at
best, and flat-out wrong as commonly.

>
> >
> >> It coincides with many
> >> practices in breeding, and therefore is a reasonable assumption.
> >> And you tell a huge lie when you say that Human populations have not
> >> been separated long enough for mental differences to occur. The brain
> >> is physical, and the slightest difference in its shape or size could
> >> effect its functions. You are not this stupid, so you told a lie. I
> >> will be nice though and let you decide which one. Are you completely
> >> stupid, or are you a complete liar? I would guess both.
> >
> >YOU have yet to show that any major mental differences have in fact
> >developed. And YOU have yet to show that any which may have developed are
> >_detrimental_.
>

> I have shown that IQ tests show a difference.

Not to me you haven't.

> Take this along with
> African history, the state that blacks are in everywhere in the world,
> the higher rates of violent behavior, and you have an obvious theory:
> natural selection did not require IQ's above an average of 85 for
> blacks. Moreover, selection used natural aggression to help perserve
> the black race in the environment they were in. This theory is sound
> because it wraps these observations into a neat package.

As does any comprehensive, well-knit, inferentially-recursive, and
completely wacky delusional system.

You are in fact exhibiting a classic case, not that I should talk.

> All you
> silly egalitarians can do is give excuses that never range farther
> than the given situation calls for. You have a separate excuse for
> everything.

That's called "rational examination of falsifiable hypothesis" or "good
science".

<snips>

> >> >
> >> >Cite *one* study that gives a causal linkage between IQ and race. Just
> >> >one.
> >>
> >> I gave you one.
> >
> >THAT STUDY SAYS NOTHING ABOUT IQ AND RACE. NOT A SINGLE THING.
>

> But I have many that do. In fact, I did post one to you. But, I
> will post some more as well.
>
> The world literature on racial differences in intelligence is reviewed
> from three points of view. Firstly, studies using intelligence tests
> indicate that Caucasoids in North America, Europe and Australasia
> generally obtain mean IQs of around 100. Mongoloids typically obtain
> slightly higher means in the range of 100-106. African Negroids obtain
> mean IQs of around 70, while Negroid-Caucasoids in the United States
> and Britain obtain means of about 85. Amerindians and the South East
> Asian races typically obtain means in the range of 85-95.

Give me the cites to the data, give me the cites to the methodology
employed, give me the cites to the groups studies, give me cites as to the
context, give me cites to the dates, in short give me peer-reviewed science
or stop wasting time with these unsubstantiated allegations.

>
> A second source of evidence comes from studies of reaction times which
> provide measures of the neurological efficiency of the brain.

It doesn't.

> These
> studies show that Mongoloids have the fastest reaction times, followed
> by Caucasoids and then by Negroids. Thirdly, the races can be assessed
> for their contributions to civilization. Here the Caucasoids and the
> Mongoloids have made the most significant advances both in the
> foundation of the early civilizations and in more recent developments.
>
> The existence of racial differences in intelligence has been known
> since the time of the First World war when tests given to large
> numbers of military conscripts in the United States revealed that
> blacks had an average intelligence level about 15 IQ points below that
> of whites. In the following decades there has been debate over the
> question of whether these differences have a genetic basis.

This is absolute crap. The debate has sensibly centered around whether or
not the IQ test given to conscripts in the US military 70 years ago have
much validity at all.

> This
> debate has largely taken place in the context of the differences in
> intelligence found in different racial populations in the United
> States. Genetic theorists have pointed to the high heritability of
> intelligence and the difficulties of formulating credible
> environmentalist explanations to explain the difference (Jensen 1972,
> 1973, 1980; Eysenck, 1971).

Stipulated.

> Environmentalists have pointed to a
> variety of factor-s which they consider capable of explaining the low
> Negroid IQ,

You have yet to provide credible evidence of the low "negroid" IQ.

As this is the foundation argument of the rest of this debate, and this
remains unresolved, all following text is necessarily specious and at-best
is building a castle on a hill of sand; there is no foundation.

> of which the most important are bias in the tests, the
> adverse social and economic living conditions experienced by blacks,
> discrimination and prejudice from white majorities and the historical
> legacy of slavery which has demoralized blacks and destroyed their
> family structure (Flynn, 1980; Jaynes and Williams, 1989; Mackintosh
> and Mascie-Taylor, 1985). Neither side has yet succeeded in convincing
> the other and the issue remains unresolved, although a recent poll has
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> shown that the majority of experts now believe there is some genetic
> basis to the low black IQ (Snyderman and Rothman, 1988).

who the heck are Snyderman and Rothman? What are their qualifications?

>
> The Purpose of the present paper is to consider the problem of racial
> differences in intelligence in a global perspective. Part one of the
> paper contains a review of the many studies which have been made of
> the intelligence of different races throughout the world. The
> principal question here is whether the world wide evidence supports
> the genetic or the environmental position.
>
> In general terms the genetic theory requires that there should be a
> reasonably high degree of consistency of the intelligence levels shown
> by populations of different races in a variety of geographical
> locations. Thus, Negroids should universally have lower intelligence
> levels than Caucasoids and this difference should be found in Africa
> and the West Indies as well as in the United States and Britain. The
> reason for this is that the genes or alleles (alternative forms of
> genes) for low intelligence, if these exist, should be present in all
> Negroid populations and not merely in those whose ancestors were
> transported as slaves to the New World. Furthermore, Negroids in the
> United States and Britain are nearly all Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids
> (Reed, 1969). Their Caucasoid genes should, on the genetic hypothesis,
> raise their intelligence level as compared with the pure Negroids of
> Africa. Hence the genetic theory demands that African Negroids should
> have lower intelligence levels than the Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids of
> the United States and Britain. Whether or not this is the case can be
> regarded as a test of the genetic theory and any studies showing that
> pure African Negroids have higher IQs than American or British Negroid
> hybrids would falsify the genetic hypothesis.

And you can't possible get valid IQ test results from native Africans who
don't even speak the language in which the tests are conducted.

>
> A similar degree of consistency of intelligence levels should be found
> for all races if the intelligence is largely genetically determined.
> The intelligence of Caucasoids should be approximately the same,
> whether they live in the United States, Britain, Europe, Australia or
> New Zealand. The same consistency should be present in the third major
> race of mankind, the Orientals or Mongoloids, who are present not only
> in their native habitat of north east Asia but also in the United
> States and Europe. Hence a world wide examination of the consistency
> of racial differences in intelligence would provide a perspective on
> the genetic and environmental theories which is lacking in the studies
> carried out in the local contexts of the United States and, more
> recently, in Britain.
>
> Part two of the paper deals with the question of whether the racial
> differences in intelligence as measured by intelligence tests are also
> present in reaction times, i.e. the speed of response to simple
> stimuli. The interest of this question is that recent work has shown
> that reaction times are a measure of intelligence and appear to
> represent differences in the neurological efficiency of brain
> processes (Jensen, 1982; Eysenck, 1982). A positive finding of racial
> differences in reaction times would rule out many of the explanations
> for the intelligence differences advanced by environmentalists such as
> bias in the tests, the legacy of slavery and so forth, and would point
> to a genetically determined neurological basis for the differences.

Not based on reaction times it won't. That whole line of approach was
discredited back in the 1940s.

<bunch of crap snipped, as it's unsupported results summarizing tests which
are not detailed in terms of methodology, nor is the name of the test even
given>

>
> 'The subjects used in the study consisted of 9 year old children
> representative of the three major races of Mongoloids, Caucasoids and
> Negroids. The Mongoloids were obtained from Hong Kong and Japan, the
> Caucasoids from Britain and Ireland and the Negroids from South
> Africa. All the children were drawn as socially representative samples
> from typical public primary schools in their respective countries with
> the exception of the Irish children who came from rural areas and
> whose mean IQ was rather lower than would otherwise have been
> expected.
>
> In all the five samples decision times, movement times and
> variabilities were negatively correlated with intelligence. Further
> details of the reaction time apparatus, testing procedures and
> analyses of the relationship between the reaction time measures and
> intelligence for the samples are given in Shigehisa and Lynn (1991),
> Chan, Eysenck and Lynn (1991) and Lynn and Holmshaw (1991).

Children at that age are absolutely no measure of the capacities of adults.

>
> Summary statistics for the five samples giving the numbers tested,
> mean IQs, means for the 12 reaction time measures and standard
> deviations for the entire sample are shown in Table 7. The last column
> of the table gives product moment correlations between the Progressive
> Matrices and the 12 reaction time measures. it will be seen that the
> Hong Kong and Japanese children obtained the highest mean IQs, fastest
> decision times and low decision time variabilities, the British and
> Irish children were intermediate, while the South African Negroids
> obtained the lowest means on the Progressive Matrices, slowest
> decision times and highest variabilities. All the correlations are
> high and five of the six are statistically significant.
>
> The movement times of the five populations do not show any consistent
> overall relationship with Progressive Matrices scores. It is however
> interesting to note that the Negroid children tend to have fast
> movement times. In the complex and odd man out tasks their movement
> times are significantly faster than those of British, Irish and
> Chinese children.
>
> It is known that the speed of reaction times is genetically determined
> to a significant extent. This has been shown by Vernon (1989) in a
> study of 50 identical and 52 non-identical twins, which produced a
> heritability coefficient of.51 for reaction times. Somewhat similar
> results have been reported by Ho, Baker and Decker (1988) for two
> other speed of information processing tasks which gave heritability
> coefficients of .47 and .24. These authors have also shown that the
> positive correlation between measures of speed of information
> processing and intelligence arises from common genetic processes
> suggesting that common genetically controlled neurological mechanisms
> are involved in the performance of both types of task.
>
> It is therefore considered that the most reasonable interpretation of
> the Mongoloid-Caucasoid-Negroid results is that these reflect genetic
> differences between the three racial groups. It is not considered
> likely that educational differences could be involved because of the
> extreme simplicity of the tasks. Motivational differences are
> improbable, because reaction times seem unaffected by motivation
> (Jensen, 1982). It might be thought that nutritional differences might
> be involved.
>
> However, the fact that the Negroid children performed faster than the
> Caucasoid on movement times makes it unlikely that poor nutrition
> could have reduced neural conduction rates. We are therefore left with
> genetically determined differences in information processing
> capacities as the most probable explanation of the
> Mongoloid-Caucasoid-Negroid differences in decision times.
>
> Contributions to Civilization
> A third source of evidence on racial differences in intelligence lies
> in the degree to which the various races have made significant
> intellectual, scientific and technological discoveries and inventions.
> The argument is that these advances are likely to be made by a few
> outstanding and highly intelligent individuals. There will be more of
> these in a population where the average level of intelligence is high,
> and hence the intelligence levels of populations and whole races can
> be infer-red from their intellectual achievements.
>
> The first writer to advance this argument was Galton (1869) but he
> limited his analysis to the Creeks of the classical period, England
> and Scotland, the Negroids and the Australian Aborigines. His
> conclusion was that the Creeks produced the greatest number of
> intellectual advances and could therefore be considered the most
> intelligent population. He placed the Scots marginally above the
> English, and a long way below these he placed the Negroids and the
> Aborigines.
>
> Galton's treatment of the problem was sketchy, but it provided the
> initial idea on which others were to build. The most extensive
> analysis of this kind was carried out by Baker (1974). He first set up
> twenty one criteria by which the achievements of early civilizations
> could be judged. These were as follows:

And _boy howdy!_ are they grossly ethnocentric, even for the mid-70s!

>
> In the ordinary circumstances of life in public places, they cover the
> greater part of the trunk with clothes.
> They keep the body clean and take care to dispose of its waste
> products.
> They do not practice severe mutilation or deformation of the body,
> except for medical reasons.
> They have knowledge of building in brick or stone, if the necessary
> materials are available in their territory.
> Many of them live in towns or cities, which are linked by roads.
> They cultivate food-plants.
> They domesticate animals and use some of the larger ones for transport
> (or have in the past so used them), if suitable species are available.
> They have knowledge of the use of metals, if these are available.
> They use wheels.
> They exchange property by the use of money.
> They order their society by a system of laws, which are enforced in
> such a way that they ordinarily go about their various concerns in
> times of peace without danger of attack or arbitrary arrest.
> They permit accused persons to defend themselves and to bring
> witnesses for their defence.
> They do not use torture to extract information or for punishment.
> They do not practice cannibalism.
> Their religious systems include ethical elements and are not purely or
> grossly superstitious.
> They use a script (not simply a succession of pictures) to communicate
> ideas.
> There is some facility in the abstract use of numbers, without
> consideration of actual objects (or in other words, at least a start
> has been made in mathematics).
> A calendar is in use, accurate to within a few days in the year.
> Arrangements are made for the instruction or the young in intellectual
> subjects.
> There is some appreciation of the fine arts.
> Knowledge and understanding are valued as ends in themselves.
> Having set up these criteria, Baker proceeded to analyze the
> historical record of the races to ascertain which have originated
> civilizations. His conclusion was that the Caucasoid peoples developed
> all 21 components of civilization in four independent locations. These
> were the Sumerian in the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates, the
> Cretian, the Indus Valley, and the ancient Egyptian. The Mongoloids
> also developed a full civilization in the Sinic civilization in China.
> The Amerindians achieved about half of the 21 components in the Maya
> society of Guatemala, a little less in the Inca and Aztec societies,
> but these peoples never invented a written script, the wheel (except
> possibly in children's toys), the principle of the arch in their
> architecture, metal working, or money for the exchange of goods. The
> Negroids and the Australian aborigines achieved virtually none of the
> criteria of civilization.
>
> While Baker confined his analysis to the achievements of the races in
> originating civilizations, there can be little doubt that the same
> race differences appear in the historically later development of more
> advanced cultures. During the last 2,000 years the many discoveries
> that constitute developed peoples have been made only by the Caucasoid
> and Mongoloid peoples. For the first sixteen hundred or so years of
> this period a case can be made out that the Mongoloid civilization in
> China was marginally ahead. The Han period of around 200-100 BC saw
> the introduction of written examinations for candidates for the
> mandarin civil service, an idea which was considered an advance when
> it was introduced into Britain some 2,000 years later (Bowman, 1989).
> printing was invented in China by about 800, some 600 years before it
> was developed in Germany. When Marco Polo visited China about the year
> 1300 he was amazed at the quality of civilization in the numerous
> prosperous cities and particularly at the use of paper money, a
> concept not introduced into the general use in Europe until the
> nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Chinese discovered gunpowder
> about the year 1050 and developed the technology for using it for guns
> and not only, as popularly supposed, for fireworks. They were the
> first to invent the principle of the magnetic compass. Their
> technology for the manufacture of high quality porcelain was well
> ahead of anything in Europe until the late eighteenth century. Details
> of these and many other Chinese scientific and technological
> achievements are given in Needham (1954).
>
> During the last five centuries the Caucasoid peoples of Europe and
> latterly of North America have pulled ahead of the Mongoloids in
> science and technology. This is probably because China has been run as
> a single bureaucratic empire in which innovation has been discouraged
> first under the emperors and more recently under the communists while
> Japan was isolated from outside influences until relatively recently.
> Europe, in contrast, has been divided into numerous states, many of
> which afforded a high degree of personal freedom of thought,
> expression and technological innovation, and between which there was
> open communication. Nevertheless, although the Europeans have
> generally been ahead of the Mongoloids during the last five centuries,
> since 1950 the Japanese have provided a strong challenge and have
> surpassed the West in the production of a number of high quality
> technological goods.
>
> A useful source for evaluating the contributions of the human races to
> scientific and technological achievements is available in Asimov's
> (1989) Chronology of Science and Discovery. This lists approximately
> 1,500 of the most important scientific and technological discoveries
> and inventions which have ever been made. The first three are
> bipedality, the manufacture of stone tools and the use of fire which
> antedate the evolution of the races. Thereafter every single invention
> and discovery was made by the Caucasian or Mongoloid peoples. This
> compilation confirms the historical record. Who can doubt that the
> Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made
> any significant contribution to civilization.
>
> Conclusion
> The studies of racial differences in intelligence test results,
> reaction times and scientific and technological discoveries show a
> high degree of consistency. All three sources of evidence indicate
> that the two races with the highest intelligence levels are the
> Mongoloids and the Caucasoids. These are followed by the Amerindians,
> while the south east Asian races and the Negroids are ranked lowest.
> The intelligence test results and the reaction times tend to indicate
> that average Mongoloid intelligence levels are a little higher than
> those of Caucasoids, but the difference is relatively small as
> compared with other racial differences.
>
> 'The general consistency of the results from the three sources of
> evidence, and the consistency of the different intellectual
> achievements of the races over a long historical period, points to a
> substantial genetic determination for these differences. If genetic
> factors were not involved, there would have been much greater
> variation over time and place and the observed consistencies would not
> be present. Whatever criteria are adopted, the Caucasoids and the
> Mongoloids are the two most intelligent races and the historical
> record shows that this has been the case for approximately the last
> 5,000 years.
>
> The environmentalist may argue that the Negroid peoples in Africa, the
> Caribbean, the United States and Britain, and the Amerindians, Maoris
> and Australian aborigines, all live in socially and economically
> impoverished conditions, as compared with Caucasoids and Mongoloids,
> and that these conditions are responsible for some or perhaps all of
> their low intelligence. This argument can be met by the concept of
> genotype-environment correlation, originally proposed by Ploinin, De
> Fries and Loehlin (1977) and developed by Scarr and McCartney (1983).
>
> 'There are two processes of genotype-environment correlation which are
> relevant to the present problem. The first is "passive" and has the
> effect that children tend to be reared in environments which are
> correlated with their own genetic potentialities. The principle
> applies for any trait which has a heritability, and this is
> undoubtably true of intelligence, and in the case of intelligence
> means that intelligent parents transmit the characteristic genetically
> through their genes and environmentally through the advantageous
> environment which they provide for their children. The two modes of
> transmission have the effect that intelligent children tend to be
> reared in intelligence-enhancing environments. This brings the
> genotypes and the advantageous environments into positive correlation
> and implies that those reared in advantageous environments tend to
> have superior genotypes. This applies, for instance, to middle class
> children as compared with working class children, and can also,
> arguably, be applied to Caucasoid and Mongoloid children as contrasted
> with those of other races.
>
> There is a second "active" type of genotype-environment correlation
> which states that people play an active role in creating their own
> environments. Genotypically intelligent peoples are able to create a
> socially and economically affluent environment to an extent which
> cannot be done by less intelligent peoples. Scarr and McCartney call
> this "niche building", and the two peoples who have been successful in
> building socially and economically developed niches in which to live
> and rear their children have been the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids.
>
> The argument frequently advanced that poor social and economic
> conditions are responsible for the lower intelligence of the Negroids,
> Aborigines and Amerindians places the cart before the horse. It
> assumes that the impoverished environments of these peoples are simply
> the result of external circumstances over which these peoples
> themselves have no control. Such a claim does not stand up to
> examination. There are so many cases which it cannot explain, such as
> the achievements of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese
> immigrants in the United States and of Indians in Britain and Africa.
> The only plausible explanation for why these peoples have succeeded
> where others, initially more advantageously placed, have failed is
> that they have the right genotypes for building socially and
> economically prosperous environments for themselves and their
> families.
>
> Appendix: Notes on the Calculation of IQs
> One of the principal problems in the calculation of the mean IQs for
> the various racial populations concerns the date at which the data
> were collected. Mean IQs in the economically advanced nations have
> been increasing during the last half century (Lynn and Hampson, 1986;
> Flynn, 1987). This poses the problem of whether an adjustment should
> be made for this increase in studies where a test standardized in the
> United States, Britain, Australia or New Zealand has been administered
> some years later to another population. The adjustment involves making
> an addition to the American, British or Australasian means to allow
> for the time interval between the two test administrations. The effect
> is generally to increase Caucasoid IQs in relation to those of other
> peoples. The increases are however quite small and do not remove the
> higher means obtained by Mongoloid populations, as shown in Lynn
> (1987).
>
> For the present paper it was decided not to make such adjustments on
> two grounds. Firstly, the rates of secular increase of intelligence
> vary widely from about 1 to 6 IQ points per decade in studies of
> different age groups and different tests. It is therefore impossible
> to obtain any precise estimate of what adjustment would be appropriate
> for many of the tests. Secondly, the great majority of the studies
> employ tests initially standardized in the United States, Britain,
> Australia or New Zealand. These countries have high standards of
> living in relation to other populations and therefore enjoy some
> environmental advantage for the development of intelligence. This
> advantage is to some degree counterbalanced by the earlier
> administration of the tests. The decision was therefore made not to
> adjust the results for other populations for the time differential
> between the two test administrations but to report the mean IQs as
> originally published. However, tests given to racial groups in the
> same country as the standardization samples have been reduced to allow
> for the secular increase in the mean IQ of the base population. ?'his
> correction applies to the Kline and Lee (1972) Canadian Chinese
> sample, whose mean IQs are reduced by 7 IQ points to allow for the
> secular increase of intelligence 1947-1970; and to the Belgian Korean
> sample whose IQs are reduced by 10 points to allow for a secular
> increase of intelligence in Belgium 19541983.
>
> Figures for general intelligence are derived either from nonverbal
> reasoning tests such as the Progressive Matrices and the Culture Fair,
> or from full scale Wechsler IQ2s. In some studies only verbal and
> performance Wechsler IQs are reported and where this is the case these
> have been averaged to give an approximate figure for the full scale
> IQ. Where means for Wechsler subtests are reported, the verbal IQs are
> calculated from Vocabulary, Information, Comprehension, Similarities
> and Arithmetic, and Visuospatial IQs from Block Design, Object
> Assembly, Picture Arrangement, Picture Completion and Mazes. The
> reason for this is that factor analysis has shown that these are the
> best measures of the two abilities (Jensen and Reynolds, 1982). In the
> case of non- American standardizations of the Wechslers, IQs are
> calculated from the WISC tests by reading the means off the
> standardization tables and converting to American IQs. Buj's IQs are
> given in relation to a British mean of 100.
>
> References
> Asimov, I.
> 1989 Chronology of Science and Lovely London.. Grafton Books
> Baker, J. R.
> 1974 Race Oxford: Oxford University Press.
> Baughman, E. E. and Dahlstrom, W. G.
> Negro and White Children New York, Academic Press.
> Beck, L. R. and St. George, R.
> 1983 The alleged cultural bias of the PAT: Reading Comprehension and
> Reading Vocabulary Tests. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies,
> 18,32-47.
> Berte, R.
> 1961 Essai d'adaptation de l'echelle d'intelligence pour enfants de D.
> Wechsler à des écoliers belges d'expression française, Brussels,
> Centre Nationale de Researches de Psychotechnique Scolaire.
> Borjas, G. J.
> 1986 The self employment experiences of immigrants. Journal of Human
> Resources. 21,485-506.
> Bourdier, G.
> 1964 Utilisation et nouvel etallonagedu P.M. 47 Bulletin de
> Psychologie, 235,39-41.
> Bowman, M. L.
> 1989 Testing individual differences in Ancient China. American
> Psychologist. 44,576-578.
> Brandt, I.
> 1978 Growth dynamics of low birth weight infants with emphasis on the
> perinatal period. In: Human Growth vol. 2 ed. F. Falkner and J. M.
> Tanner, pp. 557-516. New York: Plenum Press.
> Broman, S. H., Nichols, P. L., Kennedy, W. A.
> 1975 Pre-school IQ. New York: J. Wiley.
> Broman, S. H., Nichols, P. L., Shaughnessey, P. and Kennedy, W.
> 1987 Retardation in Young Children. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence
> Erlbaum
> Bruce, D. W., Hengeveld, M. and Radford, W. C.
> 1971 Some cognitive skills in Aboriginal children in Victorian primary
> schools. Victoria, Australian Council for educational Research.
> Burt, C.
> 1949 The structure of the mind: a review of the results of factor
> analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 19, 110-111.
> Buj, V.
> 1981 Average IQ values in various European countries. Personality and
> Individual Differences, 2, 168-169
> Cattell, R. B.
> 1971 Abilities. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
> Centre de Psychologie Appliquée
> 1957 Manual of the Weschler Intelligence Scale for children. Paris,
> Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
> Coleman, J. S.
> 1990 Personal Communication
> Coleman, J. S. et al
> Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC, US Office of
> Education
> Cundick B. P.
> 1970 Measures of Intelligence of Southwest Indian students. Journal of
> Social Psychology 81, 151-156
> Du Chateau, P.
> 1967 Ten point gap in Maori aptitudes. National Education. 49,
> 157-158.
> Eysenck, H. J.
> 1971 Race, intelligence and education. London: Temple Smith.
> Eysenck, H. J.
> 1982 A Model for Intelligence. Bolin: Springer-Verlag.
> Fahrmeier, E. D. Child Development, 46, 281-285.
> Fick, M. L.
> 1929 Intelligence test results of poor white, native (Zulu), colored
> and Indian school children and the educational and social implications
> South African Journal of Science. 26, 904-920.
> Firkowska, A., Ostrowska, A., Sokolowska, M., Stein, Z., Susser, M.
> and Wald, I.
> 1978 Cognitive development and social policy Science. 200, 1357-1362.
> Fitzgerald, J. A. and Ludeman, W. W.
> 1926 The intelligence of Indian children. Journal of Comparative
> Psychology, 6, 319-328.
> Flynn, J. R.
> 1980 Race IQ and Jensen. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
> 1987 Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: what IQ tests really measure.
> Psychological Bulletin. 101, 271-293.
> 1989 Rushton, evolution and race: an essay on intelligence and virtue.
> The Psychologist, 2, 363-366.
> Frydman, M. and Lynn, R.
> 1989 The intelligence of Korean children adopted in Belgium.
> Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1323-1326.
> Galler, J. R., Ramsey, F. and Forde, V.
> 1986 A follow up study in the influence of early malnutrition on
> subsequent development. Nutrition and Behaviour. 3, 211-222.
> Galton, F.
> 1869 Hereditary Genius. London: Macmillan.
> Goodenough, F. L.
> 1926 Racial differences in the intelligence of school children.
> Journal of Experimental Psychology. 9, 388-397.
> Goosens, G.
> 1952 Une application du test d'intelligence de R. B. Cattell. Revue
> Belge de Psyhologie et de Pédagogie. 19, 115-124.
> Gould, S. J.
> 1981 The Mismeasure of Man. New York, Norton.
> Harker, R. K.
> 1978 Achievement and ethnicity: environmental deprivation or cultural
> difference. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 13, 107-124.
> Hertzig, M. E., Birch, H. G., Richardson, S. A. and Tizard, J.
> 1972 Intellectual levels of school children severely malnourished
> during the first two years of life. Pediatrics, 49, 814-824.
> Hodgkiss, J.
> 1979 British Manual for the Differential Attitude Tests Windsor.
> Windsor. National Foundation for Educational Research.
> Ho, H-Z, Baker, L. A. and Decker, S. N.
> 1988 Covariation between intelligence and speed of cognitive
> processing: genetic and environmental influences. Behaviour Genetics.
> 18, 247-261.
> Howell, R. J., Evans, L. and Downing, L. N.
> 1958 A comparison of test scores from the 16-17 year age group of
> Navajo Indians with standardisation norms from the WAIS. Journal of
> Social Psychology. 47, 355-359.
> Jaynes, G. D. and Williams, R. M.
> 1989 A Common Destiny: Blacks and American Society Washington DC.
> National Research Council.
> Jensen, A. R.
> 1972 Genetics and Education.. London. Methuen.
> 1973 Educability and Group Differences London. Methuen.
> I982 Reaction time and psychometric g. In H. J. Eysenck (ed). A Model
> for Intelligence Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
> Jensen, A. R. and Inouye, A. R.
> 1980 Level I and Level II abilities in Asian, white and black
> children. Intelligence. 4, 41-49.
> Jensen, A. R. and Reynolds, C. R.
> 1982 Race, social class and ability patterns on the WISC-R.
> Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 423-438.
> Jordheim, G. D. and Olsen, I. A.
> 1963 The use of a non-verbal test of intelligence in the trust
> territory of the Pacific. American Anthropologist, 65, 1122-1125.
> Kline, C. L. and Lee, N.
> 1972 A transcultural study of dyslexia: analysis of language
> disabilities in 277 Chinese children simultaneously learning to read
> and write in English and in Chinese. Journal of Social Education, 6,
> 9-26.
> Kurth, von E.
> 1969 Erhohung der Leistungsnormen bei den farbigen progressiven
> matrizen. Zeitschrift fur Psycliologie 177, 85-90.
> Lesser, G. S., Fifer, F. and Clark, H.
> 1965 Mental abilities of children from different social class and
> cultural groups. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
> Development. 30.
> Linn, M C. and Petersen, A. C.
> I 986 A meta analysis of gender differences in spatial ability:
> implications for mathematics and science achievement. In J. S. Hyde
> and M. C. Linn (eds) The Psychology of Gender. Baltimore: Johns
> Hopkins University Press.
> Lynn, R.
> 1977a The intelligence of the Japanese. Bulletin of the British
> Psychological Society, 30, 69-72.
> 1977b The intelligence of the Chinese and Malays in Singapore. The
> Mankind Quarterly. 18, 125-128.
> 1987 The intelligence of the Mongoloids: a psychometric, evolutionary
> and neurological theory. Personality and Individual Differences. 8,
> 813-844.
> 1990 The role of nutrition in secular increases in intelligence.
> Personality and Individual Differences. 11, 273-285.
> 1991 Intelligence in China. Social Behaviour and Personality to
> appear.
> Lynn, R., Chan, J. and Eysenck, H J.
> 1991 Reaction times and intelligence in Chinese and British children.
> Perceptual and Motor Skills.
> Lynn, R. and Hampson, S.
> 1986a Intellectual abilities of Japanese children: an assessment of
> 2½-8½ year olds derived from the McCarthy Scales of Children's
> Abilities Intelligence. 10, 41-58.
> Lynn, R. and Hampson, S.
> 1986b Further evidence on the cognitive abilities of the Japanese:
> data from the WPPSI. International Journal of Behavioural Developments
> 10, 23-36.
> 1986c The structure of Japanese abilities: an analysis in terms of the
> hierarchical model of intelligence Current Psychological Research and
> Reviews, 4, 309-322.
> 1986d The rise of national intelligence: evidence from Britain, Japan
> and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 7,
> 23-32.
> Lynn, R., Hampson, S. and Bingham, R.
> 1987 Japanese, British and American adolescents compared for
> Spearman's g and for the verbal, numerical and visio-spatial
> abilities. Psychologia. 30, 137-144.
> Lynn, R., Hampson, S. L. and Iwawaki, S.
> 1987 Abstract reasoning and spatial abilities among American, British
> and Japanese adolescents. The Mankind Quarterly. 27, 397-434.
> Lynn, R. and Holmshaw, M.
> 1991 Black-white Differences in reaction times and intelligence.
> Social Behavior and Personality. (to appear)
> Lynn, R., Pagliari, C. and Chan, J.
> 1988 Intelligence in Hong Kong measured for Spearman's g and the
> visuo-spatial and verbal primaries Intelligence. 12, 423-433.
> Lynn, R. and Shigehisa, T.
> 1991 Reaction time-, and intelligence in British and Japanese
> children. Journal of Biosocial Science. (to appear)
> McIntyre, G. A.
> 1938 The Standardization of Intelligence Tests in Australia.
> Melbourne, University Press.
> Mackintosh, N. J. and Mascie-Taylor, C.G.N.
> 1985 The IQ question.. In Education For All (The Swann Report) Cmnd
> paper 4453. London: HMSO.
> McShane, D. A. and Plas, J. M.
> 1984 The cognitive functioning of American Indian children: moving
> from the WISC to the WISC-R. School Psychology Review. 17,39-51.
> Manley, D. R.
> 1963 Mental ability in Jamaica. Social and Economic Studies, 12,
> 51-77.
> Maqsud, M.
> 1980 Extraversion, neuroticism, intelligence and academic achievement
> in Northern Nigeria. British Journal l of Educational Psychology. 50.,
> 71-73.
> Mercer J. R.
> 1984 What is a racially and culturally discriminating test? In C. R.
> Reynolds and R. T. Brown (eds) Perspectives on bias in mental testing
> New York, Plenum.
> Miele, F.
> 1979 Cultural bias in the WISC. Intelligence, 3, 149-164.
> Montie, J. E. and Fagan, J. F.
> 1988 Racial differences in IQ: item analysis of the Stanford-Binet at
> 3 years. Intelligence, 12, 315-332.
> Murdock, J. and Sullivan, L. R.
> 1923 A contribution to the study of mental and physical measurements
> in normal school children. American Physical Educational Review, 28,
> 209-330.
> Naglieri, J. and Jensen, A. R.
> 1987 Comparison of black-white differences on the WISC-R and the
> K-ABC: Spearman's hypothesis. Intelligence. 11, 21-43.
> Nagoshi, C. T. and Johnson, R. C.
> 1987 Cognitive abilities profiles of Caucasian vs. Japanese subjects
> in the Hawaii family study of cognition. Personality and Individual
> Differences 8, 581-583.
> Needham, J.
> 1954 Science and Civilisation in China. Cambridge: Cambridge
> University Press.
> Nieto-Alegre, S., Navarro, L., Santa Cruz, G. and Dominguez, A.
> 1987 Difereneices regionales en la medida de la inteligencia con el
> test M. P. Revista de Psicologia General y Aplicado, 22, 699-707.
> Notcutt, B.
> 1950 The measurement of Zulu intelligence. Journal of Social Research.
> 1, 195-206.
> Nurcombe, B. and Moffit, P.
> 1970 Cultural deprivation and language deficit. Australian
> Psychologist, 5, 249-259.
> Ombredane, A., Robaye, F. and Robaye, E.
> 1952 Analyse des résultats d'une application experimentale du matrix
> 38 à 485 noirs Baluba. Bulletin contre d'études et reserches
> psychotechniques, 7, 235-255.
> Owen, K.
> 1989 Test and item bias: the suitability of Junior Aptitude Test as a
> common test battery for white, Indian and black pupils in Standard 7.
> Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
> Pons, A. L.
> 1974 Administration of tests outside the cultures of their origin.
> 26th Congress South African Psychological Association.
> Radclifre, J. A. and Turner, F. E.
> 1969 Manual for the Australian version of late WISC. Hawthorn,
> Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
> Raven, J.
> 1981 Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary
> Scales. London, H. K. Lewis.
> 1986 Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales.
> Research Supplement 3. London, H. K. Lewis.
> Raven, J. and Court, J. H.
> 1989 Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices s and Vocabulary Scales
> Research - Supplement No. 4, London, H. K. Lewis.
> Reddington, M. J., and Jackson, K.
> 1981 Raven's colored progressive matrices: a Queensland
> standardisation. ACER Bulletin. 30, 20-28.
> Redmond, M. and Davies, F. R. J.
> 1940 The Standardisation of Two Intelligence Tests. Wellington, New
> Zealand Council for Educational Research.
> Reed, T. E.
> 1969 Caucasian genes in American Negroes. Science. 165, 762-8
> Reschly, D. J. and Jipson, F. J.
> 1976 Ethnicity, geographical locale, age, sex and urban-rural
> residence as variables in the prevalence of mild retardation. American
> Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81, 154-161.
> Reuning, H.
> 1988 Testing Bushmen in the Central Kalahari. In S. H. Irvine and J.
> W. Berry (eds) Human Abilities in Cultural Context. Cambridge,
> Cambridge University Press.
> Reynolds, C. R. and Jensen, A. R.
> 1983 WISC-R subscale patterns of abilities of blacks and whites
> matched on full scale IQ. Journal of Educational Psychology. 75,
> 207-214.
> Rodd, W. G.
> 1959 A cross cultural study of Taiwan's Schools. Journal of Social
> Psychology. 50, 3-36.
> St. George, R.
> 1983 Some psychometric properties of the Queensland Test of Cognitive
> Abilities with New Zealand, European and Maori children. New Zealand
> Journal of Psychology. 12, 57-68.
> St. John, J., Krichev, A. and Bauman, E.
> 1976 North Western Ontario Indian children and the WISC. Psychology in
> the Schools. 13, 407-411.
> Scarr, S., Caparulo, B. K., Ferdman, B. M., Tower, R. B. and Caplan,
> J.
> 1983 Developmental status and school achievements of minority and
> non-minority children from birth to 18 years in a British Midlands
> town. British journal of Developmental Psychology. 1, 31-48.
> Scarr, S. and McCartney, K.
> 1983 How people make their own environments: a theory of
> geno-type-environment effects. Child Development 54, 424-435.
> Schmidtke, A., Schaller, S. and Becker, P.
> 1978 Raven-Matrizen Test Manual Deutsche Bearbeilung Weinheim Beltz
> Test Gesellschaft, Berlin.
> Schreider, E.
> 1968 Quelques corrélations somatiques des tests mentaux. Homo. 19,
> 38-43.
> Scottish Council for Research in Education
> 1933 The Intelligence of Scottish Children. London: London University
> Press.
> 1939 The Intelligence of a Representative Group of Scottish children.
> London: University of London Press.
> 1949 The Trend of Scottish Intelligence. London: University of London
> Press.
> Shigehisa, T. and I,ynn, R.
> 1991 Reaction times and intelligence in Japanese children.
> International Journal of Psychology, 00, 000-000.
> Shuey, A. M.
> 1966 The Testing of Negro Intelligence. New York, Social Science
> Press.
> Sinha, U.
> 1968 The use of Raven's Progressive Matrices in India. Indian
> Educational Review, 3, 75-88.
> Skandinaviska Testforlaget
> 1970 Manual of the Swedish WISC. Stockholm: Skandinaviska
> Testforlaget.
> Snyderman, M. and Rothman, S.
> 1988 The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy. New Brunswick,
> Transaction Books.
> Spearman, C.
> 1927 The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.
> Stevenson, H. W., Stigler, J. W., Lee, S., Lucker, G. W., Kitanawa, S.
> and Hsu, C.
> 1985 Cognitive performance and academic achievement of Japanese,
> Chinese and American children. Child Development. 56, 718-734
> Susanne, C. and Sporoq, J.
> 1973 Etude de correlations existant entre des tests psychotechniques
> et des mensurations cephaliques. Bulletin Societé Royal Belge
> Anthropologie et Prehistorie, 84, 59-63.
> Teeter, A., Moore, C. and Petersen, J.
> 1982 WISC-R verbal and performance abilities of Native America
> students referred for school learning problems. Psychology in the
> Schools. 19, 39-44.
> Tesi, G. and Young, H. B.
> 1962 A standardisation of Raven's Progressive Matrices 1938. Archivio
> Psicologia Neurologica & Psichiatra. 5, 455-464.
> Thurber, S.
> 1976 Changes in Navajo responses to the draw-a-man test. Journal of
> Social Psychology, 99, 139-140.
> Thurstone, L. L.
> 1983 Primary Mental Abilities. Chicago, Chicago University Press.
> Turner, G. H. and Penfold, D. J.
> 1952 The scholastic aptitude the Indian children of the Caradoc
> reserve. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 6, 31-44.
> United Nations
> 1970 National Accounts Statistics. New York, United Nations.
> Vejleskov, H.
> 1968 An analysis of Raven Matrix responses in fifth grade children.
> Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 9, 177-186.
> Vernon, P. A.,
> 1989 The heritability of measures of speed of information-processing
> Personality and Individual Differences. 10, 573-576.
> Vernon, P. E.
> 1969 Intelligence and Cultural Environment. London, Methuen.
> 1982 The Abilities and Achievements of Orientals in North America. New
> York: Academic Press.
> Wainer, H.
> 1988 How accurately can we assess changes in minority performance on
> the SAT? American Psychologist, 43, 774-778.
> Weinberg, W. A,, Dietz, S. G., Penick, E, C. and McAlister, W. H.
> 1974 Intelligence, reading achievement, physical size and social
> class. Journal of Paediatrics, 85, 482-489.
> Weyl, N.
> 1969 Some comparative performance indexes of American ethnic
> minorities. The Mankind Quarterly. 9, 106-128.
> 1989 The Geography of American Achievement. Washington, DC:
> Scott-Townsend.
> Winick, M., Meyer, K. K. and Harris, R. C.
> 1975 Malnutrition and environmental enrichment by early adoption.
> Science. 190, 1173-1175.
> Wober, M.
> 1969 The meaning and stability of Raven's Matrices Test among
> Africans. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 229-235.
> Zahirnic, C., Girboveanu, M., Onofrei, A., Turcu, A., Voicu, G.,
> Voicu, M. and Visan, O. M.
> 1974 Etalonarea matriceolur progressive colorate Raven pe copii de 6-1
> 0 ani in Municipal Bucuresti. Revue Psilologi. 20, 313-32 1.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> >Furthermore, it isn't a Study, it's a Summary and an Opinion.
>

> And it's a fine opinion at that.

But it doesn't support your racism.

And as to what you've posted above, I'll let the science people dissect it
on methodology, especially on the section about how they didn't adjust the
text results in anything resembling the standard way.

>
> >
> >I don't see where the hell you get off slapping a fairly good is
> >slightly-political piece of work down and touting an argument for continued
> >research into genetics as justification for your racist spew.
>

> Racist spew? I am very clear in what I believe to be true and why.

"Defending whites from aggressive stupid negroes" is what you believe in,
right? To summarize the thrust of our arguments in paraphrase.

<snips>

> >> >i.s.w. Racism is an ideology mad by and mad for people with a low IQ.
> >>
> >> Wrong. It is a politcal movement. The fact that our universities are
> >> bastions of leberalism speaks volumes for the so-called "educated."
> >> What you call educated I call indoctrinated.
> >
> >Clearly the problem you've got is that you're not educated enough to see
> >that the monograph your provided has _nothing in it linking race and IQ_.
> >Nothing. Zip zilch nada.
>

> Well I posted some more just for you.

And it's questionable at best.

> I have many more as well. I
> also have first-hand observations from most people that live near
> blacks, or that come in contact with them. You admitted yourself
> that there are differences in the races. You admitted that certain
> traits might be more valuable than others in certain situations (as in
> fighting lions). We are not very far apart indeed. I simply contend
> that the different aspects of the black race are not conducive to
> living in a white society.

Let's just say that I have several times lived in black society and I was
not all that happy with being stuck down in the ghetto, but I managed. Now
if I can do that, why can't you deal with a true minority, one in 12 US
citizens is black. All you have to do is stay out of the ghetto and what
you've got is some poor outnumbered people scared to death of people like
you. Can't you just leave it at that.

>
> >> >> Yet you refuse
> >> >> to make the obvious conclusion, and you would lie to no end in order
> >> >> to keep others from doing it. hey, that's a fine philosophy Mohr.
> >> >
> >> >Cite, Gelding or be called an idiot.
> >>
> >> I have, and you are an idiot.
> >
> >You have totally misread that entire paper.
>

> No I haven't. I first wanted to make clear the importance of
> genetics. I have a few papers on IQ.

I'm becoming daily more convinced that you are simply quite mad. And coming
from me, that is a stunning indictment.

I am well-aware of the importance of genetics. But how you can take what
appears to be a textbook and from that eventually draw to the conclusion
that blacks must be eradicated, I cannot understand.

>
> >
> >You are, in fact, just intelligent enough to prove the adage "a little
> >knowledge is a dangerous thing".
>

> And you are indoctrinated enough to deserve a new adage: A little
> programming is as good as alcohol in clouding reality. What did you
> blame Haiti's situation on again? Oh yeah, colonial powers
> two-hundred years ago.

Oh yeah. A bunch of uneducated slaves, few of them literate, managed to
successfully revolt and secure their freedom. However, they had no education
and they are in fact to be commended because it's _still_ not quite "Lord Of
The Flies" down there; they built something resembling a
civilization/culture from nothing more than the jungle itself.

>
> Gelding

--
"We look through a glass but darkly:
What we see is more colored by our beliefs,
than what we believe is colored by what we see."

[Joseph Canale]

On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, klaatu wrote:

> Gelding wrote:
> > Inferior? what do you mean by this? I said they have a lower IQ on
> > average than whites. I said they are more violent as well. I also
> > agreed that these traits would be fine for fighting lions. I said
> > that some of these traits would be more valuable than others in
> > certain situations. Do you deny this?
>
> I deny that there is a lower IQ average. I also deny the violence as being
> hereditary.

Even if blacks did have lower IQs on average than whites, it really
doesn't support that which he believes: innate cognitive inferiority. IQ
tests do not measure native cognitive ability. The test was developed as a
diagnostic in order that educational psychologists might have a barometer
to measure cognitive development.

> > Take this along with
> > African history, the state that blacks are in everywhere in the world,
> > the higher rates of violent behavior, and you have an obvious theory:
> > natural selection did not require IQ's above an average of 85 for
> > blacks. Moreover, selection used natural aggression to help perserve
> > the black race in the environment they were in. This theory is sound
> > because it wraps these observations into a neat package.
>
> As does any comprehensive, well-knit, inferentially-recursive, and
> completely wacky delusional system.

Doesn't really seem to know much about African history either. Africa's
"backwardness" is a recent phenomenon, and largely a byproduct of
European colonialism.

> > The world literature on racial differences in intelligence is reviewed
> > from three points of view. Firstly, studies using intelligence tests
> > indicate that Caucasoids in North America, Europe and Australasia
> > generally obtain mean IQs of around 100. Mongoloids typically obtain
> > slightly higher means in the range of 100-106. African Negroids obtain
> > mean IQs of around 70, while Negroid-Caucasoids in the United States
> > and Britain obtain means of about 85. Amerindians and the South East
> > Asian races typically obtain means in the range of 85-95.
>
> Give me the cites to the data, give me the cites to the methodology
> employed, give me the cites to the groups studies, give me cites as to the
> context, give me cites to the dates, in short give me peer-reviewed science
> or stop wasting time with these unsubstantiated allegations.

As if these racial categories had any real scientific currency. Also,
"intelligence" is a such a broad and nebulous concept that it possesses no
real scientific validity. Such a stupid debate. Hitlerian fascism is so
19th century. Even modern day fascists have pretty much abandoned
biological determinism (btw, a product of the social sciences not the
physical sciences). It's enough for them to contend cultural superiority.
Now when they speak of "race", they are refering to groupings that signify
culture not biology.

> > These
> > studies show that Mongoloids have the fastest reaction times, followed
> > by Caucasoids and then by Negroids. Thirdly, the races can be assessed
> > for their contributions to civilization. Here the Caucasoids and the
> > Mongoloids have made the most significant advances both in the
> > foundation of the early civilizations and in more recent developments.
> >
> > The existence of racial differences in intelligence has been known
> > since the time of the First World war when tests given to large
> > numbers of military conscripts in the United States revealed that
> > blacks had an average intelligence level about 15 IQ points below that
> > of whites. In the following decades there has been debate over the
> > question of whether these differences have a genetic basis.
>
> This is absolute crap. The debate has sensibly centered around whether or
> not the IQ test given to conscripts in the US military 70 years ago have
> much validity at all.

Yes, and were the ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Ethiopians,
Hittites and Nubians "Caucasoids"? Whatever they were, they sure weren't
northern European or Chinese. Infact, they probably defy his racial
classification scheme, which is ahistorical.

> > locations. Thus, Negroids should universally have lower intelligence
> > levels than Caucasoids and this difference should be found in Africa
> > and the West Indies as well as in the United States and Britain. The
> > reason for this is that the genes or alleles (alternative forms of
> > genes) for low intelligence, if these exist, should be present in all
> > Negroid populations and not merely in those whose ancestors were
> > transported as slaves to the New World. Furthermore, Negroids in the
> > United States and Britain are nearly all Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids
> > (Reed, 1969). Their Caucasoid genes should, on the genetic hypothesis,
> > raise their intelligence level as compared with the pure Negroids of
> > Africa. Hence the genetic theory demands that African Negroids should
> > have lower intelligence levels than the Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids of
> > the United States and Britain. Whether or not this is the case can be
> > regarded as a test of the genetic theory and any studies showing that
> > pure African Negroids have higher IQs than American or British Negroid
> > hybrids would falsify the genetic hypothesis.
>
> And you can't possible get valid IQ test results from native Africans who
> don't even speak the language in which the tests are conducted.

And we're supposed to believe, even if we accept the biological basis of
race, that tesing was widespread and controlled enough to support his bold
claims? That would be in addition to accepting that IQ's really do
measure something as murky as native general intelligence. How would a
non-literate culture score on such a test? How would we do on a test such
a culture might devise to test skills they consider valuable? That the
East Asians do well on such tests is clearly understandable in light of
the fact that their cultures place a premuim on test taking ability. It
goes back over 2,000 years to Confucius and the civil service exams that
were/are the entire focus of their educational traditions.

Really, history disproves your biological theories. Because if genes
were destiny, most Europeans would still be illiterate nomads whorshiping
rocks. Even the oh so smart Japanese only have a 1,000 year old
civilization. Lucky for them they were in proximity to the Chinese and
Koreans from whom they learned much. Certainly the Incan empire is one
of the most original and resourceful civilizations ever. Totally isolated
from the world's development hearth, and yet able to build a materially
advanced civilization at 15,000 feet. Do you have any idea of the
agricultural genius it would take to sustain cities at that elevation? How
do you think upland Peruvian indians would score on an IQ test? Oh, he
has some category called "Amerindian". Gee, I always thought they were
grouped with the Mongoloids --as if hundreds of different disparate
ethnicities could be lumped in one category.

Joe

[John Lee]

In article <eh7l6soptbvhfmo9q...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:26:44 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> >Gelding wrote:

> >> Amazing that our liberal universities
> >> just happen to find out that their wacko philosophy happens to be
> >> scientifically correct.
> >>
> >> He he, yeah right.
> >
> >Amazing that you do the exact same thing. Not. Not amazing. Expected.
>
>

> Please. It is not true scientist that attack other scientist for
> publishing papers that don't agree with our philosophy.

Such as yourself, maybe, who has chosen to rubbish the whole academic
field of history on the basis that it doesn't agree with your (uneducated)
description of pre-colonial Africa.

It is not our
> people who alter tests in order to let blacks score higher. It is not
> our people who refuse to report black on white crime and
> sensationalize black on white crime. Shall I continue? I think you
> get the point. It is not even debatable that your kind is
> intellectually dishonest when your philosophy needs you to be. This
> is demonstrated by simply picking up a newspaper. what's more
> pathetic, is that you know this as well as I do Klaat. When I ask for
> anything substantive you and your kind cannot deliver. I ask for
> great works by Black SUB-SAHARAN people. You can produce nothing. I
> ask for one advanced population of Sub-Saharan blacks. You can
> produce nothing. Do you see what is happening? The only things you
> can produce are those which can be manipulated with lies and
> distortion. We give black history, we give IQ studies, we give crime
> numbers, we give current status, we give natural selection. All your
> kind can do is try to give alternate reasons for these observations.
> yet you are able to give nothing that equals what we give. The equal
> would be black contributions to civilization (something moe
> substantive than peanut butter) Give us some studies that show IQ
> uniformity between the races. Show us some great works. You can give
> nothing other than those things which can be twisted and lied about.
> Klaat, you can give no Black Sub-Saharan contributions to art and
> science because they don't exist. These are the very things you
> cannot lie about. Lies cannot make a Sisteen chapel, and
> consequently, you can show nothing of the sort. How come Klaat?
> Because you are behind a barrier of substantive evidence, that's why.
> Your philosophy resides in a world of twisted logic and political
> motivations. When it comes time to lay out the substantial evidence
> you simply shoot blanks. You can never cross these barriers because
> they require truth in order to pass. We can offer observations of
> real African history. We offer an obvious view of black, modern
> civilization according to its status in the world. You can only
> attack our observations. You cannot, however, show serious black
> contributions to civilization. Nor can you show a single, highly
> developed, current black population. You cannot show black crime
> numbers to be lower than white numbers. You cannot show an equality
> of black test scores around the world, let alone even a small
> percentage of this. Klaat, you and your kind have nothing when it
> comes time to lay your evidence out on the table. You can merely
> attempt to attack our evidence. Where is the evidence that cannot be
> twisted and lied about? Start with a few higher black civilizations,
> then add some test scores, then give us some great Sub-Saharan works
> and contributions to civilization. Where is your counter-evidence?

The West African empire of Mali, in which, around 1300 A.D., was built the
university of Timbuktu. The result was a system of law based on qualified
judges, much more advanced than that of most (if not all) European nations
at that time, as well as producing qualified medical and teaching
professions. The university itself attracted scholars from far and wide.
Outside of the African continent, when, shortly after 1300 A.D., the king
went on a pilgrimage to Mecca, his intelligence and that of his
accompanying scholars were remarked upon.

As for works of art from Sub-Saharan African nations, such as the
Ethiopean churches form around 1100 A.D., or bronze sculptures from as far
back as 600 B.C., there are countless books containig pictures that are in
print, and a simple trip to the local library would be sufficient, or, in
many cases, a museum of art or history would contain what you are looking
for.

> > Science rather takes what can be demonstrated, and what can
> >be reliably reproduced elsewhere.
>

> Science will accept a theory until it is disproven by a better one.
> Where is your counter-evidence? A simple higher black civilization
> would be a starter. I have proposed a theory. Now you propose one
> that makes MORE sense of the observed facts. If you can show that it
> does, then I will gladly accept your theory. Science starts with
> observation. It can be demonstrated that blacks have not contributed
> to civilization in and meaningful way. It can be demonstrated that
> there are no higher black civilizations. It can be demonstrated that
> black crime numbers are higher than white numbers. It is completely
> proper for us to make certain conclusions about these observations.
> It is on you to not only attack our claims (which you do in a
> strikingly incompetent manner: Haiti, Egypt, crime, black history),
> but to offer substantive evidence to support your explanation of the
> demonstratable observations.

It is completely improper unless you can prove the link between those
observations and the said conclusions. Science relies on proof, not simply
any theory that comes along.

Yours, J. Lee

[Thomas Mohr]

Gelding wrote:

< snip >

> Please. It is not true scientist that attack other scientist for

> publishing papers that don't agree with our philosophy. It is not our

> people who alter tests in order to let blacks score higher.

That is not true. In fact, omitting studies showing blacks as equal was
one of the *main* points against the book "The Bell Curve" and is still
one of the main points against Rushton, Jensen and Co.

> It is not
> our people who refuse to report black on white crime and
> sensationalize black on white crime. Shall I continue? I think you
> get the point. It is not even debatable that your kind is
> intellectually dishonest when your philosophy needs you to be.

Intellectually dishonest ? Look, you propose something as "fact" which
is at best a rather thin hypothesis. On being challenegd to produce
state-of-the art material, you give a review and opinions of a few
individuals. That is what I call dishonest.

> I ask for
> great works by Black SUB-SAHARAN people. You can produce nothing.

So ? The metal statues and Ebony works of West-Africa f.i. The
Cave-drawings of the Hottentots, f.i. The invention of steel *way*
before the Europeans, f.i.

> I
> ask for one advanced population of Sub-Saharan blacks. You can
> produce nothing.

The development of the state of Zimbabwe f.i.

> Do you see what is happening? The only things you
> can produce are those which can be manipulated with lies and
> distortion. We give black history, we give IQ studies, we give crime
> numbers, we give current status, we give natural selection.

And all in some duboious papers reflecting "opinions". Wow.
> lies cannot make a Sisteen chapel,

Learn English. It is the Sixtinian chapel, not the Sisteen something
babble.... Do you know why it is named "Sixtinian chapel" ? My non-white
cousin knows that.

< meanigless drivel deleted >
> Where is your counter-evidence?

Where is YOUR evidence of a *causal* relation ?
< snipped >
>
> But again all you can do is attack our evidence.

Which evidence ? You never produced causal evidence.
< snip >

> Science will accept a theory until it is disproven by a better one.

No, Gelding, as a scientist I can tell you that science does NOT accept
a theory until *sufficient* evidence is given.

> It can be demonstrated that
> black crime numbers are higher than white numbers. It is completely
> proper for us to make certain conclusions about these observations.
>
> It is on you to not only attack our claims (which you do in a
> strikingly incompetent manner: Haiti, Egypt, crime, black history),
> but to offer substantive evidence to support your explanation of the
> demonstratable observations.

No, Gelding. It doesn't work that way. What you do is describing a
phenomenon. Then you have a hypothesis. It is YOUR task to bring
evidence for your theory. Where is it ?

< meaningless drivel snipped >

Gelding in conclusion it can be said that you're a true idiot.

First, you have a phenomenon.
Second you have a hypothesis which is not backed.

Now you present it as a theory and the universal explanation for all.
One question: Did you *ever* try to think logical ?

[klaatu]

Gelding wrote:

>
> On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:26:44 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> >Gelding wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:07:33 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Gelding wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 12:14:00 +0100, Thomas Mohr
> >> >> <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Gelding wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:47:33 +0100, Thomas Mohr
> >> >> >> <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Gelding, I have explained again and again and again that *no* causal
> >> >> >> >realtion between low IQ and race has been established yet. No. Nada.
> >> >> >> >Keine. All we have are a bunch of studies, nothing else.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And I have explained again and again that there are.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Okay, I challenge you to following: Either cite a strudy giving a causal
> >> >> >correlation between race and IQ or admit that you're too stupid to do
> >> >> >so. Not citing will result automatically in assuming the latter.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The concept of heredity in Western thought: Part three
> >> >> from Mankind Quarterly Sept. 1, 1995
> >> >
> >> >Slightly dated isn't it? Well, you shall have some comments interspersed.
> >>
> >> And your comments are worth what? Wow, I am surprised that you
> >> couldn't free yourself from the chains of your silly philosophy.
> >
> >I don't have a silly philosophy, in my opinion -- clearly your opinion
> >differs.
>

> Obviously.

>
> >
> >> Isn't it funny how modern liberal science just seems to fit exactly
> >> with your nutty philosophy?
> >
> >Possibly because my "nutty philosophy" is based on science, whereas your
> >isn't?
>

> Oh please. Liberal-egalitarianism came not from science my friend.

I cannot begin to try to tell you what my philosophy is, but genuine liberal
egalitarians would be aghast, suffice it to say. I am not on your
"conservative/liberal" spectrum. I make up my own mind based on the data I
have, and the science and technology I firmly understand.

But when I see data I like, I look for data I don't like. when I feel
comfortable in my belief system, I start very much to worry, generally it
means that I have overlooked something.

You appear to be quite comfortable that you "know it all". You should be
less inclined to rest on your laurels. That is the road to being
"pre-concepted" which amounts to looking at the world through tinted
glasses. The view you see may no be rosy and in fact may be far from that.
But because it's all crystal clear in focus does not mean that you're seeing
all of the colors.

>
> >
> >You can't have science be valid if you've got preconceived notions which
> >eliminate the null hypothesis or the falsifiability of a hypothesis, which
> >you don't allow, thus your hypothesis is tautological and self-proving no
> >matter what data one plugs into it. Thus, you're practicing bad science if
> >at all.
>

> That is a perfect description of your problem.

In our opinio. But I won't argue it, I can see that you are set in your
opinion and all you will to is say "and you're another" from here on in.

>
> >
> >> Amazing that our liberal universities
> >> just happen to find out that their wacko philosophy happens to be
> >> scientifically correct.
> >>
> >> He he, yeah right.
> >
> >Amazing that you do the exact same thing. Not. Not amazing. Expected.
>

> Please. It is not true scientist that attack other scientist for
> publishing papers that don't agree with our philosophy.

No, we attack bad science. Good science that leads to really annoying
conclusions, however, is merely an invitation to do some more good science
that can lead to solutions which are less... unpalatable.

> It is not our
> people who alter tests in order to let blacks score higher. It is not

> our people who refuse to report black on white crime and
> sensationalize black on white crime. Shall I continue? I think you
> get the point. It is not even debatable that your kind is
> intellectually dishonest when your philosophy needs you to be.

Look, I'm a man of the world, and it bothers the hell out of me when I see
the goddamned leftist media trying to pull the wool ove the eyes of the
public, and it bothers other people as well. And so we got anti-liberal
talk-radio and the Art Bell show and all of that other extremist abreaction.
As a man of the world, it bothers the hell out of me that the media gets all
bent out of shape with reporting atrocities by one race against another as
racist, but reporting similar atrocities with the reversed racial
perp/victim mix as just an atrocious crime. The thing is, as you know so
well, racism sells papers. To be blunt, "dog bites man is not news. Man
bites dog, now that's news". There's little dishonesty, in fact I think it's
baldly cynical that the media itself makes the unstated _presumption_ that
when a black man assualts a white man, obviously the white man was asking
for it by being someplace where he ought not to have been, while on the
other hand they're failing to get the real point of white assaults on blacks
as being _something that the whites should have been above doing_.

So what you're seeing is the paper not reporting assaults on strayed
upper-crusties who got into the wrong neighborhood, probably on a mission of
vice, but they _do_ report on the antics of racist white-trash.

You wanted honesty? There's my take.

> This
> is demonstrated by simply picking up a newspaper. what's more
> pathetic, is that you know this as well as I do Klaat. When I ask for

> anything substantive you and your kind cannot deliver. I ask for
> great works by Black SUB-SAHARAN people. You can produce nothing. I

> ask for one advanced population of Sub-Saharan blacks. You can

> produce nothing. Do you see what is happening? The only things you

> can produce are those which can be manipulated with lies and
> distortion.

This is a crock of shit. I keep posting information for you and you don't
even see it, you pretend I haevn't posted it. You'll win no arguments there.

Try using altavista and look up "great zimbabwe". That's pretty damned
sub-saharan. Try searching "ancient ghana". That's pretty sub-saharan.

> We give black history, we give IQ studies, we give crime

> numbers, we give current status, we give natural selection. All your
> kind can do is try to give alternate reasons for these observations.
> yet you are able to give nothing that equals what we give. The equal
> would be black contributions to civilization (something moe
> substantive than peanut butter) Give us some studies that show IQ
> uniformity between the races. Show us some great works. You can give
> nothing other than those things which can be twisted and lied about.

I posted a page full of URL for you. You clearly haven't even looked.

Start at http://www.pbs.org/wonders/ to see some fine examples of
sub-saharan ancient architecture. For instance, see
http://www.pbs.org/wonders/images/content/wonders/iw-empir.jpg from the
ancient Ghanian empire.

> Klaat, you can give no Black Sub-Saharan contributions to art and
> science because they don't exist. These are the very things you
> cannot lie about. Lies cannot make a Sisteen chapel, and
> consequently, you can show nothing of the sort. How come Klaat?

Possibly because. Museums survive largely through people coming to visit
them. They can make little or no revenue from copying art to the WWW. This
may be particularly true of African Art collections. One of the best sources
for information of this type, PBS-TV, is also trying to make ends meet by
selling their excellent photojournalism on video, so they're only mounting
teasers.

> Because you are behind a barrier of substantive evidence, that's why.
> Your philosophy resides in a world of twisted logic and political
> motivations. When it comes time to lay out the substantial evidence
> you simply shoot blanks. You can never cross these barriers because
> they require truth in order to pass. We can offer observations of
> real African history. We offer an obvious view of black, modern
> civilization according to its status in the world. You can only
> attack our observations. You cannot, however, show serious black
> contributions to civilization.

http://www.si.edu/activity/planvis/museums/i-nmafa.htm

US National Museum of African Art begs to differ.

See their "Images of Power and Identity" which is exclusively sub-saharan.

http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/ipi.htm

See also:

http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/sudart/86-12-2.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/sudart/89-7-1.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/sudart/91-16-1.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/sudart/91-8-1.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/guinart/85-1-2.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/guinart/93-2-2.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/yorbart/88-13-1.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/yorbart/89-17-1.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/Eguinart/87-6-1.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/Eguinart/88-11-1.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/camart/85-8-1.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/ogoart/90-6-1.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/upCart/85-17-1.gif
http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/eastCart/86-12-14.gif

See also:

"Graet Zimbabwe"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/interact/longterm/horizon/111396/zmbabwe.htm

Or see http://osu.orst.edu/dept/library/access/video/africa15.htm and order
a video -- color / 20 min / DT3025 .G84 A61 1990

A journey through one of Africa's legendary kingdoms -
Great Zimbabwe - the largest stone structure in Africa
after the Pyramids. Immense and mysterious, both the
Great Enclosure and the Hill Ruin are revealed and
explained. Brass, copper and gold artifacts excavated
at the site attest to the excellence of the indigenous
craftsmanship of the time.

See http://safarisafrica.com/Images/anc1.gif -- interior of a room at Great
Zimbabwe. For scale, it's a little bigger than the Sistine Chapel.

Regarding Great Zimbabwe,

The African nation of Zimbabwe takes
its name from an ancient masonry city
called Great Zimbabwe, which was once
a great peaceful trading center. The
ruins are a vast engineering complex
of rooms and maze- like patterns of
passageways, running for almost a
mile. Lienhard said that carbon dating
has shown that the Iron Age Rhodesians
began the city after 200 AD, then
abandoned it until the 9th or 10th
century. The masonry went up in the
11th century, just before the Gothic
Cathedrals in Europe. He said, "Great
Zimbabwe is only one of hundreds of
abandoned Zimbabwes engineered in other
parts of Africa."

Leinhard is Dr. John Leinhard, an engineering historian, and host of
National Public Radio's Engines of Our Ingenuity.

> Nor can you show a single, highly
> developed, current black population.

Nairobi, Kenya.

> You cannot show black crime
> numbers to be lower than white numbers. You cannot show an equality
> of black test scores around the world, let alone even a small
> percentage of this. Klaat, you and your kind have nothing when it
> comes time to lay your evidence out on the table. You can merely
> attempt to attack our evidence. Where is the evidence that cannot be
> twisted and lied about?

Especially the way that you lie about and twist results which are highly
questionable.

But the evidence which cannot be twisted is cited above. but since it
doesn't support your worldview, I expect you'll simply ignore it, discount
it, or find some weasel way to pretend that it's irrelevant.

> Start with a few higher black civilizations,
> then add some test scores, then give us some great Sub-Saharan works
> and contributions to civilization. Where is your counter-evidence?

See above. And that's just for starters.

You know, if you seriously piss me off, I shall gather every single onlined
resource that refutes your position, and put it all on a web-page just to
save myself (and save others as well) future wastes of repititious typing.

<snips>

> >I deny that there is a lower IQ average. I also deny the violence as being
> >hereditary.
>

> But again all you can do is attack our evidence. In short, you can
> only offer what can be twisted and lied about. Show us the many
> papers about blacks having equal IQ's. Show us the higher black
> civilizations just as we can show you lower ones.

done. See above.

>
> >> >> >> I have also
> >> >> >> shown that your kind will lie at every opportunity in order to further
> >> >> >> your philosophy.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Cite where I have lied. Just try.
> >> >>
> >> >> Good god. Almost everything you say is a twisted argument meant to
> >> >> cloud an issue. Saying that mental funtions are not shaped by
> >> >> genetics is not only stupid, it goes against the clear experience of
> >> >> every breeder of animals there has ever been. The brain is physical
> >> >> Mohr. It is you who needs to show it is somehow separate from the
> >> >> body that is shaped by selction and genetics.
> >> >
> >> >It is YOU who need to show the truth of your assertions that blacks are
> >> >inferior.
>
> >>
> >> See above. My claims are backed up by the history, current situation,
> >> and crime stats of blacks.
> >
> >Cites. Post 'em. All we have are your claims. We don't have whatever your
> >claims are based on.
> >
> >
> >> All you came up with was silly excuses of
> >> a wide variety to explain the observations we have. Poor science
> >> indeed. Science will take the explanation that can tie the most
> >> observations together.
> >
> >No it _doesn't_.
>

> yes it does.

>
> > Science rather takes what can be demonstrated, and what can
> >be reliably reproduced elsewhere.
>

> Science will accept a theory until it is disproven by a better one.

No it won't; it will take a theory which has been _scientifically tested and
validated and reproduced and which cannot be disproven_ until one comes
along which better explains the data, and also is test, validated, and
reproduced, and which cannot be disproven.

Your simplifications are getting you into the realm of fuzzy thinking. I am
not surprised that you have reached simpleminded conclusions due to a lack
of complete understanding of what science is.

> Where is your counter-evidence? A simple higher black civilization
> would be a starter. I have proposed a theory. Now you propose one
> that makes MORE sense of the observed facts. If you can show that it
> does, then I will gladly accept your theory. Science starts with
> observation. It can be demonstrated that blacks have not contributed
> to civilization in and meaningful way.

No it cannot, and in fact, "au contraire mon frere".

> It can be demonstrated that

> there are no higher black civilizations. It can be demonstrated that

> black crime numbers are higher than white numbers.

Again, you are taking advantage of sweeping generalizations. You should in
fact be comparing similar populations, for instance crime among middle-class
blacks versus crime among middle-class whites (guess what, I betcha that the
middle class whites are triple the crime rate of middle class blacks). But
you're taking a general statistic for a populations that is one of the
poorest _on average_ and the most subjected to severe and degrading living
conditions _on average_ and comparing it to the _on average_ most empowered,
enfranchised, and richest general populations.

In short, our basic model is inherently flawed. You need to examine
comparable populations instead of really quite-vague and sweeping global
supergroups.

> It is completely
> proper for us to make certain conclusions about these observations.
> It is on you to not only attack our claims (which you do in a
> strikingly incompetent manner: Haiti, Egypt, crime, black history),
> but to offer substantive evidence to support your explanation of the
> demonstratable observations.

done, see above.

>
> >
> >Science is _well aware_ that quite commonly the explanation that can tie the
> >most observations together has historically turned out to be incomplete at
> >best, and flat-out wrong as commonly.
>

> And that is exactly how it is supposed to work. Now it is on you to
> show this in our case. The best way to do this would be to show higher
> black civilization. Show evidence that not only disproves ours, but
> substantiates your theory. Your theory on Haiti, for example, is
> compared to my theory on Haiti. Mine ties in many other facts about
> the black race. Mine would be the more reasonable in this case. You
> have not shown that your theory has any more merit than my theory on
> Haiti. Even if all things were equal in our argument, mine still
> explains many other facets of black history and civilization, while
> your is limited to that certain situation. The situation in haiti
> could be predicted when considering all the other observations about
> the black race. Not only that, many things we see can all be
> interconnected.

Only by someone predisposed to do so due to their inherent racism.

> If we start at the fact that blacks have a higher
> crime rate, we may then ask the reason. You say that it is poverty
> and racism. I say well, there should be many higher black
> civilizations then.

There have been, ones which were before their decline the
equals-if-not-superiors of any of the Asian or European civilizations,
excepting Greece and Rome.

> I say there should be contributions from black
> history that rival any other race. But then I find out that there are
> no contributions from the blacks of history.

No, you don't find that out because it is not true.

> This puts a severe dent
> in your theory.

No it does not because it is, technically, a "willful fabrication by
omission".

> Then we find out that IQ tests show a difference in
> whites and blacks. This observation would explain the black history
> as well as the crime numbers.

No it doesn't. Or maybe you can explain to me how it does.

> We should be able to predict from this
> that we should find no current higher black civilizations around the
> world. Low and behold, that is exactly what we find. Why go on, you
> know all this.

No I do not. I can point out Kenya. They are at a stage of development not
unlike that of the US in the 1920s. But they are going to be nearly our
equals within 20 to 30 years, and I'll be glad when that day comes, because
I can point it out to you and laugh at your discomfort when you see that
there is an African nation which has its own appropriate technical base, is
the breadbasket of Africa and Asia, and will increasingly be a center of
technology and education. It is possessed of almost as great an agricultural
and mineral resource as is the entire US midwest from the Rockies to the
Mississippi, it has perfect sites for space-access launches, and there is a
phenomenon which you exclude from your contemplations of future history
because you are willfully ignorant of the past.

You say you are concerned with "negro degeneracy". You appear to believe
that blacks have no evolved as far as, nor in the direction of, european
white populations. But right now in Africa there is a plague which will
cause as much change in all aspects of existence, as did the winnowings of
plague and civil collapse in midieval Europe. At least one in ten Africans
is infected with a slow-onset form of HIV. Who will _not_ die from this? The
educated, the thoughful, the wealthy, but above all the moral will through
their personal choices survive to raise the next generation. The criminal,
the wanton, the stupid... they will all have their genes removed from the
pool through their own deficiencies, especially in moral behavior. Thus, the
next generation of Africans, and certainly their children, will have been
scourged of the unrighteous and all survivors will be superior by far to the
Africans you now scorn. They will be direct competition, with a very low
population in possession of vast resources, and most of them will be the
children of well-educated disciplined wealthy people who will raise their
children with morals and discipline and fine educations. They will be far
from degenerate, and will produce works comparable to any done elsewhere,
and will do it without the strains that the older Technical World cultures
have; their underclasses will have all died of AIDS plague.

Then you will have the answer to your complaints about "negro inferiority",
an educated and moral all-black sub-saharan civilization the equal of our
own. but you are ignorant of the past and blind to half of the present, and
so you cannot see the future coming. In the future, such as yourself will be
shown, by your own methods, inferior and potentially a threat.

I will laugh when I see you with your shoe on the other foot.

<snips because I am getting tired of arguing with a wall>

[Thomas Mohr]

< shit snipped >

Gelding, let me lecture you again:

You white racists have

a) A higher incidence for crimes than other whites since your crime
records include hate-crimes.
b) a disproportionally high number of low-IQ followers as it is proven
in any election analysis.
c) Most of racist art that was produced (i.e. Germany during 1933 and
1945) is simply speaking *trash*

Do you know what that means - according to your logic ? You guys are
stupid.

Now, Gelding, I am awaiting your proofs for your hypothesis. And please,
not just opinions from people of which you don#t know whether they are
really big in their fields or not.

[Thomas Mohr]

Gelding wrote:
>
>< shit snipped >

Gelding, this is your last chance.

A) cite a peer reviewed study linking Race and IQ causally or
B) Admit that you are an idiot.

If you can not cite an appropriate study, it will be *automatically
assumed that you have choosen B). As i said, this is your last chnce to
*prove* your hypothesis.

Gelding, I don't know your background, but obviously it is not too good,
so let me lecture you: You have proposed a hypothesis, therefore it is
*your* and only, exclusively *your* task to prove it - and not just with
*opinions* but with *facts*

Let me lecture you further: my - by your definition - nonwhite cousin
would get that concept. You obviously do not. That is exactly the reason
why she is lightyears ahead of you, you little shame for whites.

[Thomas Mohr]

Gelding, here is a passage that reflectes the opinion (supported by
*facts*) of leading experts in the field of anthropology:

"Ridiculous" is the word cultural anthropologist John Moore of the
University of Florida, Gainesville, uses to describe such
racial typing. This view is based on a growing body of data that
indicates, as Moore says, that "there aren't any boundaries
between races." Geneticist Kenneth Kidd of Yale University says the DNA
samples he's examined show that there is "a
virtual continuum of genetic variation" around the world. "There's no
place where you can draw a line and say there's a
major difference on one side of the line from what's on the other side."
If one is talking about a distinct, discrete, identifiable
population, Kidd adds, "there's no such thing as race in [modern] Homo
sapiens." Indeed, the American Anthropological
Association urged the government last year to do away with racial
categories and, in political matters, let people define their
own ethnicity.

[Thomas Mohr]

Gelding wrote:

< snip >.

> Really, and are there more studies showing equality than there are
> those that show the difference?

Gelding, you can produce indefinitely many studies and yet are not able
to prove your point. If I produce *one* study, your point is disproven.
That is how science works. there *are* studies showing no difference (or
not that large) between blacks and whites regarding IQ.

< snip >

> >Intellectually dishonest ? Look, you propose something as "fact" which
> >is at best a rather thin hypothesis.
>

> I claim that we have a reasonable explanation of the observable facts.
> You seem to at least admit that it is one possible explanation. is it
> possible or not Mohr? I believe that Klaat has already admitted that
> it is one possible explanation. I would be satisfied in having you
> admit that. So is it?

Look, "the earth is flat" is *also* a possible explanation for certain
phenomena.

< snip >

> A few leaders in the field Mohr. Don't act like that is meaningless.
> If their opinions were not informed they wouldn't be in the field.
> regardless, we have a reasonable theory as to what we observe about
> the black race. No, I do not have actual facts other than the
> observations that we have.

Then don't present your hypothesis as if it would be a fact.

< meaningless drivel snipped>

< snip >

> >First, you have a phenomenon.
> >Second you have a hypothesis which is not backed.
>

> And do you have a hypothesis? It is my opinion that the blanket
> excuse of racism is far more unreasonable than our theory. So it
> looks like whatever we have, it is more reasonable than what your side
> does.

read Jared Diamond before you loose your face again.

[Dominion]

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 23:14:17 -0800, Gelding <m...@home.com> wrote:

<snip>

>A few leaders in the field Mohr. Don't act like that is meaningless.
>If their opinions were not informed they wouldn't be in the field.
>regardless, we have a reasonable theory as to what we observe about
>the black race. No, I do not have actual facts other than the

>observations that we have. The hypothesis, however, is a reasonable
>interpretation of the observations in my opinion (and in the opinion
>of many experts in the field). If you claim that our theory is
>impossible, then you better have some serious evidence to substantiate
>it.

Boy this is rich. You have not offered any evidence on your
"hypothesis" (blacks have a lower IQ than whites), yet you want to
tell someone else that they had better have "serious evidence"?

BWAHAHAHAHA.

Why in the hell would anyone want to give a bigot evidence? It is not
like you would pay attention to it anyway. You are not interested in
any real studies, you are only interested in proving that blacks are
not as good as you, by virtue of having more melanin in their skin
than you. You don't care what studies show. You already "know" that
black are more violent than whites, that they are more prone to crime,
that they are dumb, they stink, they are lazy...etc...etc...etc...ad
nauseum. You will ignore the fact that "race" is a completely
arbitrary label (don't believe me? I have a friend in Louisiana that
is listed as non-white on the state roles. Both he and his parents are
as white as I am. However, he had a black grandmother and so...). If I
were to strip the skin from a black and a white, you would not be able
to tell the difference..

I 'could' explain things to you, but why waste my breath? I live in
Texas, I see people like you every day of the week, even more on the
weekends. There is no arguing with you. There is no reasoning with
you. You are a bigot ie. a non-thinking caucasianoid who's life is so
poor that he has to run down other people to feel big.

No one needs to give you proof of anything. No one needs to discuss
evidence with you. All they need to do is identify you as the ignorant
bigot that you are.

--
Dominion
--

"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and
reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against
which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily
in high schools."
-- 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary
rocket work.

[DARNELL HOWARD]

Gelding wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:06:48 +0100, Thomas Mohr
> <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote:
>
> >Gelding wrote:
> >
> >< snip >

> >
> >> Please. It is not true scientist that attack other scientist for

> >> publishing papers that don't agree with our philosophy. It is not our

> >> people who alter tests in order to let blacks score higher.
> >

> >That is not true. In fact, omitting studies showing blacks as equal was
> >one of the *main* points against the book "The Bell Curve" and is still
> >one of the main points against Rushton, Jensen and Co.
>

> Really, and are there more studies showing equality than there are
> those that show the difference?
>
> >

> >> It is not
> >> our people who refuse to report black on white crime and
> >> sensationalize black on white crime. Shall I continue? I think you
> >> get the point. It is not even debatable that your kind is
> >> intellectually dishonest when your philosophy needs you to be.
> >

> >Intellectually dishonest ? Look, you propose something as "fact" which
> >is at best a rather thin hypothesis.
>
> I claim that we have a reasonable explanation of the observable facts.
> You seem to at least admit that it is one possible explanation. is it
> possible or not Mohr? I believe that Klaat has already admitted that
> it is one possible explanation. I would be satisfied in having you
> admit that. So is it?
>

> > On being challenegd to produce
> >state-of-the art material, you give a review and opinions of a few
> >individuals. That is what I call dishonest.
>

> A few leaders in the field Mohr. Don't act like that is meaningless.
> If their opinions were not informed they wouldn't be in the field.
> regardless, we have a reasonable theory as to what we observe about
> the black race. No, I do not have actual facts other than the
> observations that we have. The hypothesis, however, is a reasonable
> interpretation of the observations in my opinion (and in the opinion
> of many experts in the field). If you claim that our theory is
> impossible, then you better have some serious evidence to substantiate
> it.
>
> >

> >> I ask for
> >> great works by Black SUB-SAHARAN people. You can produce nothing.
> >

> >So ? The metal statues and Ebony works of West-Africa f.i. The
> >Cave-drawings of the Hottentots, f.i. The invention of steel *way*
> >before the Europeans, f.i.
>

> yeah yeah yeah. I have seen nothing that can even come close to the
> other races in the world (and neither have you).

>
> >
> >> I
> >> ask for one advanced population of Sub-Saharan blacks. You can
> >> produce nothing.
> >

> >The development of the state of Zimbabwe f.i.
>

> Are they contributing to the world of modern science and art? Are
> they an economic force, or a national welfare case? Do they have a
> space program? Can you show that they are a scientific and cultural
> center?

>
> >
> >> Do you see what is happening? The only things you
> >> can produce are those which can be manipulated with lies and

> >> distortion. We give black history, we give IQ studies, we give crime

> >> numbers, we give current status, we give natural selection.
> >

> >And all in some duboious papers reflecting "opinions". Wow.
> >> lies cannot make a Sisteen chapel,
> >
> >Learn English. It is the Sixtinian chapel, not the Sisteen something

> >babble....
>
> Not where I come from.
>
> Sistine Chapel,
> [for Sixtus IV], private
> chapel of the popes in the VATICAN. Built
> (1473) for Pope SIXTUS IV, it is world famous
> for its decorations. Frescoes by PERUGINO,
> BOTTICELLI, GHIRLANDAIO, and others are
> on the side walls. The best known, however,
> are MICHELANGELO's paintings on the
> ceiling of scenes from the Bible. Below these
> are his figures of the prophets and sibyls, all
> prefiguring the salvation of Christianity. His
> awesome Last Judgment is on the altar wall.
> The chapel also has a notable collection of
> illuminated music manuscripts. Cleaning and
> restoration of the frescoes began in 1980; all
> work is expected to be completed in 1994.

>
> >Do you know why it is named "Sixtinian chapel" ? My non-white
> >cousin knows that.
>

> I gave you a proper name Mohr. Know what you are talking about before
> you speak.

>
> >
> >< meanigless drivel deleted >
> >> Where is your counter-evidence?
> >
> >Where is YOUR evidence of a *causal* relation ?
>

> And your theory please?

> >>
> >> But again all you can do is attack our evidence.
> >

> >Which evidence ? You never produced causal evidence.
>

> And many doctors cannot produce a particular gene that causes a
> disease. That doesn't mean that they do not have good reason to
> assume that it is genetic in nature. Right? Theories can be offered
> and considered more reasonable than others before they are factually
> proven Mohr. Newtons laws gave scientists advantages in their
> experiments Mohr. It was assumed that it was correct in every
> fashion. The theory of relativity replaced it as a further
> explanation for the nature of the universe. It doesn't mean that
> Newton's theory was unreasonable Mohr. It was a reasonable
> explanation for the observations at the time. It could not explain
> the orbit of Venus, however. That doesn't mean they didn't accept the
> theory at the time, because they could use it to explain many
> observations.

>
> >
> >> Science will accept a theory until it is disproven by a better one.
> >

> >No, Gelding, as a scientist I can tell you that science does NOT accept
> >a theory until *sufficient* evidence is given.
>

> And I just gave you an example. A theory can be MORE reasonable than
> another. It doesn't have to be a demonstratable fact. You have
> already admitted that our theory is at least a possible explanation
> for the observations. What if proof does come that our theory is
> correct Mohr? Would you go where truth ordered you to go? Somehow, I
> get the feeling you wouldn't.

>
> >> It can be demonstrated that

> >> black crime numbers are higher than white numbers. It is completely

> >> proper for us to make certain conclusions about these observations.
> >>
> >> It is on you to not only attack our claims (which you do in a
> >> strikingly incompetent manner: Haiti, Egypt, crime, black history),
> >> but to offer substantive evidence to support your explanation of the
> >> demonstratable observations.
> >

> >No, Gelding. It doesn't work that way. What you do is describing a
> >phenomenon. Then you have a hypothesis. It is YOUR task to bring
> >evidence for your theory. Where is it ?
>

> because I may not have factual proof, My theory can still be more
> reasonable than other theories. As long as you agree that it is a
> possible explanation, then I am satisfied. If the only debate between
> us is which possible theory is more reasonable, then I will take my
> position any day.

>
> >
>
> >First, you have a phenomenon.
> >Second you have a hypothesis which is not backed.
>
> And do you have a hypothesis? It is my opinion that the blanket
> excuse of racism is far more unreasonable than our theory. So it
> looks like whatever we have, it is more reasonable than what your side
> does.
>

> Gelding
I believe it should be pointed out that when an individual or group
accuses others of foul deeds as has been continually done by the
"rights" and liberal/left gang against the Euro-Americans, then that
group has a right and indeed a duty to defend itself against the
charges. But the left believes that the quarry should submit meekly and
not put up any fight or resistence, and many have done just that. The
left prefers a rigged fight and have their foes go calmly into the
tank. What gelding is suggesting is merely some fairness in debate and
openess of issues. Don't wait for it to happen without a fierce fight .

[klaatu]

Gelding wrote:
>
> >Try using altavista and look up "great zimbabwe". That's pretty damned
> >sub-saharan. Try searching "ancient ghana". That's pretty sub-saharan.
>

> For now I will review your links. I will also check them with other
> sources.

>
> >
> >> We give black history, we give IQ studies, we give crime
> >> numbers, we give current status, we give natural selection. All your
> >> kind can do is try to give alternate reasons for these observations.
> >> yet you are able to give nothing that equals what we give. The equal
> >> would be black contributions to civilization (something moe
> >> substantive than peanut butter) Give us some studies that show IQ
> >> uniformity between the races. Show us some great works. You can give
> >> nothing other than those things which can be twisted and lied about.
> >
> >I posted a page full of URL for you. You clearly haven't even looked.
> >
> >Start at http://www.pbs.org/wonders/ to see some fine examples of
> >sub-saharan ancient architecture. For instance, see
> >http://www.pbs.org/wonders/images/content/wonders/iw-empir.jpg from the
> >ancient Ghanian empire.
>

> Bwahahahahahahahahah
>
> You call this pathetic thing the equivalent of the sisteen chapel?
> This link has one single picture of a pathetic looking thing. It
> gives no sense of scale, and I can find nothing about it.

No, that's not what I call the equivalent of the Sistine Chapel.

>
> >
> >> Klaat, you can give no Black Sub-Saharan contributions to art and
> >> science because they don't exist. These are the very things you
> >> cannot lie about. Lies cannot make a Sisteen chapel, and
> >> consequently, you can show nothing of the sort. How come Klaat?
> >
> >Possibly because. Museums survive largely through people coming to visit
> >them. They can make little or no revenue from copying art to the WWW. This
> >may be particularly true of African Art collections. One of the best sources
> >for information of this type, PBS-TV, is also trying to make ends meet by
> >selling their excellent photojournalism on video, so they're only mounting
> >teasers.
> >
>

> Believe me, If these works rivaled the great works of white art they
> would have no trouble finding visitors.

Actually, they _do_ have no problem finding visitors.

>
> >> Because you are behind a barrier of substantive evidence, that's why.
> >> Your philosophy resides in a world of twisted logic and political
> >> motivations. When it comes time to lay out the substantial evidence
> >> you simply shoot blanks. You can never cross these barriers because
> >> they require truth in order to pass. We can offer observations of
> >> real African history. We offer an obvious view of black, modern
> >> civilization according to its status in the world. You can only
> >> attack our observations. You cannot, however, show serious black
> >> contributions to civilization.
> >
> >http://www.si.edu/activity/planvis/museums/i-nmafa.htm
> >
> >US National Museum of African Art begs to differ.
>

> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah These trinkets are the equivalent to
> Rembrandt? Oh my god. I knew it.

Of course they're not equivalent to Rembrandt. Totally different media and
schools of art. They're also, many of them, quite a bit older, and in some
cases, from artistic traditions which developed totally independently of
"Western" art.

Keep in mind that some of the works of Asian art which are considered as
masterpieces of the ages are also quite unlike Rembrandt.

>
> >
> >See their "Images of Power and Identity" which is exclusively sub-saharan.
>

> I did, and I just about pissed on myself I laughed so hard.
>
> Maybe you need a refresher in great art Klaat. Start here:
>
> http://metalab.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/1630/
>
> and here http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/0-Tour.html

If I want to see art, and I have wanted to see art, I can get on the subway
and within an half hour have my pick of about 300 museums ranging from
minor-but-quality showcases, to the Smithsonian Institute. And I have been
there, and I have done that. I'm actually rather fond of Vermeer and Van
Gogh.

>
> >
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/ipi.htm
> >
> >See also:
> >
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/sudart/86-12-2.gif
>

> Heeee heeee stop, your killing me.
>
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/sudart/89-7-1.gif
>
> Bwahaahahahahahahaha
>
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/sudart/91-16-1.gif
>
> Heeee, I can't take anymore.
>
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/sudart/91-8-1.gif
>
> Holy shit, this is funny.

>
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/guinart/85-1-2.gif
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/guinart/93-2-2.gif
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/yorbart/88-13-1.gif
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/yorbart/89-17-1.gif
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/Eguinart/87-6-1.gif
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/Eguinart/88-11-1.gif
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/camart/85-8-1.gif
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/ogoart/90-6-1.gif
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/upCart/85-17-1.gif
> >http://www.si.edu/nmafa/exhibits/ipi/eastCart/86-12-14.gif
>

> I haven't laughed like that in years. I said THE EQUIVALENT TO ART
> AND CULTURE OF OTHER RACES.

"Everyone's an art critic".

You said show me some art. I showed you some art. Art is, as a rule, not to
be compared to other art outside of the same school or tradition. Remember,
most Westerners think of Art as being something like Greek statuary or a
DaVinci painting; in the East, it may interest you to know, quite often the
most exquisite and cherished pieces of art are used as teacups.

different cultures have different perceptions of "what is art".

By the way, having seen some of those objets d'art up close instead of tiny
badly lit GIFs on a crappy computer monitor, I can say that they're
considerably more impressive in real life.

>
> >
> >See also:
> >
> >"Graet Zimbabwe"
>
> OK.
>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/interact/longterm/horizon/111396/zmbabwe.htm
>
> Bwaahahahahahahah. This is the most politically correct page I have
> ever seen. Heeee, you guys are grasping here. I hope the racialist
> reading this post go and get a good laugh.

You are reduced to being an art critic, and dismissing what does not support
your point, and you do it with unwarranted laughter and name-calling
arguments which stray far from your original point, which was that the
sub-saharans had produced nothing of note. But they have, you stand
corrected, and your sole recourse remaining is to mock.

I take it that by resorting to such tactics, you implicitly admit that you
are defeated entirely in this point of debate.

>
> >
> >Or see http://osu.orst.edu/dept/library/access/video/africa15.htm and order
> >a video -- color / 20 min / DT3025 .G84 A61 1990
> >
> >A journey through one of Africa's legendary kingdoms -
> >Great Zimbabwe - the largest stone structure in Africa
> >after the Pyramids. Immense and mysterious, both the
> >Great Enclosure and the Hill Ruin are revealed and
> >explained. Brass, copper and gold artifacts excavated
> >at the site attest to the excellence of the indigenous
> >craftsmanship of the time.
> >
> >See http://safarisafrica.com/Images/anc1.gif -- interior of a room at Great
> >Zimbabwe. For scale, it's a little bigger than the Sistine Chapel.
>

> And about 30 fucking points worth of IQ behind. Heeeeeeeeee. This
> rivals The sisteen chapel? i can't take this. I am laughing
> uncontrollably.

It predates the Sistine Chapel by quite a bit, I believe. Comparable
European buildings and structures, outside of the relics of the Greeks and
Romans, are of much lower engineering standards and worksmanship.

>
> >
> >Regarding Great Zimbabwe,
> >
> > The African nation of Zimbabwe takes
> > its name from an ancient masonry city
> > called Great Zimbabwe, which was once
> > a great peaceful trading center. The
> > ruins are a vast engineering complex
> > of rooms and maze- like patterns of
> > passageways, running for almost a
> > mile. Lienhard said that carbon dating
> > has shown that the Iron Age Rhodesians
> > began the city after 200 AD, then
> > abandoned it until the 9th or 10th
> > century. The masonry went up in the
> > 11th century, just before the Gothic
> > Cathedrals in Europe. He said, "Great
> > Zimbabwe is only one of hundreds of
> > abandoned Zimbabwes engineered in other
> > parts of Africa."
> >
> >Leinhard is Dr. John Leinhard, an engineering historian, and host of
> >National Public Radio's Engines of Our Ingenuity.
>

> A complete and utter liberal.

You have no evidence to refute his statement, and thus must resort to
ad-hominem attacks.

> This garbage is not even a 100th on the
> scale of great world art. Shall I post some more links for you? Why
> don't we have the readers here give some comparisons of the art I gave
> lings to and the art you gave links to. I am sure Mohr would just
> drop his pants and bend over in awe of some of the trinkets.

Your cultural insularity is showing. Locally, you'd tend to be called "a
philistine" because of that.

>
> >
> >> Nor can you show a single, highly
> >> developed, current black population.
> >
> >Nairobi, Kenya.
>

> Can you post their contributions to modern science and art?

That is not, so far as I am aware, the definition of a highly-developed
current black population. You might consider lurking around
http://earthops.org/places.html and following links to Kenya. There are some
excellent internet resources on Kenya, and Nairobi's skyline is in fact
rather impressive... and it was built by Kenyans.

>
> >
> >> You cannot show black crime
> >> numbers to be lower than white numbers. You cannot show an equality
> >> of black test scores around the world, let alone even a small
> >> percentage of this. Klaat, you and your kind have nothing when it
> >> comes time to lay your evidence out on the table. You can merely
> >> attempt to attack our evidence. Where is the evidence that cannot be
> >> twisted and lied about?
> >
> >Especially the way that you lie about and twist results which are highly
> >questionable.
> >
> >But the evidence which cannot be twisted is cited above. but since it
> >doesn't support your worldview, I expect you'll simply ignore it, discount
> >it, or find some weasel way to pretend that it's irrelevant.
>

> Don't make me laugh. So you knew when you posted this garbage that it
> was a desperate attempt to show something that is just not there: a
> significant contribution to civilization.

What would you consider significant? The number Zero isn't worthy enough for
you?

> Of course you knew I would
> get a laugh out of it. Even a third grader can place a higher beauty
> and depth on the white works I pointed you to. This garbage is not
> even close to comparable. In fact, it isn't even in the same league.

That is purely your opinion. Some of the statuary which isn't on the net but
does in fact exist is comparable in quality to anything left from the Roman
times outside of the unknown grand masters.

>
> >
> >> Start with a few higher black civilizations,
> >> then add some test scores, then give us some great Sub-Saharan works
> >> and contributions to civilization. Where is your counter-evidence?
> >
> >See above. And that's just for starters.
>

> No, that's just for you to try, in a desperate attempt, to make a
> mole-hill into a mountain.

Hardly. Don't forget that whatever advances Arica would have made on its own
was prevented utterly by the conquests of the colonialist period.

If it's a mole-hill instead of a mountain, that's because europeans moved
heaven and earth to knock that mountain down, or to prevent it from being
built.

>
> >
> >You know, if you seriously piss me off, I shall gather every single onlined
> >resource that refutes your position, and put it all on a web-page just to
> >save myself (and save others as well) future wastes of repititious typing.
>

> Please do. We racialist would have a constant source of humor. The
> title of the page could be "Africa's answer to Rembrandt and Da
> vinci."

It is hardly fair to compare aboriginal art with low-tech materials to the
fine arts of a pampered leisure class patronized by possessors of the
highest-quality materials.

>
> >> >I deny that there is a lower IQ average. I also deny the violence as being
> >> >hereditary.
> >>
> >> But again all you can do is attack our evidence. In short, you can
> >> only offer what can be twisted and lied about. Show us the many
> >> papers about blacks having equal IQ's. Show us the higher black
> >> civilizations just as we can show you lower ones.
> >
> >done. See above.
>

> Not done. I said "higher" black civilizations. Ones that are on par
> with other races. You have not done this, and furthermore, you cannot
> do this because that civilization does not exist and never has
> existed.

Actually, they did exist, but were effectively destroyed by colonial forces
which caught the civilized African cultures in the middle of an interregnum,
colonized, and prevented the formation of a new, and technical,
civilization.

> I claim that natural-selection never gave blacks the mental
> abilities to do this, and if this were true, we should be able to
> predict exactly what we see all around the world. This is a
> reasonable hypothesis and you know it.

It's not entirely unreasonable, but you have come nowhere near proving this
_conclusively_, that is to say, to where there is no logical
counterargument.

>
> >> >> All you came up with was silly excuses of
> >> >> a wide variety to explain the observations we have. Poor science
> >> >> indeed. Science will take the explanation that can tie the most
> >> >> observations together.
> >> >
> >> >No it _doesn't_.
> >>
> >> yes it does.
> >>
> >> > Science rather takes what can be demonstrated, and what can
> >> >be reliably reproduced elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Science will accept a theory until it is disproven by a better one.
> >
> >No it won't; it will take a theory which has been _scientifically tested and
> >validated and reproduced and which cannot be disproven_ until one comes
> >along which better explains the data, and also is test, validated, and
> >reproduced, and which cannot be disproven.
>

> And this is utter nonsense. The theory of relativity was accepted
> even though scientist had no direct proof of it until the opportunity
> arose to observe the attraction of light by gravity during an eclipse.

The theory was accepted as a theory. And then one element of reality was
shown to conform to the theory.

> Sorry Klaat, but the situation concerning black history and
> contemporary society ARE THE OBSERVABLE FACTS. And many theories that
> would explain these things can be put forward. All are equal until
> actual proof is brought to bear. That does not mean, however, that a
> certain theory cannot make more sense than another.

Certainly.

> I am saying that
> our theory ties the observations together in a clean and obvious way.
> Natural-selection would and could bring about everything we observe
> about the black race. Everything we can predict if it were known to
> be true is seen in actuality. Our theory is by far the most
> reasonable.

But is it correct? How can you test the validity of this hypothesis?

>
> >
> >Your simplifications are getting you into the realm of fuzzy thinking. I am
> >not surprised that you have reached simpleminded conclusions due to a lack
> >of complete understanding of what science is.
>

> My understanding of science is certainly high enough to know that the
> theory that stands the test of time will be accepted. I also know
> that because a theory has yet to be proven as an acual,
> demonstraitable fact does not mean it may not be more reasonable than
> other theories at the time. So I am claiming that our theory is by
> far the most reasonable assumption when considering the various
> observations and abilities to predict the situations.

I've known people who were quite reasonable, and quite mad.

Because your theory is reasonable does not mean that it is correct. You will
need to find some way to prove that your theory is more-correct than any
others, or at least that it has much more data in support of it, than other
theories have in support of them.

>
> >
> >> Where is your counter-evidence? A simple higher black civilization
> >> would be a starter. I have proposed a theory. Now you propose one
> >> that makes MORE sense of the observed facts. If you can show that it
> >> does, then I will gladly accept your theory. Science starts with
> >> observation. It can be demonstrated that blacks have not contributed
> >> to civilization in and meaningful way.
> >
> >No it cannot, and in fact, "au contraire mon frere".
>

> yeah, sure. I hope you don't think the links above can show equality
> between the races. They only make our point stronger.

Hardly, they simply point you to _some_ examples of subsaharan African
artistic forms and expressions. I got tired of you trumpeting about that
"fact" and had to show that it's not fact at all. sorry if it's not "what
floats your boat" in terms of artistic styles or schools, but it is in fact
art in some cases, and applied engineering sciences in other cases.

>
> >
> >> It can be demonstrated that
> >> there are no higher black civilizations. It can be demonstrated that
> >> black crime numbers are higher than white numbers.
> >
> >Again, you are taking advantage of sweeping generalizations.
>

> No. I am making clear, reasonable assumptions about facts we have at
> our disposal.

Resulting in sweeping generalizations which you have failed to conclusively
support.

>
> > You should in
> >fact be comparing similar populations, for instance crime among middle-class
> >blacks versus crime among middle-class whites (guess what, I betcha that the
> >middle class whites are triple the crime rate of middle class blacks).
>

> well post the numbers.

I don't have that information. I don't know what the figures are. But you
haven't looked, have you?

>
> > But
> >you're taking a general statistic for a populations that is one of the
> >poorest _on average_ and the most subjected to severe and degrading living
> >conditions _on average_ and comparing it to the _on average_ most empowered,
> >enfranchised, and richest general populations.
>

> And you are disregarding the fact that they are poor all over the
> world to begin with. First tell me why they live in hellish
> conditions around the world.

Aftermath of colonialism and slavery, unquestionably, in most cases.

> You simply must blame this on others.
> But this does not hold when considering black African history,

which was doing just fine up until the colonial era, thanks.

> or
> current populations that are relatively free from white racism. In
> these cases, blacks surely must be judged by the value of their
> civilizations and contributions. It is this fact that is your
> downfall. All of your eggs are in one basket: blame the white people.
> This cannot be applied in many cases.

Only in almost all of them. And you know that!

> This poses a severe problem for
> you (as seen by the links above).

>
> >In short, our basic model is inherently flawed. You need to examine
> >comparable populations instead of really quite-vague and sweeping global
> >supergroups.
>

> Races are races. They are groups.

Composed of many many subgroups. For instance, there is are a great many Han
people who might get a little bit upset if you called them Japanese, and
vice-versa. And how similar are Sicilians and Swedes?

Each population must be examined individually, and then if you wish to make
an aggregate of those examinations, it will hold up to criticism more
easily.

>
> >
> >> It is completely
> >> proper for us to make certain conclusions about these observations.
> >> It is on you to not only attack our claims (which you do in a
> >> strikingly incompetent manner: Haiti, Egypt, crime, black history),
> >> but to offer substantive evidence to support your explanation of the
> >> demonstratable observations.
> >
> >done, see above.
>

> You did nothing but strengthen my argument.

I did so only in your opinion, you said things didn't exist, I showed you
they did, now you are dismissing the fact of existence by denigrating the
quality.

You are in fact basing a major leg of your arguments on being an art-critic.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Science is _well aware_ that quite commonly the explanation that can tie the
> >> >most observations together has historically turned out to be incomplete at
> >> >best, and flat-out wrong as commonly.
> >>
> >> And that is exactly how it is supposed to work. Now it is on you to
> >> show this in our case. The best way to do this would be to show higher
> >> black civilization. Show evidence that not only disproves ours, but
> >> substantiates your theory. Your theory on Haiti, for example, is
> >> compared to my theory on Haiti. Mine ties in many other facts about
> >> the black race. Mine would be the more reasonable in this case. You
> >> have not shown that your theory has any more merit than my theory on
> >> Haiti. Even if all things were equal in our argument, mine still
> >> explains many other facets of black history and civilization, while
> >> your is limited to that certain situation. The situation in haiti
> >> could be predicted when considering all the other observations about
> >> the black race. Not only that, many things we see can all be
> >> interconnected.
> >

> >> If we start at the fact that blacks have a higher
> >> crime rate, we may then ask the reason. You say that it is poverty
> >> and racism. I say well, there should be many higher black
> >> civilizations then.
> >
> >There have been, ones which were before their decline the
> >equals-if-not-superiors of any of the Asian or European civilizations,
> >excepting Greece and Rome.
>

> Then i am sure you can give examples and note their contributions to
> civilization.

You keep saying "civilization". Don't you exclusively mean EuroAmerican
civilization? Come on, say it. you believe that no other civilization is
civilization.

>
> >> I say there should be contributions from black
> >> history that rival any other race. But then I find out that there are
> >> no contributions from the blacks of history.
> >
> >No, you don't find that out because it is not true.
>

> It is true! You have shown nothing but pathetic trinkets. If you
> want to let your argument ride on the comparisons of the racial arts,
> then I am happy to do this. Agreed?

Hardly, you've already tried that, and have been shown a bare introduction
to what you will find if you enter any museum, or any library. They don't
put their best stuff on the WWW in the highest resolution! Go to a library,
and get a good book with high quality. You will be quite impressed I assure
you, if you are honest.

>
> >> This puts a severe dent
> >> in your theory.
> >
> >No it does not because it is, technically, a "willful fabrication by
> >omission".
> >
> >> Then we find out that IQ tests show a difference in
> >> whites and blacks. This observation would explain the black history
> >> as well as the crime numbers.
> >
> >No it doesn't. Or maybe you can explain to me how it does.
>

> Need I post another opinion? I will if need be.

And I'll have to waste even more of my time critiquing something that
doesn't quite prove what you think it does. Save it. Or post it.

>
> >> We should be able to predict from this
> >> that we should find no current higher black civilizations around the
> >> world. Low and behold, that is exactly what we find. Why go on, you
> >> know all this.
> >
> >No I do not. I can point out Kenya. They are at a stage of development not
> >unlike that of the US in the 1920s.
>

> We have come light years since 1920.

And so shall they.

>
> > But they are going to be nearly our
> >equals within 20 to 30 years, and I'll be glad when that day comes, because
> >I can point it out to you and laugh at your discomfort when you see that
> >there is an African nation which has its own appropriate technical base, is
> >the breadbasket of Africa and Asia, and will increasingly be a center of
> >technology and education.
>

> Don't hold your breath--on second thought, please do. Nice fantasy,
> but silly indeed.

In your opinion. It is in fact the breadbasket of Africa, and markets
produce throughout Europe and Asia. When the south of Sudan eventually wins
free of the Khartoum regime, and joins forces with Kenya, the two together
will be the agricultural equivalent of the US midwest. That much
agricultural trade will fund technical infrastructure development.

>
> > It is possessed of almost as great an agricultural
> >and mineral resource as is the entire US midwest from the Rockies to the
> >Mississippi,
>

> Then why are they not our equals now and in the past? Oops, racism.

Colonialism.

>
> > it has perfect sites for space-access launches, and there is a
> >phenomenon which you exclude from your contemplations of future history
> >because you are willfully ignorant of the past.
> >
> >You say you are concerned with "negro degeneracy". You appear to believe
> >that blacks have no evolved as far as, nor in the direction of, european
> >white populations.
>

> "As far as" would be unfair. they just evolved in a different
> direction than us. Their environment didn't need the same attributes
> that ours did. They are certainly better-off in some conditions. As
> you said, fighting lions.

>
> > But right now in Africa there is a plague which will
> >cause as much change in all aspects of existence, as did the winnowings of
> >plague and civil collapse in midieval Europe. At least one in ten Africans
> >is infected with a slow-onset form of HIV. Who will _not_ die from this? The
> >educated, the thoughful, the wealthy, but above all the moral will through
> >their personal choices survive to raise the next generation. The criminal,
> >the wanton, the stupid... they will all have their genes removed from the
> >pool through their own deficiencies, especially in moral behavior. Thus, the
> >next generation of Africans, and certainly their children, will have been
> >scourged of the unrighteous and all survivors will be superior by far to the
> >Africans you now scorn. They will be direct competition, with a very low
> >population in possession of vast resources, and most of them will be the
> >children of well-educated disciplined wealthy people who will raise their
> >children with morals and discipline and fine educations. They will be far
> >from degenerate, and will produce works comparable to any done elsewhere,
> >and will do it without the strains that the older Technical World cultures
> >have; their underclasses will have all died of AIDS plague.
> >
> >Then you will have the answer to your complaints about "negro inferiority",
> >an educated and moral all-black sub-saharan civilization the equal of our
> >own. but you are ignorant of the past and blind to half of the present, and
> >so you cannot see the future coming. In the future, such as yourself will be
> >shown, by your own methods, inferior and potentially a threat.
>

> If this doesn't show a political, philosophical desire I don't know
> what does. You are not interested in truth klaat; you clearly have a
> philosophical need to "put me in my place." This is not conducive to
> a search for truth. I see emotionalism here which is clearly where
> egalitarianism stems from.

I have, as a decent human being, every interest in seeing my fellow human
beings living in the best possible conditions, in the highest lifestyle, in
the best health. I have absolutely no animosity towards any Kenyan, and I
wish them well. In many ways they are superbly positioned for a future of
leadership in Africa, and I expect they are aware of it.

I see great problems with African culture in general, as it has been beset
with tribalism, factionalism, and an appalling tendency towards corruption,
but there have also been great leaders to whom corruption and greed were
unappealing. But those whose psychology succumbs to corruption and greed are
the exact same immoral personalities which are most at risk to HIV, and that
scourge and others will in fact be evolution in action, forcing an
adaptation of Arican culture towards an eventual reserve and diligence
rivalling the Victorians at their height. There is no other outcome, besides
total depopulation of Africa combined with a global quarantine of it. The
restrained and thoughtful will better survive than the morally-deficient.
This will produce a culture which I expect will provide you with all of the
exmaples of art, engineering, and science that you will ever need to finally
abandon your position.

[Robert Erck]

Don't know much about Zimbabwe, but very large earth workings were
recently discovered in and around Nigeria. About 1200 years old, and
speculated to be built by the Awujale dynasty, they are far more extensive
than the pyramids.

Nobody had noticed them because they are basically miles and miles of
ditches and earthen berms that seem to separate cities and regions. Total
length of all the ditches: about 10,000 miles(!), some big and some
small. Further information can be found New Scientist, 11 Sept, 1999 and
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991009/letters6.html.

Some people think the ditches were built to keep enemies away, others to
keep elephants away from crops because elephants can devastate crops.
Dr. Bob
-------------------------------

> >
> >Regarding Great Zimbabwe,
> >
> > The African nation of Zimbabwe takes
> > its name from an ancient masonry city
> > called Great Zimbabwe, which was once
> > a great peaceful trading center. The
> > ruins are a vast engineering complex
> > of rooms and maze- like patterns of
> > passageways, running for almost a
> > mile. Lienhard said that carbon dating
> > has shown that the Iron Age Rhodesians
> > began the city after 200 AD, then
> > abandoned it until the 9th or 10th
> > century. The masonry went up in the
> > 11th century, just before the Gothic
> > Cathedrals in Europe. He said, "Great
> > Zimbabwe is only one of hundreds of
> > abandoned Zimbabwes engineered in other
> > parts of Africa."
> >
> >Leinhard is Dr. John Leinhard, an engineering historian, and host of
> >National Public Radio's Engines of Our Ingenuity.
>
>

> A complete and utter liberal. This garbage is not even a 100th on the

[Robert Erck]

This is correct. There's maybe 1000 ways to categorize people genetically;
only *one* of which is skin color.
Bob E.
-------------------------------
In article <386BFE91...@magnet.at>, Thomas Mohr

[Haran Pilpel]

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:37:00 -0800, Gelding <m...@home.com> wrote:

>Not done. I said "higher" black civilizations. Ones that are on par
>with other races. You have not done this, and furthermore, you cannot
>do this because that civilization does not exist and never has

>existed. I claim that natural-selection never gave blacks the mental

>abilities to do this, and if this were true, we should be able to
>predict exactly what we see all around the world. This is a
>reasonable hypothesis and you know it.

Of course, natural selection seemed to have also favored jews: jews
have always been in the forefront of science, art, and culture
wherever they have lived, and are greatly overrepresented in (for
example) the universities, professions, and nobel prize laurates.

Therefore, white racialists are genetically inferior to jews, right?

... think about it. When you find the flaw in this argument, you'll
also find the exact same flaw in your argument that not having a
Rembrant "proves" the "genetic inferiority" of blacks.

P.S.

For a "genetically superior" person, you made quite a silly mistake in
the title of the post. You've obviously meant that US murder rate is
not MORE than Europe if blacks are excluded.

[Haran Pilpel]

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:37:00 -0800, Gelding <m...@home.com> wrote:

>I haven't laughed like that in years. I said THE EQUIVALENT TO ART
>AND CULTURE OF OTHER RACES.

I dunno about whites vs. blacks culture in general, but let us compare
YOUR group of white people - the so-called "racialists" - with african
culture.

The "art" of the "racialists" is almost without exception utter
kitsch. It is, by far, inferiour artistically to a lot of the african
art with its vitality, thought, originality and spiritual purpose.

Just look at the art of nazi Germany and you'll see what I mean.

When Hitler opened the "house of German art" - full of huge paintings
of large-bosomed blond women, which appeared to be the main
achievement of "Volk Kunst" - it was a very modern museum, the most
comfortable and accecible one in Germany.

It remained virtually deserted. Nobody cared for that kind of crappy,
Kitschy "art", no matter how much propaganda for "superior western
culture" Goebbles put in for it.

At the same time Goebbles put up a production of a "house of
degenerate art", where the pictures and art were hung sideways in dark
corners of a derelict building with crooked stairs. Its purpose was to
show the German people what kind of "degredation" they are "saved"
from.

The pictures in that exhibition were also hung with nasty comments
about how primitive, ugly, and stupid these pieces, made by
"degenerate jews and negroes", were in comparison to the height of
civilization put in the "house of German art" - comments not at all
unlike your remarks on the "primitive african art".

But the people knew better: contrary to all of Goebbles' attempts to
"educate" them about how "bad" African art was, they exhibition was so
popular the lines continually stretched down the stairs and formed
long lines in the streets!

In fact, the art there was hailed as wonderful by the Berliners, and
its embarrasing (to the racialists nazis) popularity forced Goebbles
to closed it down...

For that matter, the greatest nazi big-shot after Hitler himself,
Hermann Goering, filled his coffers amoung other things with a lot of
art which would have been considered "degenerate" in germany,
including much "primitive" african and middle-eastern art.

He totally scorned all of the "racialist" art Hitler so loved. So
obedient to Hitler in everything else, Goering could not stomach the
awful crap the racialists were producing as art. He knew good art when
he saw it - no matter WHO made it, whether Rembrant or an anonymous
african (or Egyptian, or jewish) artist.

So, you see, according to the racialists OWN BEHAVIOR, when it comes
to art and culture, racialists are FAR below even the most primitive
african art.

I guess that proves they are genetically inferior.

[Haran Pilpel]

A.
>
>Why in the hell would anyone want to give a bigot evidence? It is not
>like you would pay attention to it anyway.

Well, it's like this.

When he sees studies that show whites are physically stronger than
blacks, he claims it proves the natural superiority of the white race.

When he sees studies that shows blacks are physically stronger than
whites, he claims it proves the natural primitiveness of the black
race.

When he sees a group of jews in a restaurant, he knows they will leave
no tip because jews are miserly, penny-pinching bastards.

When they leave the waiter $20, he is not surprised: those scheming,
bargaining jews have money to spare, you know, since that's all they
care about.

When he sees a chinese laundromat, he feels highly superior to those
inferior oriental people who never developed any serious science or
cared for the finer things in life, so they must work in menial jobs.

When the laundromat son's owner gets into MIT over his son, he shrugs
his shoulders since he knows it's all due to the oriental's unhealthy,
overly-intellectual mindset that does not care enough about practical
marketability.

You just can't win with a bigot.

[Haran Pilpel]

>I believe it should be pointed out that when an individual or group
>accuses others of foul deeds as has been continually done by the
>"rights" and liberal/left gang against the Euro-Americans,

Not only by them. At the turn of the century, it was "well-known" that
white people - the Irish, Italian, Germans, and Russians - immigrating
to the US are obviously inferior, stupid, lazy, and criminal. In fact,
many "intelligence tests" (IQ tests didn't exist yet) were used by
politicians to prove their "feeblemindedness" and to suggest eugenics
and castration of such "inferior" people as the only way to save
america.

It's the same story here: some people just can't feel good unless they
convince themselves they are "genetically" superior to others. Most
probably, 100 years from now these views will look about as reasonable
as the views about Irish were then.

[John Lee]

In article <1l3v6s0htprknkcvn...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 12:32:35 GMT, har...@ibm.net (Haran Pilpel) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:37:00 -0800, Gelding <m...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I haven't laughed like that in years. I said THE EQUIVALENT TO ART
> >>AND CULTURE OF OTHER RACES.
> >
> >I dunno about whites vs. blacks culture in general, but let us compare
> >YOUR group of white people - the so-called "racialists" - with african
> >culture.
>

> Fine.

>
> >
> >The "art" of the "racialists" is almost without exception utter
> >kitsch. It is, by far, inferiour artistically to a lot of the african
> >art with its vitality, thought, originality and spiritual purpose.
>

> And this opinion belongs too? Do you have pictures to show this? You
> must also remember that our movement is a political one. Art is not
> always at its best when motivated by something other than pure
> artistic inspiration. But by all means, give us examples of African
> and racialist art and we will compare. Better yet, give us some
> politically-motivated African art to do the comparison with. get the
> point? When comparing two races, the comparisons need to be between
> two races, by definition.

When comparing art between two races, you are comparing art between
different cultures, which is about as meaningful as judging between the
classical and pop music genres, it can't be done. Art deemed aesthetically
pleasing by one culture does not necessarily make it aesthetically
pleasing to another. That does not make it any less valid, as you cannot
compare between what are in effect seperate artistic tastes.

> Racialist are not a race. We are comparing white history and
> contemporary situation with that of blacks.

Again, when referring to art, you are dealing with cultures, Black
cultures and White cultures. People who share the same ideology, i.e.
racism, can also generate their own culture based around those beliefs.

J. Lee

[John Lee]

In article <6k3v6s43hajeqn9th...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 11:59:21 GMT, har...@ibm.net (Haran Pilpel) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:37:00 -0800, Gelding <m...@home.com> wrote:
> >

> >>Not done. I said "higher" black civilizations. Ones that are on par
> >>with other races. You have not done this, and furthermore, you cannot
> >>do this because that civilization does not exist and never has
> >>existed. I claim that natural-selection never gave blacks the mental
> >>abilities to do this, and if this were true, we should be able to
> >>predict exactly what we see all around the world. This is a
> >>reasonable hypothesis and you know it.
> >
> >Of course, natural selection seemed to have also favored jews: jews
> >have always been in the forefront of science, art, and culture
> >wherever they have lived, and are greatly overrepresented in (for
> >example) the universities, professions, and nobel prize laurates.
>
>

> At this point I am discussing black civilization, its history, and its
> contemporary situation. What you say above has no bearing on that
> situation. If you want to argue about Jews and their deeds, then that
> is for another thread.

>
>
> >
> >... think about it. When you find the flaw in this argument, you'll
> >also find the exact same flaw in your argument that not having a
> >Rembrant "proves" the "genetic inferiority" of blacks.
>
>

> It proves exactly what it does. It shows, in my opinion, and in the
> opinion of many leaders in the field, that natural-selection has taken
> black development in a certain direction in order to cope with the
> environment they evolved in. This is a reasonable explanation of the
> facts we see.

The environment you percieve as having previously existed and therefore
shaped African evolution, is in fact an inaccurate depiction of African
history. Your mental picture seems to be that of societies based on
hunting in the wild, and "battling lions", as you yourself put it. True
African societies up until colonialism were in many ways similar to
European cultures, i.e. civilisations based on agriculture and trade,
which discredits any notion that Africans evolved in a way that placed
physical prowess above mental development.

J. Lee

[Dominion]

Indeed.

As in the insistence that "race African American" tend to score lower
than "race Caucasians" in "IQ" test. Note just how wedded the bigot in
question is to this idea. Yet it has been pointed out to him many
different times by many different people, that "race X" and "IQ" are
nothing more than subjective standards. "Race" is a totally artificial
construct that has no meaning in any real way. Skin color and facial
features for god's sake, is not the measure of a Man (or WoMan for
that matter <G>). What really matters? Tho the bigot will hate this,
the fact that I can breed with a Caucasian as easy as I can an African
American or an oriental, or a Hispanic, or any member of the human
race no matter the color of their skin or what their face looks like,
makes this argument so silly I would laugh if not so busy crying.

IQ tests have even more serious problems than the idea of "race".
AFAICR, with the disclaimer I have not kept up with current lit. in IQ
in many years, no one is sure if an IQ test measures anything other
than puzzle solving ability. Don't get me wrong, cognitive ability is
important, but I remain unsure that this is a measure of
"intelligence" In fact one of the reasons I stopped following the
controversy in the first place was that terms were used that were
never really defined. Give me a good 'working' definition of
"intelligence" and perhaps we can start to explore just how we measure
it. When "The Bell Curve" came out, I dismissed merely on the bases
that measuring something as ill defined as IQ in relation to an
artificial construct such as race, proved only that some humans score
better on this particular test than other humans. Big whoopie. I could
have saved the authors some time and effort by pointing out that some
humans always seem to do better on certain tests than others,
regardless of whether or not it was measuring IQ. Hell ask any
teachers and they will say "Why yes, some students did very well on
the (math...english...P.E. take your pick) test and some did not. Why
do you ask, are you an idiot?".

I am not much worried about giving the bigot "evidence". He would not
know what to do with it in any case. LOL all you have to do is read
the incredible "It ain't Art if it don't look Western European" the
bone head is advancing in reply to offers of African Art. I stand in
amazement at his apparent ability to define "What is Art?" a question
that has been argued by much better minds than his for much longer
than he has been alive.

After all of the sound and fury that the bigot produces we are left
with only one conclusion. The only thing evident is that the bigot is
such a major loser that the only way he can explain his failure at
life is to blame it all on someone "different" Well on the basic
bedrock level there is no such thing as "different" people. There are
only people.

--
Dominion
--

"I have no color prejudices nor caste prejudices nor creed prejudices.
All I care to know is that a man is a human being, and that is enough
for me; he can't be any worse."
--Mark Twain

[China Blue Blood]

/ When Hitler opened the "house of German art" - full of huge paintings
/ of large-bosomed blond women, which appeared to be the main
/ achievement of "Volk Kunst" - it was a very modern museum, the most
/ comfortable and accecible one in Germany.
/
/ It remained virtually deserted. Nobody cared for that kind of crappy,
/ Kitschy "art", no matter how much propaganda for "superior western
/ culture" Goebbles put in for it.

This is the same attitude (reapplied) of using political correctness
(redefined) in place of aesthetics. Have you actually seen some of the
pieces?

The two exhibits were two sides of the same society, two responses to the
same tragedy, the First World War. The "bad art" saw only the horror and
degradation. The "good art" only saw the heroic and salvation. Neither,
alone, was a complete or accurate picture. If you really believe in a
tolerant and multicultural society, it means seeing and understanding
_all_ aspects of that society.

--
CACS: Collective Against Consensual Sanity v0.123
Now a text site map! http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/cacs/
pretty? http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/5079/
Please do not feed or annoy the kibologists.

[Stanley L. Moore]

Dominion <dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net> wrote in message
>...but I remain unsure that this is a measure of

> "intelligence" In fact one of the reasons I stopped following the
> controversy in the first place was that terms were used that were
> never really defined. Give me a good 'working' definition of
> "intelligence" and perhaps we can start to explore just how we measure
> it.

Supposedly, Sanford Binet ( a developer of an intelligence test) when
asked to define intelligence said, "Intelligence is what my test
measures." So by that criterion IQ tests are an absolute standard. The
circular reasoning and preconceptions behind this are exactly the same
preconceptions held by the bigots who start from the assumption that the
"other" is inferior to begin with.

Humans are social animals and have a natural tendency to view the world
as US vs THEM. Some people take this natural tendency to a dangerous
extreme and fill the world with their poison. Others take steps and
kill or maim those different. I find it odd since skin color is really
a continuum from light (albinos) to dark but everyone on the planet is
really a shade of brown. And why would pigmentation have anything to do
with human worth since it is so trivial? Take care.

--
Stanley L. Moore
--
"The eye strays not while under
the guidance of reason." Publius Syrius
www.imagephysique.com

[John Lee]

In article <6buv6sg6i8buidpjl...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 16:31:00 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
> wrote:

> >When comparing art between two races, you are comparing art between
> >different cultures, which is about as meaningful as judging between the
> >classical and pop music genres, it can't be done.

> We are not comparing two cultures. We are comparing white artist from
> many countries speaking many languages. The fact that whites in
> different cultures produced art that easily resembles other white art
> proves you wrong. We are comparing the relative contributions to
> civilization from blacks and whites. The comparison can be made and
> made fairly.

The fact is that most White cultures from around the World originated
fairly recently from Europe. Art from across Europe was based on a merging
of artistic ideas between European nations. What resulted was an overall
European artisitic identity, which in definition was cultural. Similarly,
you got artistic influences spreading from seperate nations within Africa,
but rarely did outside influences have any effect. The same can also be
said of art from the Far-East. Therefore there were overall cultural
similarities within both the Far-East, Africa and Europe. However, these
are cultural as stated, and you cannot make a comparison between art from
another culture and art from your own, as your artistic tastes are
inherently biased towards that of your own culture.

> >Art deemed aesthetically
> >pleasing by one culture does not necessarily make it aesthetically
> >pleasing to another. That does not make it any less valid, as you cannot
> >compare between what are in effect seperate artistic tastes.

> Not true. The personal statement of the art is what people may differ
> about. The medium and technology of the art are comparable from race
> to race. You can tell something about the way the mind sees reality
> and how it is able to represent that reality. Because I may not care
> for the look in the face of the Statue of David, does not mean that I
> do not recognize the significance in the statue and the sculpture's
> ability to create form and content. You are talking about two
> different things. The lack of black discoveries in history also show
> an inability to think on a deeper and higher plane. So yes, a
> black may find his trinket as beautiful as the Mona Lisa, but the
> differences in spatial thinking and ability to recreate shadow and
> dimension are clearly higher achievements of the mind.

Clearly from your own point of view they are, but not necessarily from
someone else¹s. Again, what you are comparing are personal and cultural
artistic tastes, and you cannot state that your tastes are better than
anothers. The two are both incomparable and immeasurable. When you mention
shadow and dimension, again you are referring to artistic values which
may be important in your culture, but are not necessarily in someone
else¹s. Artistic tastes differ, even within cultures and time periods, for
example take the difference between renaissance-era paintings and those of
expressionism. No one can truly say whether one period was better than
another, or even whether paintings in general from a specific period have
any merit over those from another. Aside from that, when you mention
trinkets, you have to remember that bronze sculptures from 600 B.C. and
Ethiopean churches from 1100 A.D. can hardly be described as such. In
reference to technology, how can you say that a sculpture produced say 400
years ago has any less artistic value than those produced by the very
latest modern materials and production methods? Again, the two are
relative, and it is all down to personal taste. What we find acceptable
and artistically tasteful in terms of our culture simply does not stand as
an absolute, and we have no right to state that our cultural artistic
preferences are better then those of a seperate culture. Personally I find
certain forms of art from African nations to be more expressive and
emotionally moving than similar forms from European nations, but again,
those are simply my artisitic preferences, and they cannot be evaluated
against those of someone else.

> Again, we are dealing with races. Racialist are political activist
> motivated by what they see as truth. A culture is quite independent
> of this. Please, instead of searching for every conceivable way to
> twist this argument, make some positive claims about the contributions
> of blacks concerning art and civilization in general. You may find
> that you will have a much easier time simply accepting the truth when
> it is obvious. Once you admit that blacks show a mental deficiency
> compared to whites, you then can argue from a true philosophical
> standing. You could even argue that whites should continue to give
> money and aid to blacks everywhere. You could argue more effectively
> from a position of truth.

Remember that all political activists, no matter what their political
beliefs, are motivated by what they *think* is the truth, so accurate
perception of the truth can hardly be called a defining charcteristic of
any political movement, let alone racism, or racialism if you will.
In terms of I.Q., I simply deny that the standards and procedures set for
it¹s measurement capture in any way the degree to which an individual¹s
intelligence exists. Put it this way, the brain is an extremely complex
organ. We do not yet even know how it functions, so how on earth can we
state we can accurately test it¹s intellectual capacity?
Relating to culture, vast continents over which ideas intermingle can also
create overall cultural characteristics. Hence you have African cultures,
European cultures and Asian cultures containing similarities within
themselves. However, those cultural differences are not there on the basis
of skin colour, Black Americans are as much a part of American culture as
White Americans. The same can be said of White Europeans. In short,
cultures exist on the basis of geographic location and the flow of ideas.

Yours, J. Lee

[John Lee]

In article <kgnv6sg6353ahleac...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 16:41:08 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <6k3v6s43hajeqn9th...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> >
> >> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 11:59:21 GMT, har...@ibm.net (Haran Pilpel) wrote:

> >> >... think about it. When you find the flaw in this argument, you'll
> >> >also find the exact same flaw in your argument that not having a
> >> >Rembrant "proves" the "genetic inferiority" of blacks.
> >>
> >>
> >> It proves exactly what it does. It shows, in my opinion, and in the
> >> opinion of many leaders in the field, that natural-selection has taken
> >> black development in a certain direction in order to cope with the
> >> environment they evolved in. This is a reasonable explanation of the
> >> facts we see.
> >
> >The environment you percieve as having previously existed and therefore
> >shaped African evolution, is in fact an inaccurate depiction of African
> >history.
>

> Well, if you have opinions and facts you would like to give in support
> of this then please do so.

O.k., here is a reply I wrote previously, in fact several times
previously, Iąll repeat it again:

łIn relation to polygamy, wives and their children were not killed at
their husbands whim. In African society, the man had to provide a seperate
house and land for each of his wives, and had to spend time and devotion
equally with each of them, so as not to cause one wife to be embarrassed
in public due to lack of care and attention. In fact, it was the female
population who resisted most strongly the attempts of missionaries to
enforce monogamy in their society.

In relation to systems of government, Africa did not consist of individual
tribes as previously described. Instead there were many large and well
developed kingdoms and empires throughout the whole of Africa going as far
back as 3000 B.C., when the Egyptian empire was founded. In 800 B.C. there
was the Kush kingdom (Sudan), and to the East the kingdom of Punt
(Ethiopia). Kush was overflowing with wealth derived from gold-ebony trade
with Punt, and rich in cultural artistic development. Kush later traded
ironwork with Egypt, and created it's last capital city, Merowe, before
300 A.D. At the same time there were also the Noc and Berber cultures, the
Berbers trading across the Sahara by 500 A.D., while the Egyptians were
also trading in brassware and cloth for gold, ivory and ebony. In 600 A.D.
there was the East African empire of Ghana, based on various trade routes.
By 970 A.D. North Africa consisted of the Almohad and Almoravid empires.
In 1000 A.D. the Ghana empire was superceded by the East African empire of
Mali, an empire in which developed advanced systems of education. Yet
further Eastward was the empire of Kanem-Borno, existing from 1000 A.D. to
1700 A.D. Also around 1000 A.D. was a Southern African kingdom created by
the Bantu, with a capital city of Mbanga Congo and diplomatic relations
with Portugal. Between 1400 A.D. and 1700 A.D. existed the South-East
African kingdom of Monomotapa, founded by the Bantu, based on gold mines
and trade, with it's capital city being Zimbabwe. The Bantu also created
the Central-East African kingdom of Kitwara, between 1100 A.D. and 1700
A.D. In West Africa there was initially the Yoroba empire (Nigeria), and
the Benin kingdom which grew rich by trade. By 600 A.D. there was the
Songhai empire, which later merged with the empire of Mali. In 1500 A.D.
the West African empire of Songhai was under it's most powerful emperor,
Askia Mohammed, who with his wealth and educated scholars made a
pilgrimmage to Mecca. Around that time, to the East (Sudan) came many
smaller states based on large walled capital cities, and the trade in
leather. These states merged to become the single Hausa nation. Between
975 A.D. and 1498 A.D., East African states formed a confederation,
containing the following cities: Mombasa, Mozambique, Kilwa and Sofala. As
well as the continental states, the islands of Zanzibar, Pambar and Lamu
also joined the confederation. Up to the 1890's, West Africa contained the
Fulani and Hausa empires.
So much for tribes.

In relation to the wheel, stating that it took until the late 1800's to be
introduced, is again, absolute crap. By 600 B.C. the capital city of Kush,
Merowe, traded Westward towards the Niger using carts and horse-drawn
chariots.

In relation to ironwork, stating that African tribes did not discover
ironworking, or use knowledge of ironworking to innovate and produce
original implements, is yet again incorrect. Central and SouthernAfrican
nations independently discovered it for themselves and invented both
weapons and agricultural equipment around 200 A.D. The more Northern
nation of Kush invented it's own agricultural tools and implements before
600 B.C. By 300 B.C., the West African kingdoms of Asante, Oyo and Benin
had also invented ironworking techniques, such as the lost wax process,
and applied this to bronze as well, resulting in elaborate and perfectly
formed bronze cooking pots. In addition, the skill and craftsmanship of
those nations at that time, resulted in purely artistic creations such as
almost lifelike bronze models of human heads, etc. How anyone came about
to writing such drivel, I don't know.

In relation to the gold trade, stating that African tribes couldn't grasp
the concept and value of trading in gold, and that European and Asian
traders could simply pick up large gold nuggets off the ground, is wrong.
By 800 B.C. the empire of Egypt and the kingdom of Kush were trading in
gold. By 500 B.C. Central African nations were trading in gold across the
Sahara. From 800 B.C. onwards, most African nations relied heavily, and
grew rich on the gold trade. The actual gold traded was also not simply
gold nuggets, the gold was mined and then crafted into delicate objects.
Even gold weights, in the shape of various fruits and plants, were
produced, around 300 B.C. in the West African nation of Asante.

In relation to guinea fowl, stating that Africans could not domesticate
them, and that Egypt had to domesticate them all, export them to Europe,
and then import them back in before Africans would keep them as livestock,
is a simple contradiction. Egypt was an African empire. Similarly, as far
back as 2000 B.C., Egypt invented cogs, counteracting the statement that
early Africans had no form of gear system in use.

In relation to the use of oxen and horses as beats of burden, the
statement that Central African tribes never used them as such, is yet
again wrong. Around 500 B.C. donkey caravans and horse-drawn chariots were
in use across Western and Central Africa. Well before 600 A.D., East
African kingdoms and empires developed trade routes based on donkey, horse
and camel caravans. The West African empire of Songhai also traded across
the Sahara via caravans in 700 A.D.

In relation to the technique of joining two pieces of wood together, and
the statement that no people of Central Africa seemed to have managed such
a feat, Central African nations used weapons and stools constructed out of
joined wood as far back as their own history reaches.

In relation to a fixed system of laws, the statement that none existed is,
surprise, surprise, blatantly wrong. Besides the fact that most African
nations had such systems, here are some examples. Before 600 A.D. fixed
systems of law existed in both East and West African nations. Since 700
A.D., the North African nations flourished under Islamic based systems of
law. Around 1700 A.D., the West African Asante nation united various
states under a single government and code of laws. In 1500 A.D., the West
African empire of Songhai formed a system of law based on a profession of
educated judges.

In relation to education, the assertion that Africa consisted of
uneducated savages is... I won't even bother to say it. In 711 A.D., the
Moors conquered Spain, and created in Cordoba one of the most
intellectually advanced European cities, with free schools for the poor,
public libraries, universities and hospitals. The Moors also created the
basis for modern science, medicine and mathematics. By 1300 A.D., the West
African empire of Mali created the renowned university of Timbuktu, to
which scholars from far and wide came to study, and which produced judges,
teachers and doctors. Indeed, African scholars who travelled to Europe and
Asia were noted for their intellectual acumen.˛

> > Your mental picture seems to be that of societies based on
> >hunting in the wild, and "battling lions", as you yourself put it.
>

> The climate in Africa has probably changed very little in thousands of
> years. The shaping of black attributes would have come long before
> what you are talking about.

If weąre talking about itmes that far back, then your argument falls
apart. Where can you show marked differences in civilisations between
those of White Europeans and Black Africans previous to 600 B.C.? Going
back to 1000 B.C., 2000 B.C., and beyond, can you show me White
civilisations from those times that were so much more advanced than Black
civilisations?

> > True
> >African societies up until colonialism were in many ways similar to
> >European cultures, i.e. civilisations based on agriculture and trade,
>

> If you would like to give studies and facts about this then do so.
> The societies were not even comparable to white civilization.

See above.

> >which discredits any notion that Africans evolved in a way that placed
> >physical prowess above mental development.
>
>

> Sorry but you don't even come close to discrediting something so
> obvious. Mere observation alone should be enough to show black
> aggressive tendencies. European and African climates were completely
> different and they would have favored different traits in order to
> survive.

In fact, having listed many examples of African trade and production based
societies, your assertion of African genetic development based on hunting
in the wild seems a little shaky. Even if you, as you have done
previously, take the period of evolution to times previous to those
mentioned, then, as stated before, you encounter two problems. The first
is that you have to find many examples of European and African cultures
from those times, and then compare them. The second is that, if previous
to 600 B.C., African evolution was based on physical prowess and skills
suitable to hunting, why so many succesful trade and production societies
from 600 B.C. onwards? The fact is that there were only a few Sub-Saharan
societies based on hunting in the wild, and these were pushed out by
countless Sub-Saharan trade based societies from around that time.

Yours, J. Lee

[klaatu]

Gelding wrote:

>
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 20:37:55 -0600, "Stanley L. Moore"
> <slmm...@bigcity.net> wrote:
>
> >Humans are social animals and have a natural tendency to view the world
> >as US vs THEM.
>

> Are you making a specific argument?

>
> > Some people take this natural tendency to a dangerous
> >extreme and fill the world with their poison.
>

> Very vague.

>
> > Others take steps and
> >kill or maim those different.
>

> Hmm. Different in what way? Are you different from a serial-killer?

>
> > I find it odd since skin color is really
> >a continuum from light (albinos) to dark but everyone on the planet is
> >really a shade of brown.
>

> And this is important because?

>
> > And why would pigmentation have anything to do
> >with human worth since it is so trivial? Take care.
>

> I agree. Anyone who bases opinions of people by their skin color is
> not very intelligent. You judge by their actions. That is how we
> racialist judge blacks: by their deeds.

And you're still judging the deeds by whether or not the doer is black.

>
> Gelding.
> >
> >--
> >Stanley L. Moore

[Jeffrey G. Brown]

In article <9d727s8lho78ona2u...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

>That is how we racialist judge blacks: by their deeds.

You can stop lying now, moron. Everyone knows that racists (there's no
such thing as a racialist) use skin color alone to pre-judge people.

JGB

=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'

[Avital Pilpel]

On 4 Jan 2000, Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:

> In article <9d727s8lho78ona2u...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:
>
> >That is how we racialist judge blacks: by their deeds.
>
> You can stop lying now, moron. Everyone knows that racists (there's no
> such thing as a racialist) use skin color alone to pre-judge people.

Oh, no, you are wrong here.

"Racialists" DO judge black people by their deeds.

IF Mr. Jones, a black, kills someone... that proves all blacks are violent
murderers, or at least potentially so.

IF Mr. Smith, who is black, rapes someone... that proves all blacks are
savage rapists (at least, if Jones raped a white woman.)

IF Mr. Carpenter, who is black, drops out of school... that proves all
blacks are stupid.

Hey, who said they are biased?

>
> JGB
>
> =====================================================================
> Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
> "What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
>
>

Avital Pilpel

[Haran Pilpel]

>/ When Hitler opened the "house of German art" - full of huge paintings
>/ of large-bosomed blond women, which appeared to be the main
>/ achievement of "Volk Kunst" - it was a very modern museum, the most
>/ comfortable and accecible one in Germany.
>/
>/ It remained virtually deserted. Nobody cared for that kind of crappy,
>/ Kitschy "art", no matter how much propaganda for "superior western
>/ culture" Goebbles put in for it.
>
>This is the same attitude (reapplied) of using political correctness
>(redefined) in place of aesthetics.

So, in your view, it was "politically incorrect" in Nazi Germany to go
to the house of German art that Hitler himself opened?

Whatever...

> Have you actually seen some of the
>pieces?

Of course. There are many books on the subject, photographs of the
pieces, and what not. Obviously, however, you HAVEN'T seen ANY of the
painting, or else you would not have written the nonsense below:

>The two exhibits were two sides of the same society, two responses to the
>same tragedy, the First World War.

Utter bullshit and nonsense. Almost NONE of the art in either one of
the exhibitions had ANYTHING to do with WWI. Most of the art in the
"degenerate art" collection was, for that matter, was either pre-war
(e.g. Gaugain[sp?], Van Gogh, etc.) or from totally different areas of
the world (e.g. the african art) so it couldn't POSSIBLY relate to
WWI.

As far the "German art" exhibit, it, too, had nothing to do with WWI.
Almost all the pictures and statues were those of some member of the
"master race" (usually nude) standing on his "holy German land".
Battle pictures or anything like that were simply not shown there.

[Dominion]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 14:11:34 -0800, Gelding <m...@home.com> wrote:

>I agree. Anyone who bases opinions of people by their skin color is

>not very intelligent. You judge by their actions. That is how we

>racialist judge blacks: by their deeds.

Do you even realize just how stupid this sounds?

The only good thing about the "racialist" is that they are so stupid
(as evident above) that no one can take them seriously.

--
Dominion
--

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."

-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

[klaatu]

Gelding wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:25:47 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)

> wrote:
>
> >In article <kgnv6sg6353ahleac...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 16:41:08 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <6k3v6s43hajeqn9th...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 11:59:21 GMT, har...@ibm.net (Haran Pilpel) wrote:
> >
> >> >> >... think about it. When you find the flaw in this argument, you'll
> >> >> >also find the exact same flaw in your argument that not having a
> >> >> >Rembrant "proves" the "genetic inferiority" of blacks.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It proves exactly what it does. It shows, in my opinion, and in the
> >> >> opinion of many leaders in the field, that natural-selection has taken
> >> >> black development in a certain direction in order to cope with the
> >> >> environment they evolved in. This is a reasonable explanation of the
> >> >> facts we see.
> >> >
> >> >The environment you percieve as having previously existed and therefore
> >> >shaped African evolution, is in fact an inaccurate depiction of African
> >> >history.
> >>
> >> Well, if you have opinions and facts you would like to give in support
> >> of this then please do so.
> >
> >O.k., here is a reply I wrote previously, in fact several times

> >previously, Iıll repeat it again:
>
> Snipped.
>
> The gibberish you posted didn't hold up to scrutiny. You mention the
> kush which were Nubian. The only things they did were during Egyptian
> domination. If the things you were saying were true, you would have
> many contributions to civilization by blacks. The art you present is
> nothing more than pathetic trinkets. You call their societies
> comparable, yet you can give no literature to speak of, no
> inventions, no higher art of any kind. If their civilizations were as
> advanced as whites, then it would be as available. The Moores were
> not Sub-Saharan black Africans. It would and should be very simple to
> show these higher works if they existed. I can give many links on the
> web itself that show the advances and art of whites in history. If
> blacks were equal, then we would find the same thing. What you are
> forced to say is that they were equal, but not equal. Make up your
> mind. If they were equal, then there should be no shortage of
> inventions, literature, sculpture, architecture, paintings, and
> contemporary high societies that contribute to modern science and art.
> Either show these, or admit that they are not equal. You babble about
> things that when checked out are laughable.

>
> >> The climate in Africa has probably changed very little in thousands of
> >> years. The shaping of black attributes would have come long before
> >> what you are talking about.
> >

> >If weıre talking about itmes that far back, then your argument falls

> >apart. Where can you show marked differences in civilisations between
> >those of White Europeans and Black Africans previous to 600 B.C.? Going
> >back to 1000 B.C., 2000 B.C., and beyond, can you show me White
> >civilisations from those times that were so much more advanced than Black
> >civilisations?
>

> The physical traits were formed during that time. That doesn't mean
> that civilizations had to develop instantly. I would say that would
> depend on the climate very much.
>
> Let's be very clear about what it is you claim here. Do you
> acknowledge that Natural-selection could have produced the differences
> we see in white and black history, and that you simply don't think it
> went in that direction? Or, do you deny that natural-selection would
> even be capable of producing different mental functions in an isolated
> population. Or do you claim that there are no differences in black
> and white society and history? I am asking you to answer these
> questions, then elaborate on your opinion on how the differences we
> see came about, or your reason for claiming there are no differences.
> I guess I need to get a complete opinion from my opponents before I
> debate in the future. It seems to me that you are headed in the
> direction of claiming there are no differences in black and white
> history. This will be easily defeated once I pin you down to this
> opinion.

>
> >
> >> > True
> >> >African societies up until colonialism were in many ways similar to
> >> >European cultures, i.e. civilisations based on agriculture and trade,
> >>
> >> If you would like to give studies and facts about this then do so.
> >> The societies were not even comparable to white civilization.
> >
> >See above.
>

> I did. many of the claims you make are laughable.

>
> >
> >> >which discredits any notion that Africans evolved in a way that placed
> >> >physical prowess above mental development.
>

> Do you claim here that there are no differences in white and black
> physiques? No differences in their athletic abilities? Let's be very
> clear about what it is you claim.

>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry but you don't even come close to discrediting something so
> >> obvious. Mere observation alone should be enough to show black
> >> aggressive tendencies. European and African climates were completely
> >> different and they would have favored different traits in order to
> >> survive.
> >
> >In fact, having listed many examples of African trade and production based
> >societies, your assertion of African genetic development based on hunting
> >in the wild seems a little shaky.
>

> We will further our argument dramatically once you make your claims in
> a precise way. Here it sounds again like you deny an athletic
> superiority by blacks over whites. I am sure you will make a clear
> statement about this.

>
> > Even if you, as you have done
> >previously, take the period of evolution to times previous to those
> >mentioned, then, as stated before, you encounter two problems. The first
> >is that you have to find many examples of European and African cultures
> >from those times, and then compare them.
>

> No you don't. A comparison of recent differences is all that is
> required. The differences in contributions to civilization are a fine
> meter for comparing mental attributes. It doesn't matter when whites
> developed anything, only that they did, and that it corresponds to the
> isolation of their population. Be very clear about the arguments you
> make here. If you are going to claim that the differences we see in
> blacks and whites are not the result of the white population drifting
> apart, then you better be loaded for bear.

>
> > The second is that, if previous
> >to 600 B.C., African evolution was based on physical prowess and skills
> >suitable to hunting, why so many succesful trade and production societies
> >from 600 B.C. onwards?
>

> Well first, I question this claim completely. Again, your arguments
> are disingenuous to say the least. Using Moores as evidence in an
> argument about Sus-Saharan blacks; Using Nubia as a higher
> civilization when I then find that they were under the dominance of
> Egypt. Claiming they had higher art, and then I look at trinkets that
> don't even come close to white art. Your inability to give inventions
> and technology contributed by blacks.... The societies you claim they
> had would have bred many advances in science and art, yet you can show
> none of these. Again, when it comes time for you to show actual
> physical proof of your claims, you give nothing. You only give what
> can be distorted and lied about. The great Nubian art is a joke.
> Where are their great works: art, literature, architecture,
> inventions.... These things cannot be lied about, and by mere
> coincidence, you can show none of them.

>
> > The fact is that there were only a few Sub-Saharan
> >societies based on hunting in the wild, and these were pushed out by
> >countless Sub-Saharan trade based societies from around that time.
>

> If they were our equal, then they would be equal, simple as that.
> Show the great works of art that take your breath. Those that hold
> you spellbound, not a frickin stool, or piece of pottery, or a
> pathetic imitation of Egyptian pyramids.

One word: "jazz".

>
> Gelding

[Red China Blue]

/ >This is the same attitude (reapplied) of using political correctness
/ >(redefined) in place of aesthetics.
/
/ So, in your view, it was "politically incorrect" in Nazi Germany to go
/ to the house of German art that Hitler himself opened?

You're doing the same thing. You're deciding what's good and what's bad
based on their political implications. The process is the same, it's just
what declared good or bad that has changed.

What about Norman Rockwell? Kitsch? Bad art? He was and is popular in the
USA. Does popular appeal define art as bad? Was Pollard bad art? Good art?
Any kind of art? Or rather than worry about bad art/good art, why not
focus on what the artist is trying to communicate?

To me the whole good art/bad art division revealed much of the
polarisation and political schizophrenia.

[Lorrill Buyens]

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:47:16 +0000, in an attempt to get into the
Guinness Book of World Records, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> ate
seventeen helpings of lutefisk, then belched:

>plague and civil collapse in midieval Europe. At least one in ten Africans
>is infected with a slow-onset form of HIV. Who will _not_ die from this? The
>educated, the thoughful, the wealthy, but above all the moral will through
>their personal choices survive to raise the next generation. The criminal,
>the wanton, the stupid... they will all have their genes removed from the
>pool through their own deficiencies, especially in moral behavior. Thus, the
>next generation of Africans, and certainly their children, will have been
>scourged of the unrighteous and all survivors will be superior by far to the
>Africans you now scorn. They will be direct competition, with a very low
>population in possession of vast resources, and most of them will be the
>children of well-educated disciplined wealthy people who will raise their
>children with morals and discipline and fine educations. They will be far
>from degenerate, and will produce works comparable to any done elsewhere,
>and will do it without the strains that the older Technical World cultures
>have; their underclasses will have all died of AIDS plague.

Having known people with friends and relatives with AIDS, I
resent your implication that only "stupid" and "immoral" people
die from it, as well as your implication that said people constitute
an "underclass."

--
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |

Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm

[Lorrill Buyens]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 17:20:42 -0800, in an attempt to get into the
Guinness Book of World Records, Gelding <m...@home.com> ate seventeen

helpings of lutefisk, then belched:

>On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 16:31:00 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
>wrote:

>> People who share the same ideology, i.e.

>>racism, can also generate their own culture based around those beliefs.

>Again, we are dealing with races. Racialist are political activist

>motivated by what they see as truth. A culture is quite independent
>of this. Please, instead of searching for every conceivable way to
>twist this argument, make some positive claims about the contributions
>of blacks concerning art and civilization in general. You may find
>that you will have a much easier time simply accepting the truth when
>it is obvious. Once you admit that blacks show a mental deficiency
>compared to whites, you then can argue from a true philosophical
>standing. You could even argue that whites should continue to give

From Chapter 14 of Bergen Evans' _The Natural History of Nonsense_
(Alfred A. Knopf; 1971):

Many tests have been devised to determine whether race and
intelligence can be correlated, and those who believe that they can,
and that the white race is intellectually superior to all other races,
have seized with triumph upon those results that support their belief,
while rejecting with indignation those that do not. Thus much has
been made of the fact that Negro children the country over have
tested lower in intelligence than white children, but the fact that
Negro children in certain sections tested higher than white children
in other sections has been discreetly ignored.
...For _The Races of Mankind_ [New York: Public Affairs Committee,
Inc.; 1943 - Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 85, according to a footnote
in Chapter 1] showed that while white soldiers as a whole did better
in the Army intelligence tests than black soldiers, literate Negroes
from some Northern states did better than literate whites from many
Southern states. Literate Negroes from Ohio, for example, achieved
a higher median score than the literate whites from eight Southern
states.
It could be insisted, of course, that since Northern whites did
better than Northern Negroes and Southern whites did better than
Southern Negroes, white superiority was clearly demonstrated. But
those who so insist will find themselves in a dilemma. For the
Northern whites did better than the Southern whites, so that if the
tests demonstrate anything they show that either Southern whites
are intellectually inferior to Northern whites *and* Northern blacks,
or that a more favorable environment improves intelligence. The first
of these alternatives would be unthinkable to a Southern racialist,
and the second would be unacceptable. For the present inferior
environment of the Negro (in both North and South) is justified on
the assumption of his innate inferiority. Once you grant that a
higher living level produces a higher intelligence, you can no longer
justify a low level on the basis of low intelligence.
What the Army tests seem really to establish is not that this
race is more intelligent than that, or that this section is more
intelligent than that, but that poverty is reflected in the
intelligence quotient of a whole people. The correlation established
is not between pigmentation and intelligence, but between diet,
educational facilities, housing, and the general economic situation,
and intelligence. Southern whites have, indeed, a grievance, and
so have Southern Negroes. But it is a common grievance that can
be remedied only by concerned action.

From a little later in the same chapter:

Our mechanical civilization, as a matter of fact, derives from the
scientific attitude of the Greeks, as also do medicine, astronomy,
and other of the arts upon which a white chauvinist congratulates
his "race." But the Greeks, who illustrate that cultures can recede
as well as advance, are hardly today regarded as leading members
of that race - nor, at least, by those who saw to it that they were
discriminated against in our immigration and college-admission
quotas. And the Greeks, we must remember, got much of their
thought from the Egyptians, who are definitely nonwhites.
The Romans were living much as we live today, with public
restaurants, swimming pools, summer cottages, stadiums, and
lipstick, when our Nordic ancestors were still painting their bodies
blue, inhabiting mud houses, and offering human sacrifices to oak
trees. It's humiliating to face it, but the cognoscenti of that day
did not rate them very high even as savages. "Do not obtain your
slaves from Britain," Cicero advised Atticus, "because they are so
stupid and so utterly incapable of being taught that they are not fit
to form a part of a civilized household."
To the racialist, of course, all this may seem a further argument
in our favor. If we got such a late start and still came out ahead,
we must be good. But the answer to this is that time is not a proper
measure to apply to cultural progress. Changes that have required
centuries among some peoples take place among others within a
few years. Dickens, traveling in 1842 on the then western frontier of
the United States, had the pleasure of meeting a Choctaw chief in a
salt-and-pepper cutaway reading Scott's _Lady of the Lake_.
Cultural change is dependent more upon the stimulus of new
experiences than upon the mere passage of time. Without such a
stimulus it can be exceedingly slow, as the histories of various
static civilizations testify. And the most important of all cultural
experiences is contact with members of a different culture. Advances
of culture depend on the chances that any group has to learn from the
experience of others, and the more contacts the greater the
opportunities to learn. Isolated peoples have primitive cultures
because they have no neighbors from whom to learn "foreign" ways.
The real advantage that the German has over the Hottentot is that he
has known the Frenchman longer.

[Jeffrey G. Brown]

In article <brl77sgf0dahcf470...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

>The least you could do is attempt to make a rational argument.

Follow, your own advice, jackass.

>I judge no man by the color of his skin.

You're lying.

[Stanley L. Moore]

Gelding <m...@home.com> wrote in message
> And if you are seven times as likely to be murdered by a black as you
> are a white?
>
> Conveniently left that out I guess. Pathetic!

Of course it depends on where you are. I doubt the average citizen of
China or Norway is seven times more likely to be murdered by a black.
In the US the average black person MAY be more likely to be killed by
another black but not because of race but because of propinquity. Most
people are murdered by someone they know. If I know a lot more Chinese
than people of African descent (and I have the talent for making lots of
enemies) then I will most likely be murdered by a Chinese. This is just
an example, no offense intended toward ANY ethnicity..... I have no
sympathy for murder, and unfortunately ALL of us are capable of it
regardless of race. Take care.

--
Stanley L. Moore
--

[John Lee]

In article <dh657scn2a6a7guub...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:25:47 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)

> wrote:
>
> >In article <kgnv6sg6353ahleac...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 16:41:08 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <6k3v6s43hajeqn9th...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 11:59:21 GMT, har...@ibm.net (Haran Pilpel) wrote:
> >
> >> >> >... think about it. When you find the flaw in this argument, you'll
> >> >> >also find the exact same flaw in your argument that not having a
> >> >> >Rembrant "proves" the "genetic inferiority" of blacks.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It proves exactly what it does. It shows, in my opinion, and in the
> >> >> opinion of many leaders in the field, that natural-selection has taken
> >> >> black development in a certain direction in order to cope with the
> >> >> environment they evolved in. This is a reasonable explanation of the
> >> >> facts we see.
> >> >
> >> >The environment you percieve as having previously existed and therefore
> >> >shaped African evolution, is in fact an inaccurate depiction of African
> >> >history.
> >>
> >> Well, if you have opinions and facts you would like to give in support
> >> of this then please do so.
> >
> >O.k., here is a reply I wrote previously, in fact several times
> >previously, Iąll repeat it again:
>

> Snipped.
>
>
> The gibberish you posted didn't hold up to scrutiny. You mention the
> kush which were Nubian. The only things they did were during Egyptian
> domination. If the things you were saying were true, you would have
> many contributions to civilization by blacks. The art you present is
> nothing more than pathetic trinkets. You call their societies
> comparable, yet you can give no literature to speak of, no
> inventions, no higher art of any kind. If their civilizations were as
> advanced as whites, then it would be as available. The Moores were
> not Sub-Saharan black Africans. It would and should be very simple to
> show these higher works if they existed. I can give many links on the
> web itself that show the advances and art of whites in history. If
> blacks were equal, then we would find the same thing. What you are
> forced to say is that they were equal, but not equal. Make up your
> mind. If they were equal, then there should be no shortage of
> inventions, literature, sculpture, architecture, paintings, and
> contemporary high societies that contribute to modern science and art.
> Either show these, or admit that they are not equal. You babble about
> things that when checked out are laughable.

Wrong. The kingdom of Kush existed over thirteen centuries up to 400 A.D.,
throughout which it produced many works of art and traded in gold,
ironwork and sandalwood with other nations. Through a short period in the
early part of itąs reign, it was under overall Egyptian control, but later
on, in 750 B.C., Kush itself conquered Egypt. Note: these were Black
Africans who both produced works of art, traded wtih West African nations
thousands of miles away via horse-drawn chariots by 600 B.C., and invaded
Egypt in 750 B.C. Not Egyptians, Asians or Caucasains.
Again you refer to African works of art as trinkets. Ethiopean churches
from 1100 A.D. are not trinkets. Neither are the religious paintings
contained within. Nor are Mosques created in Mali. Neither are lifelike
bronze sculptures of human heads, created in Ife and Benin. Nor are bronze
drinking vessels made in 800 A.D., Eastern Nigeria.
You also state that I can give no literature, inventions or forms of higher art.
In terms of literature, the lack of historical African texts is due to
cultural reasons, namely that information was passed down in the oral
tradition. Which doesn't mean that Africans were incapable of creating
works of literature. However, if you want great works of literature, in
the 4th century A.D., in Northern Africa, came Christian works of
literature, including Saint Augustine, a Berber, who wrote many important
works in Latin.
In relation to invention, by 300 B.C. West African nations had invented
various ironworking techniques, the lost wax process for example. Central
and Southern African nations also discovered ironworking for themselves.
Finally, in terms of great works of art, yet again I can refer you to
Ethiopean churches from 1100 A.D., and reiterate that definitions of
Śgreatą where applied to art vary between individuals and cultures.

> >> The climate in Africa has probably changed very little in thousands of
> >> years. The shaping of black attributes would have come long before
> >> what you are talking about.
> >
> >If weąre talking about itmes that far back, then your argument falls
> >apart. Where can you show marked differences in civilisations between
> >those of White Europeans and Black Africans previous to 600 B.C.? Going
> >back to 1000 B.C., 2000 B.C., and beyond, can you show me White
> >civilisations from those times that were so much more advanced than Black
> >civilisations?
>

> The physical traits were formed during that time. That doesn't mean
> that civilizations had to develop instantly. I would say that would
> depend on the climate very much.

In this case then, you are arguing that for several millenia or more
previous to 600 B.C. African traits were formed, followed later on by the
effects on societies. That, however, does not explain the fact that
African societies from 600 B.C. onwards developed in the direction of
trade and agriculture, as did European nations. When, therefore, do you
claim that the results of natural selection on African societies became
apparent?

> Let's be very clear about what it is you claim here. Do you
> acknowledge that Natural-selection could have produced the differences
> we see in white and black history, and that you simply don't think it
> went in that direction? Or, do you deny that natural-selection would
> even be capable of producing different mental functions in an isolated
> population. Or do you claim that there are no differences in black
> and white society and history? I am asking you to answer these
> questions, then elaborate on your opinion on how the differences we
> see came about, or your reason for claiming there are no differences.
> I guess I need to get a complete opinion from my opponents before I
> debate in the future. It seems to me that you are headed in the
> direction of claiming there are no differences in black and white
> history. This will be easily defeated once I pin you down to this
> opinion.

My point of view is that the effect of natural selection was and is
insignificant. I donąt deny that natural selection had the potential to
produce marked differences, but that was only one possibility which in the
end turned out not to have occured. In terms of historical differences, up
until colonialism both European and African nations followed vastly
similar paths, with the only cultural differences being in terms of actual
substance, not in overall value or worth, which can be put down purely to
geographic and cultural seperation between the two continents. When
talking about modern differences between African and European nations,
modern has to be taken as the start of colonialism, which was the cause of
the disintegration of pre-colonial African societies during occupation,
and the inevitable result of power and ethnic based conflicts after the
colonial powers pulled out, which wasnąt aided by leaving no
infrastructure for the carved up nations and societies they hurriedly left
behind.

Yours, J. Lee

[John Lee]

In article <nll77sg9eu3450lju...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:20:53 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)

> wrote:
>
> >In article <6buv6sg6i8buidpjl...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 16:31:00 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >When comparing art between two races, you are comparing art between
> >> >different cultures, which is about as meaningful as judging between the
> >> >classical and pop music genres, it can't be done.
> >
> >> We are not comparing two cultures. We are comparing white artist from
> >> many countries speaking many languages. The fact that whites in
> >> different cultures produced art that easily resembles other white art
> >> proves you wrong. We are comparing the relative contributions to
> >> civilization from blacks and whites. The comparison can be made and
> >> made fairly.
> >
> >The fact is that most White cultures from around the World originated
> >fairly recently from Europe. Art from across Europe was based on a merging
> >of artistic ideas between European nations.
>

> But nevertheless, white art resembles white art. The art was similar
> before this as well. Are you claiming that blacks had the mental
> abilities and technology to create works comparable to the Sisteen
> chapel, but they decided it just wasn't their taste? This is absurd.
> If the ability to create spatial forms were present there is no way
> they would have been able to deny it. Yes, their art would have been
> cultural centered on their societies, but it would RIVAL the spatial
> and structural content of white art. There should be works that take
> the breath away and that equal the Mona Lisa, the statue of David, the
> last supper.... These works do not exist. Then you cheapen it by
> saying it is nothing more than culture. that blacks had the same
> capabilities, but that they just didn't find this style of art to
> their liking. You are confusing style with ability. No way can you
> equate these trinkets with the statue of David, and then say the
> difference is just style and culture. The mental ability to see the
> world in this way was--and is--not present in the black mind.

> > What resulted was an overall
> >European artisitic identity, which in definition was cultural.
>

> Again, you confuse artistic identity (or style) with the ability to
> create spatial forms and shadow. And consequently, IQ tests show an
> inability to think in these terms. Again you must say this is just
> coincidence, or claim that it is a lie. You have two separate excuses
> though, right? Racism for the lie of the IQ tests, and culture for
> the lack of higher art. Racism for the current situation blacks are
> in. Lack of money for their crimes. Do you see what you are doing?
> There is one obvious answer that ties all these things together.

> > Similarly,
> >you got artistic influences spreading from seperate nations within Africa,
> >but rarely did outside influences have any effect.
>

> Fine, but the art should be equal it its development. That means we
> should see awesome works rivaling the Mona Lisa. It would be with
> different style and about different things, but it still should rival
> it in its complexity and beauty and in its spatial forms.

It is beautiful to you yes, that does not define it as beautiful in any
absolute terms.

> > The same can also be
> >said of art from the Far-East. Therefore there were overall cultural
> >similarities within both the Far-East, Africa and Europe. However, these
> >are cultural as stated, and you cannot make a comparison between art from
> >another culture and art from your own, as your artistic tastes are
> >inherently biased towards that of your own culture.
>

> Wrong. Far eastern art, in many cases does rival that of white art.
> It is the perfect comparison. It is different from a stylistic point,
> but much of it does rival white art in its spatial forms using light
> and shadow. It is the black race that falls behind when this
> comparison is made.

> >
> >> >Art deemed aesthetically
> >> >pleasing by one culture does not necessarily make it aesthetically
> >> >pleasing to another. That does not make it any less valid, as you cannot
> >> >compare between what are in effect seperate artistic tastes.
> >
> >> Not true. The personal statement of the art is what people may differ
> >> about. The medium and technology of the art are comparable from race
> >> to race. You can tell something about the way the mind sees reality
> >> and how it is able to represent that reality. Because I may not care
> >> for the look in the face of the Statue of David, does not mean that I
> >> do not recognize the significance in the statue and the sculpture's
> >> ability to create form and content. You are talking about two
> >> different things. The lack of black discoveries in history also show
> >> an inability to think on a deeper and higher plane. So yes, a
> >> black may find his trinket as beautiful as the Mona Lisa, but the
> >> differences in spatial thinking and ability to recreate shadow and
> >> dimension are clearly higher achievements of the mind.
> >
> >Clearly from your own point of view they are, but not necessarily from

> >someone elseąs.
>
> Wrong. The ability is either there or it is not. There is no opinion
> about whether the statue of David is an incredible representation of
> the higher mind. This would be seen anywhere by anyone that observed
> it. It is unquestionably the work of the higher mind in expressing
> spatial form and content. This has nothing to do with culture and you
> know it. The mind that has this ability will express it no matter
> what culture it comes from. And it will be on this higher plane no
> matter what society produces it.

It is certainly not unquestionable, and there will be many people that do
in fact question it.

> > When you mention
> >shadow and dimension, again you are referring to artistic values which
> >may be important in your culture, but are not necessarily in someone

> >elseąs.
>
> No, if the mind were capable of it, it would find expression. It is
> the style that would reflect the different culture, but the work would
> rival the Mona Lisa, or the statue of David.

Rival in terms of what? In terms of your definition of high art, based on
your personal tastes?

> > Artistic tastes differ, even within cultures and time periods, for
> >example take the difference between renaissance-era paintings and those of
> >expressionism. No one can truly say whether one period was better than
> >another, or even whether paintings in general from a specific period have
> >any merit over those from another.
>

> It is you who speaks of style here. The ability to create dimension
> and form is easily distinguished. It is part of the evolution of the
> mind in perception. As the mind evolves it further separates the
> inner and outer world. It is by this separation that the mind is able
> to grasp abstract concepts as dimension, shadow, light and its
> interaction with objects.

> > In
> >reference to technology, how can you say that a sculpture produced say 400
> >years ago has any less artistic value than those produced by the very
> >latest modern materials and production methods?
>

> I don't. It is those aspects of the higher mind that created the art
> that can be compared. There are no black Rembrandt's today either.
> It is the technology between the two races that can be compared at
> equal stages of history. You must hold this to be true because you
> make the claim that the two races are equivalent in mind. You are
> truly in a lost cause here. No way can you show black history to be
> the equivalent of other races in the world.

>
>
> > Again, the two are
> >relative, and it is all down to personal taste.
>

> Not at all.

> >What we find acceptable
> >and artistically tasteful in terms of our culture simply does not stand as
> >an absolute, and we have no right to state that our cultural artistic
> >preferences are better then those of a seperate culture.
>

> Absolutely true for style and culture. Not for the development of the
> mind. The two are easily distinguished.

> >Relating to culture, vast continents over which ideas intermingle can also
> >create overall cultural characteristics. Hence you have African cultures,
> >European cultures and Asian cultures containing similarities within
> >themselves.
>

> And they, being equal, should have a roughly equal number of
> advancements and a similar ability in art.

Again, relating to your comments on the Mona Lisa, David and Rembrandt,
you are taking your personal tastes as standard proof for the existence of
a higher level of mind. They are your tastes, they are relative, and they
cannot be valued above those of another. You also state these are great
works of art. By your definition, yes, but by another individual's
definition they could be absolute crap, you cannot apply your own personal
preferences as the basis for an overall value-based system.
In relation to spatial forms, shadow, etc., I request that you post proof
accepted by modern science that:
a) Spatial form and dimension are defining characteristics of good art.
b) Lack of production of spatial form and dimension in art indicates poor
mental development.
c) It would not be possible for a society to reject spatial form and
dimension as major artistic values.

> > Put it this way, the brain is an extremely complex
> >organ. We do not yet even know how it functions, so how on earth can we

> >state we can accurately test itąs intellectual capacity?
>
> Shall I post the words of many experts in the field? I am sure you
> have read them.

Post an article, accepted by science, containing the full (or at least 90%
complete) details of exactly how the human brain and conciousness
function.

> > Black Americans are as much a part of American culture as
> >White Americans.
>

> Absolutely. This doesn't mean that it is desirable.

How then can you state that an ethnic group cannot be suitable for a
culture it helped to create.

Yours, J. Lee

[John Lee]

In article <54vf7ssa8jda2jmge...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 22:30:56 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
> wrote:

> Yeah yeah yeah. WHERE IS THE ART? What I have been shown is
> laughable.

> >Again you refer to African works of art as trinkets. Ethiopean churches
> >from 1100 A.D. are not trinkets. Neither are the religious paintings
> >contained within.
>

> I am sure they are on the web somewhere, considering they are such
> awesome works. Well, I am waiting.

> > Nor are Mosques created in Mali. Neither are lifelike
> >bronze sculptures of human heads, created in Ife and Benin. Nor are bronze
> >drinking vessels made in 800 A.D., Eastern Nigeria.
> >You also state that I can give no literature, inventions or forms of
higher art.
> >In terms of literature, the lack of historical African texts is due to
> >cultural reasons, namely that information was passed down in the oral
> >tradition.
>

> Yeah right. Pathetic excuse. So they had the ability to write, but
> they just didn't want to. Heeee heee.

>
>
> > Which doesn't mean that Africans were incapable of creating
> >works of literature. However, if you want great works of literature, in
> >the 4th century A.D., in Northern Africa, came Christian works of
> >literature, including Saint Augustine, a Berber, who wrote many important
> >works in Latin.
> >In relation to invention, by 300 B.C. West African nations had invented
> >various ironworking techniques, the lost wax process for example. Central
> >and Southern African nations also discovered ironworking for themselves.
> >Finally, in terms of great works of art, yet again I can refer you to
> >Ethiopean churches from 1100 A.D., and reiterate that definitions of
> >Śgreatą where applied to art vary between individuals and cultures.
>
>

> Please please please. You are killing me with this shit. SHOW THE
> WORKS!

Look, the writings of St Augustine can be found in a library, the churches
and paintings of Ethiopia can also be found in a good history book.
Alternatively, you could go to Ethiopea and visit them (laughs out of
desperation).

> >
> >> >> The climate in Africa has probably changed very little in thousands of
> >> >> years. The shaping of black attributes would have come long before
> >> >> what you are talking about.
> >> >
> >> >If weąre talking about itmes that far back, then your argument falls
> >> >apart. Where can you show marked differences in civilisations between
> >> >those of White Europeans and Black Africans previous to 600 B.C.? Going
> >> >back to 1000 B.C., 2000 B.C., and beyond, can you show me White
> >> >civilisations from those times that were so much more advanced than Black
> >> >civilisations?
> >>
> >> The physical traits were formed during that time. That doesn't mean
> >> that civilizations had to develop instantly. I would say that would
> >> depend on the climate very much.
> >
> >In this case then, you are arguing that for several millenia or more
> >previous to 600 B.C. African traits were formed, followed later on by the
> >effects on societies. That, however, does not explain the fact that
> >African societies from 600 B.C. onwards developed in the direction of
> >trade and agriculture, as did European nations. When, therefore, do you
> >claim that the results of natural selection on African societies became
> >apparent?
>

> It was apparent all along. They have done nothing that can be
> considered the equivalent of the white race.

I'll ask again: From 600 B.C. onwards, African nations followed the route
of trade and agriculture, contrary to what you'd expect from a race
allegedly selected on the basis of hunting in the wild. Previous to 600
B.C., you cannot show that White civilisations were significantly more
advanced, if at all. So when do the effects of natural selection become
apparent?

> >
> >> Let's be very clear about what it is you claim here. Do you
> >> acknowledge that Natural-selection could have produced the differences
> >> we see in white and black history, and that you simply don't think it
> >> went in that direction? Or, do you deny that natural-selection would
> >> even be capable of producing different mental functions in an isolated
> >> population. Or do you claim that there are no differences in black
> >> and white society and history? I am asking you to answer these
> >> questions, then elaborate on your opinion on how the differences we
> >> see came about, or your reason for claiming there are no differences.
> >> I guess I need to get a complete opinion from my opponents before I
> >> debate in the future. It seems to me that you are headed in the
> >> direction of claiming there are no differences in black and white
> >> history. This will be easily defeated once I pin you down to this
> >> opinion.
> >
> >My point of view is that the effect of natural selection was and is
> >insignificant. I donąt deny that natural selection had the potential to
> >produce marked differences, but that was only one possibility which in the
> >end turned out not to have occured.
>
>

> Please.

>
> > In terms of historical differences, up
> >until colonialism both European and African nations followed vastly
> >similar paths, with the only cultural differences being in terms of actual
> >substance, not in overall value or worth, which can be put down purely to
> >geographic and cultural seperation between the two continents. When
> >talking about modern differences between African and European nations,
> >modern has to be taken as the start of colonialism, which was the cause of
> >the disintegration of pre-colonial African societies during occupation,
> >and the inevitable result of power and ethnic based conflicts after the
> >colonial powers pulled out, which wasnąt aided by leaving no
> >infrastructure for the carved up nations and societies they hurriedly left
> >behind.
>
>

> Oh, its white poeples fault. And Haiti?

Come on, from your previous post I was expecting an answer that leaves my
arguments resoundingly defeated, all you can give are one liners that
either say nothing at all or deflect the point being made?
In answer to colonialism, yes, it was all White people's fault. Is Haiti
all you can show? - A single nation experiencing problems, along with many
predominantly White nations also experiencing problems?

Yours, J. Lee

[John Lee]

In article <q1ck7s4jg0dcqpgbk...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 22:14:58 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
> wrote:
> >Look, the writings of St Augustine can be found in a library, the churches
> >and paintings of Ethiopia can also be found in a good history book.
> >Alternatively, you could go to Ethiopea and visit them (laughs out of
> >desperation).
>

> The churches were obviously after Non-white influence and technology.
>
> I will post a few things I found
>
>
> During the first millennium B.C. and possibly even earlier, various
> Semitic-speaking groups from Southwest Arabia began to cross the Red
> Sea and settle along the coast and in the nearby highlands. These
> migrants brought with them their Semitic speech (Saharan and perhaps
> others) and script (Old Epigraphic South Arabic) and monumental stone
> architecture.
>
> MODERN ETHIOPIA IS THE PRODUCT of many millennia of interaction among
> peoples in and around the Ethiopian highlands region. From the
> earliest times, these groups combined to produce a culture that at any
> given time differed markedly from that of surrounding peoples. The
> evolution of this early "Ethiopian" culture was driven by a variety of
> ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups.
>
> One of the most significant influences on the formation and evolution
> of culture in northern Ethiopia consisted of migrants from Southwest
> Arabia. They arrived during the first millennium B.C. and brought
> Semitic speech, writing, and a distinctive stone-building tradition to
> northern Ethiopia. They seem to have contributed directly to the rise
> of the Aksumite kingdom, a trading state that prospered in the first
> centuries of the Christian era and that united the shores of the
> southern Red Sea commercially and at times politically. It was an
> Aksumite king who accepted Christianity in the mid-fourth century, a
> religion that the Aksumites bequeathed to their successors along with
> their concept of an empire-state under centralized rulership.
>
> The establishment of what became the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was
> critical in molding Ethiopian culture and identity. The spread of
> Islam to the coastal areas of the Horn of Africa in the eighth
> century, however, led to the isolation of the highlands from European
> and Middle Eastern centers of Christendom. The appearance of Islam was
> partly responsible for what became a long-term rivalry between
> Christians and Muslims--a rivalry that exacerbated older tensions
> between highlanders and lowlanders and agriculturalists and
> pastoralists that have persisted to the present day.
>
> Kingship and Orthodoxy, both with their roots in Aksum, became the
> dominant institutions among the northern Ethiopians in the
> post-Aksumite period. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, a
> dynasty known as the Zagwe ruled from their capital in the northern
> highlands. The Zagwe era is one of the most artistically creative
> periods in Ethiopian history, involving among other things the carving
> of a large number of rock-hewn churches.
>
> The Zagwe heartland was well south of the old Aksumite domain, and the
> Zagwe interlude was but one phase in the long-term southward shift of
> the locus of political power. The successors of the Zagwe after the
> mid-thirteenth century--the members of the so-called "Solomonic"
> dynasty-- located themselves in the central highlands and involved
> themselves directly in the affairs of neighboring peoples still
> farther south and east.
>
>
> Obviously you can give nothing of Black Sub-Saharan works that are
> advances in civilization because they do not exist.

Around 1000 B.C. there may have been a Semitic settlement in the area
approximate to Ethiopea. In 1100 A.D., two millenia later however, Black
Sub-Saharan Ethiopeans created complex and beautiful churches based solely
on their own artistic values, not influences from outside.
As for more Black Sub-Saharan works of art, I can list the West African
nations of Asante, Oyo and Benin as having made beautiful bronze
sculptures over a millenia-ago.
I can also state that Sub-Saharan Central and Southern African nations
discovered ironworking for themselves around 300 B.C.

> OF COURSE, Neo-Lysenkoists stress the importance
> of environmental deprivation as the cause of any
> measurable differences between black and white
> I.Q. averages, but their emphasis upon environment is
> restricted to the current experience of minority group in-
> dividuals in the United States. Totally excluded from con-
> sideration are the long-term evolutionary consequences of
> Africa's unique tropical environment for its native popu-
> lation over tens of centuries. The environmental aspects
> of schooling, family life, and peer-group orientation
> among black children in the United States are explored ad
> nauseam, but not the sub-Sahara environmental condi-
> tions far more discouraging to social and genetic im-
> provement than the urban crisis endured by American
> Negroes today. This myopic emphasis upon "hard" envi-
> ronmental data at the expense of longitudinal analysis
> integrating biology and social adjustment was first put on
> a systematic footing by the anthropologist Franz Boas,
> one of the primary instigators of our present tradition in
>
> egalitarian research. Its most basic assumption was suc-
> cinctly explained by his protegee, Margaret Mead, when
> she declared that the origins of culture pose a question
> upon which "there is not and cannot be any valid evi-
> dence." No tangible data, no origins擁t is as simple as
> that. An exaggerated commitment to hands-on empirical
> responsibility has thus served to discourage evolutionary
> comparisons suggesting that at least a few cultures (for
> example, the Ovaheraro of Africa, who have found no
> need to invent words representing numbers higher than
> three) might be more primitive than others, or that their
> relative lack of advancement might be traceable to ge-
> netic deficiency, the product of sustained environmental
> deprivation. But why not? Why must environmental in-
> fluences be accepted on a strictly contemporary basis, but
> not as a longitudinal source of racial differentiation, both
> social and genetic, over tens of thousands of years?
>
> In fact, a "genetic drift" of as many as 46,000 years has
> been estimated to separate the Caucasoid and Negroid
> races, according to Jensen in Straight Talk (1981).

And this is accepted by modern science as fact?

> For the
> Homo sapiens evolution of 400,000 years, this period
> represents not more than a ninth of the process of change,
> but it seems to have produced significant physical differ-
> ences, some of which are indicated in the previous chap-
> ter. Apparently the division between the black and white
> races began 2,000 generations ago, halfway through the
> most recent ice age (the so-called Wurm glaciation),
> when sub-Sahara Africa came to be divided from the land
> mass of Euro-Asia by the simultaneous expansion of the
> Sahara desert and the Mediterranean sea. Both these natu-
> ral barriers were produced by deglaciation, and there is
> ample genetic evidence that they effectively isolated Afri-
> cans from the nomadic interaction which continued to
>
> take place among tribes and clans north of Sahara. The
> Negro race was restricted to a subcontinent of its own,
> where its evolutionary advancement seems to have been
> relatively curtailed, if not reversed, through its continuing
> exposure to an environment of severe tropical conditions.

Is this scientifically accepted fact?

> Indeed, it seems entirely reasonable to speculate that radi-
> cal differences in the environments north and south of the
> Sahara-Mediterranean natural barrier were sufficient to
> have produced separate lines of evolutionary advance-
> ment that were comparatively unfavorable to blacks.

Speculation, however, is the only status to which this article can attain.

> What else can be expected from almost fifty millenniums
> of exposure to disease, parasites, predators, and excesses
> in heat and humidity unknown at higher latitudes?

Why are those specific conditions unfavourable for development? What about
those living under arctic conditions?

> Surely
> such an existence must have led to genetic consequences
> more important than skin coloration in differentiating Af-
> rica's population from the races which lived north of the
> Sahara. The harmful influence of tropical climate upon
> intelligence was persuasively suggested early in our cen-
> tury by Ellsworth Huntington in Civilization and Climate
> (1924) and The Character of Races (1925) and his thesis
> remains credible whether or not it can be absolutely con-
> firmed by contemporary anthropological data.

It is an old study that remains unnaccepted by modern science. Where is
your proof that a tropical climate is detrimental to the development of
human intelligence?

>
> North of the Sahara-Mediterranean natural barrier,
> Huntington argued, the faculty of intelligence bestowed a
> clear-cut evolutionary advantage in coping with seasonal
> variations and the greater mobility that was possible
> among tribes in both trade and warfare. Moreover, when
> hunting and gathering were abandoned in favor of an
> agricultural economy which established the basis for civi-
> lization as we know it today, this major transition was
> accompanied by a population explosion that necessarily
> increased the evolutionary advantage of intelligence in
> particular individuals. The ability to leam fast and to take
>
> advantage of new opportunities became the sine qua non
> for survival in a complex and variable social order.
> Whether in war or peace, those who possessed any supe-
> riority in these skills were more likely to prosper, thus
> raising families of children and grandchildren with
> roughly the same advantage. The process of winnowing
> was slow but inexorable, and its ultimate consequence
> has been the pool of intellectual skills taken for granted
> today, whose average has been arbitrarily designated as a
> 100 I.Q.

So?

> In the tropical regions of Africa, on the other hand,
> intelligence seems to have earned a much smaller payoff,
> so there was arrested development. No benefits came
> from the ability to predict, to plan and organize, or to
> come up with an accurate understanding of cause-and-ef-
> fect relationships except at the most primitive levels. Sea-
> sonal change posed no particular problems to be solved,
> agriculture could only be pursued on a limited basis, the
> jungle environment discouraged complex tribal interac-
> tion, and the population size remained relatively low be-
> cause of tropical diseases. Most Africans lived in lowland
> regions which afforded them better protection from hos-
> tile tribes as well as greater access to food and water. But
> they were torpid from unbearably hot and muggy weather
> and suffered from a multitude of debilitating parasites
> listed by Carothers to have included hookworm, amebi-
> asis, schistosoma, filaria, Leishmania, and onchocerca,
> most of which took their toll regardless of the ingenuity
> of the native population. According to Carothers, Afri-
> cans were also victimized by such diseases as malaria,
> dysentery, typhoid fever, smallpox, sleeping sickness,
> lockjaw, and sickle cell anemia as a genetic byproduct of
> the body's defenses against malaria. Tropical Africa
>
> could be bountiful in providing a family with its full
> sustenance within a few hundred yards of its domicile,
> but then again it could just as quickly and arbitrarily bring
> early death despite their best and most ingenious efforts
> to protect themselves. For the most part there was little
> need to think, since the ability to generalize and discern
> exceptions conferred no particular advantage. Essentially
> redundant were the virtues of cleverness, resourcefulness,
> and the capacity to make complex plans and then carry
> them out. Relatively speaking, I.Q. could take a vacation
> from the evolutionary struggle, since it did not have much
> of a role to play. As a result, there was genetic drift in
> other directions.

Really, this is absolute bullshit. Sub-Saharan nations - kingdoms and
empires - existed from 600 B.C. onwards. Not only did they rely heavily on
agriculture, and have stable monarchy-based forms of government, they also
grew rich on trade between adjacent nations and those thousands of miles
away.

> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, its white poeples fault. And Haiti?
> >
> >Come on, from your previous post I was expecting an answer that leaves my
> >arguments resoundingly defeated, all you can give are one liners that
> >either say nothing at all or deflect the point being made?
>

> You continue to give points that have no substance. You spout about
> black civilization that were either Non-Sub-Saharan, or were under the
> control of Egypt or influenced from abroad.

Oh, right, so now we narrow it down even further. Not only do African
nations in this context have to be Sub-Saharan, they also have to have no
external influences. How many European nations can claim to have had no
'influences from abroad'?

> More on Nubia.
>
> Egypt dominated parts of Nubia from about 1950 to 1000 B.C. Forts,
> trading posts and Egyptianstyle temples were built in Kush, and the
> Nubian elite adopted the worship of Egyptian gods and even the
> Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system. The gold, ebony and ivory of
> Nubia contributed to the material wealth of Egypt, and many of the
> famed treasures of the Egyptian kings were made of products from
> Nubia.

Here's a more detailed history of Kush:
Previous to 1000 B.C., Egypt exerted overall control and colonised some
northern parts.
From 950 B.C. onwards, the kingdom of Kush developed in power and stature,
until in 750 B.C. it succesfully invaded and took control of Egypt.
For 100 years Kush controlled an empire stretching 1000 miles along the Nile.
In 650 B.C. the Assyrians invaded the land of Egypt, bringing to an end
the empire of Kush.
Kush remained an independent kingdom however, for nearly a whole millenia.
During that time, the capital city Merowe became the centre of the iron
industry in Kush. Iron products were exported from Kush, via horse drawn
chariots or donkey caravans, to the nations of Western Africa and areas
along the Nile, including Egypt who remained dependent on Kush for
iron-based implements.
Around 300 A.D. Kush was absorbed into the kingdom of Axum.

> >
> >In answer to colonialism, yes, it was all White people's fault.
>

> I am shocked.

> > Is Haiti
> >all you can show?
>

> Nope, I have show that Black Sub-Saharan contributions to civilization
> do not exists,

Contribution to whose civilisation? Black Sub-Saharan nations certainly
contributed to their own civilisations. Including forms of art, invention,
trade, systems of government, justice and education.

Yours, J. Lee

[Lorrill Buyens]

On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 15:41:46 -0800, in an attempt to get into the

Guinness Book of World Records, Gelding <m...@home.com> ate seventeen
helpings of lutefisk, then belched:

>On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:20:53 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)

>wrote:
>>In article <6buv6sg6i8buidpjl...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 16:31:00 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >When comparing art between two races, you are comparing art between
>>> >different cultures, which is about as meaningful as judging between the
>>> >classical and pop music genres, it can't be done.
>>
>>> We are not comparing two cultures. We are comparing white artist from
>>> many countries speaking many languages. The fact that whites in
>>> different cultures produced art that easily resembles other white art
>>> proves you wrong. We are comparing the relative contributions to
>>> civilization from blacks and whites. The comparison can be made and
>>> made fairly.
>>
>>The fact is that most White cultures from around the World originated
>>fairly recently from Europe. Art from across Europe was based on a merging
>>of artistic ideas between European nations.
>

>But nevertheless, white art resembles white art. The art was similar

So you're saying that Pennsylvania Dutch art looks like Renaissance
art looks like Impressionism art? Or are you claiming that "white
art" has a certain quality which "non-white art" lacks?

>before this as well. Are you claiming that blacks had the mental
>abilities and technology to create works comparable to the Sisteen
>chapel, but they decided it just wasn't their taste? This is absurd.

It's the Sis*tine* Chapel, nipplechips. I don't know how you can
claim *black people* are dumb when you keep mispelling such a
simple word.

>their liking. You are confusing style with ability. No way can you
>equate these trinkets with the statue of David, and then say the
>difference is just style and culture. The mental ability to see the
>world in this way was--and is--not present in the black mind.

Your proof of which is?

>>> >Art deemed aesthetically
>>> >pleasing by one culture does not necessarily make it aesthetically
>>> >pleasing to another. That does not make it any less valid, as you cannot
>>> >compare between what are in effect seperate artistic tastes.
>>
>>> Not true. The personal statement of the art is what people may differ
>>> about. The medium and technology of the art are comparable from race
>>> to race. You can tell something about the way the mind sees reality
>>> and how it is able to represent that reality. Because I may not care
>>> for the look in the face of the Statue of David, does not mean that I
>>> do not recognize the significance in the statue and the sculpture's
>>> ability to create form and content. You are talking about two
>>> different things. The lack of black discoveries in history also show
>>> an inability to think on a deeper and higher plane. So yes, a
>>> black may find his trinket as beautiful as the Mona Lisa, but the
>>> differences in spatial thinking and ability to recreate shadow and
>>> dimension are clearly higher achievements of the mind.
>>
>>Clearly from your own point of view they are, but not necessarily from

>>someone else零.

>
>Wrong. The ability is either there or it is not. There is no opinion
>about whether the statue of David is an incredible representation of
>the higher mind. This would be seen anywhere by anyone that observed

Oh, I'm sure you could find at least a few dissenting opinions if you
asked enough people...

>> Personally I find
>>certain forms of art from African nations to be more expressive and
>>emotionally moving than similar forms from European nations, but again,
>>those are simply my artisitic preferences, and they cannot be evaluated
>>against those of someone else.
>>
>>> Again, we are dealing with races. Racialist are political activist
>>> motivated by what they see as truth. A culture is quite independent
>>> of this. Please, instead of searching for every conceivable way to
>>> twist this argument, make some positive claims about the contributions
>>> of blacks concerning art and civilization in general. You may find
>>> that you will have a much easier time simply accepting the truth when
>>> it is obvious. Once you admit that blacks show a mental deficiency
>>> compared to whites, you then can argue from a true philosophical
>>> standing. You could even argue that whites should continue to give
>>> money and aid to blacks everywhere. You could argue more effectively
>>> from a position of truth.
>>
>>Remember that all political activists, no matter what their political
>>beliefs, are motivated by what they *think* is the truth, so accurate
>>perception of the truth can hardly be called a defining charcteristic of
>>any political movement, let alone racism, or racialism if you will.
>>In terms of I.Q., I simply deny that the standards and procedures set for

>>it零 measurement capture in any way the degree to which an individual零
>>intelligence exists.
>
>Then there are many learned men living and working in a farce.

Hey, look at all the "learned men" who believed in junk like alchemy
and astrology, once upon a time. Being smart and well-respected
doesn't make you infallible.

>> Black Americans are as much a part of American culture as
>>White Americans.
>

>Absolutely. This doesn't mean that it is desirable.

Charles Drew, a black man, invented blood transfusion. How'd
you like to live in a world without *his* contribution?

[Peter Cooper]

Hey man,
all this stuff about blacks ( browns, tans and may be yellows ) being
inferior must be true, seems right up my street. We should really
develop this into a stronger position.

While we are about it the contribution of women to civilisation and
culture in the last 2000 years is pretty low too don't you think,
perhaps we should reconsider all this women's lib stuff as well, might
as well go for it big time, I'm sure earlier in the century it was
recognised that women had lower IQ's than men.

Also I'm sure I've got a scientific paper here with details about the
tiny amount that Americans has contributed to things over the last
couple of millennia as well ........ooooooppps

--

Regards
Peter
Mailto:pe...@gaitor.demon.co.uk

-------------------------------------- / -------------------------------------
The hippo of recollection stirred in the muddy waters of the mind.

(Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)

[Ward Stewart]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:51:54 GMT,
buyensl@prime*SPAMMERS.GO.HOME*net.com (Lorrill Buyens) wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 15:41:46 -0800, in an attempt to get into the
>Guinness Book of World Records, Gelding <m...@home.com> ate seventeen
>helpings of lutefisk, then belched:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:20:53 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
>>wrote:

mercy snip

>>before this as well. Are you claiming that blacks had the mental
>>abilities and technology to create works comparable to the Sisteen
>>chapel, but they decided it just wasn't their taste? This is absurd.
>
>It's the Sis*tine* Chapel, nipplechips. I don't know how you can
>claim *black people* are dumb when you keep mispelling such a
>simple word.
>
>>their liking. You are confusing style with ability. No way can you
>>equate these trinkets with the statue of David, and then say the
>>difference is just style and culture. The mental ability to see the
>>world in this way was--and is--not present in the black mind.

snip again>

>>>> and how it is able to represent that reality. Because I may not care
>>>> for the look in the face of the Statue of David, does not mean that I
>>>> do not recognize the significance in the statue and the sculpture's
>>>> ability to create form and content. You are talking about two
>>>> different things. The lack of black discoveries in history also show
>>>> an inability to think on a deeper and higher plane. So yes, a
>>>> black may find his trinket as beautiful as the Mona Lisa, but the
>>>> differences in spatial thinking and ability to recreate shadow and
>>>> dimension are clearly higher achievements of the mind.
>>>

Interesting that this odd racist has chosen two homosexual artists to
represent the higher mind.

ward

--------------------------------------------
"We must be getting back to Alice. If I am
away from her long, I get low in my mind."
Gertrude Stein
--------------------------------------------

[John Lee]

In article <md2n7sg1c3p4b0khl...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:33:58 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <q1ck7s4jg0dcqpgbk...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:
> >

> >Around 1000 B.C. there may have been a Semitic settlement in the area
> >approximate to Ethiopea. In 1100 A.D., two millenia later however, Black
> >Sub-Saharan Ethiopeans created complex and beautiful churches based solely
> >on their own artistic values, not influences from outside.
>

> I see, and the technology came from where?

From Ethiopea.

> The religion came from
> where?

We're talking architecture and art here, not religion.

> >As for more Black Sub-Saharan works of art, I can list the West African
> >nations of Asante, Oyo and Benin as having made beautiful bronze
> >sculptures over a millenia-ago.
>
>

> Well start the exhibition. Post the links of these great works and we
> will compare them to Rembrandt's work,

I can't be bothered.

> >I can also state that Sub-Saharan Central and Southern African nations
> >discovered ironworking for themselves around 300 B.C.
>

> Post the links to this info as well.

This is called factual history, not some eighty year old book written on
the basis of some biggot's prejudices about Black Africans using the
accounts of a couple of 19th century explorers.

>
> Come now, it fits perfectly with the IQ tests, black history, and art.

IQ tests show what they show, but cannot necessarily be used to draw any
valid conclusions. As for Black history, your opinions of Black history
are misguided and would have been out of date even 50 years ago. And art?
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and all that.

> > Sub-Saharan nations - kingdoms and
> >empires - existed from 600 B.C. onwards. Not only did they rely heavily on
> >agriculture, and have stable monarchy-based forms of government, they also
> >grew rich on trade between adjacent nations and those thousands of miles
> >away.
>

> You have yet to show anything like this.

I don't have to. It's factual history that has long been accepted.

> Your attempt to give
> examples later found to be attributable to interaction with other
> races is disingenuous to say the least. It implies that you are
> desperate to give blacks credit for accomplishments they had nothing
> to do with.

I have given many examples, of Kush, West African nations, Central African
nations and Southern African nations, that are the sole creation of those
nations themselves.

I just bet it is because in your dreamed-utopia, there
> cannot possibly be racial inequality. Once you face the truth of it,
> you must drop this utopian idea. This hurts, doesn't it? What I
> cannot understand is why would anybody want a philosophy that cannot
> go where truth leads it. Truth is such a wonderful thing. In the
> end, it is really the only thing you can count on in this universe.
> Look at the actions of people who hold your philosophy. Those in the
> press lie about history, they perpetrate an incredible double-standard
> where your own people are concerned. How could any intellect consider
> this a viable philosophy. And before you start spouting about Nazi's,
> our movement has a foundation of truth. Many may disagree about how
> to bring about a good solution to a problem. This is not the same as
> holding a lie at the center of your belief system.

And many modern racists. Sorry, racialists, hold the denial of the
Holocaust at the centre of their beliefs.

> Violent acts
> committed by racialist (right or wrong) have been an attempt to
> further their aim for a solution based on truth. The difference is
> that your side nurtures a terrible lie at the center of it's
> philosophy. Your actions (many times violent and unjust) are to
> perpetuate this lie. This is the true tragedy in what you are doing.

Oh, right, so the millions upon millions of innocent civilians
deliberately massacred in the ethnic cleansings of WWII, Bosnia, Rwanda
and Kosovo are better than non-existent millions not being massacred by
anti-racists, because you hold the viewpoint of racialists to be true?

> > they also have to have no
> >external influences. How many European nations can claim to have had no
> >'influences from abroad'?
>
>

> Wrong. They should have contributed to civilization with roughly an
> equal offering.

Define civilisation.

Yours, J. Lee

[grandwazoo]

Gelding wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:33:58 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)

> wrote:
>
> >In article <q1ck7s4jg0dcqpgbk...@4ax.com>, Gelding wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 22:14:58 GMT, hols...@hotmail.com (John Lee)
> >> wrote:
> >> >Look, the writings of St Augustine can be found in a library, the churches
> >> >and paintings of Ethiopia can also be found in a good history book.
> >> >Alternatively, you could go to Ethiopea and visit them (laughs out of
> >> >desperation).
> >>

> >> The process of winnowing
> >> was slow but inexorable, and its ultimate consequence
> >> has been the pool of intellectual skills taken for granted
> >> today, whose average has been arbitrarily designated as a
> >> 100 I.Q.
> >
> >So?
>

snip

>
>
> >
> >
>
> Come now, it fits perfectly with the IQ tests, black history, and art.
>
>
>

> You have yet to show anything like this. Your attempt to give

> examples later found to be attributable to interaction with other
> races is disingenuous to say the least. It implies that you are
> desperate to give blacks credit for accomplishments they had nothing

> to do with. I just bet it is because in your dreamed-utopia, there

> cannot possibly be racial inequality. Once you face the truth of it,
> you must drop this utopian idea. This hurts, doesn't it? What I
> cannot understand is why would anybody want a philosophy that cannot
> go where truth leads it. Truth is such a wonderful thing. In the
> end, it is really the only thing you can count on in this universe.
> Look at the actions of people who hold your philosophy. Those in the
> press lie about history, they perpetrate an incredible double-standard
> where your own people are concerned. How could any intellect consider
> this a viable philosophy. And before you start spouting about Nazi's,
> our movement has a foundation of truth. Many may disagree about how
> to bring about a good solution to a problem. This is not the same as

> holding a lie at the center of your belief system. Violent acts

> committed by racialist (right or wrong) have been an attempt to
> further their aim for a solution based on truth. The difference is
> that your side nurtures a terrible lie at the center of it's
> philosophy. Your actions (many times violent and unjust) are to
> perpetuate this lie. This is the true tragedy in what you are doing.
>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >>

> >> >> Oh, its white poeples fault. And Haiti?
> >> >
> >> >Come on, from your previous post I was expecting an answer that leaves my
> >> >arguments resoundingly defeated, all you can give are one liners that
> >> >either say nothing at all or deflect the point being made?
> >>
> >> You continue to give points that have no substance. You spout about
> >> black civilization that were either Non-Sub-Saharan, or were under the
> >> control of Egypt or influenced from abroad.
> >
> >Oh, right, so now we narrow it down even further. Not only do African
> >nations in this context have to be Sub-Saharan,
>

> That is all they have ever been.

>
> > they also have to have no
> >external influences. How many European nations can claim to have had no
> >'influences from abroad'?
>

> Wrong. They should have contributed to civilization with roughly an

> equal offering. Need we go through all the inventions from the Asian
> and white races, then compare those to the black race? It is taking
> technology from other peoples and IMPROVING on it. Blacks do not have
> the mental ability to do this. This is clear when we take their
> historic and contemporary situation in account. It does not mean that
> I or any other racialist hate blacks, or that we would like to kill
> them, or even hurt their feelings. It is that we want to come at this
> problem from a position of truth. Only then can it ever really be
> dealt with. Making excuses for their situation will NEVER lead to a
> constructive outcome for EITHER people. Basically, if you want to
> help blacks, then the first step is acknowledging that a the
> differences exist. To do anything else is a detriment to them, as
> well as a hindrance to your own intellectual advancement.
>
> Gelding

IQ in a population is expressed by a standard distribution. The
distributions
range from moron to genius. Where the two populations are roughly
equivalent in
the median IQ, then approximately one half of one population will always
have a
higher IQ the the lower halve of the other population. Get it,
Gelding! Assuming
that your IQ is average, then approximately one half of black group will
have a
equal or higher IQ than yourself. Of course, you may not get it, and in
that case
most of the black group (and all others) will have a higher IQ than
yourself.

--

[JJ Lipari]

It always amazes me how the racists point to art produced by someone of
their "race" and say that this fact "proves" that they themselves are
"superior". Can "gelding" paint a curved ceiling with scenes from the Book
of Genesis? Does he know how to do it? Can he sketch a larger than life
sized scene of the creation of Adam? does he know how the frescoe technique
works? Can he even build a scaffold like Michelangelo and his assistants
did? Probably not, yet he takes personal credit for those accomplishments.
I'm Italian-American by ethnicity and therefore no doubt more "related" to
Michelangelo than gelding is (even though the genetic connection is
nonexistent), and yet, guess what? I, personally, have ZERO artistic
ability. None whatsoever. I couldnt draw a picture to save my life.
Kindergarten kids can draw better than I can. So, does that mean that I,
myself, can still claim some sort of artistic superiority to folks who are
not of Italian extraction because Michelangelo, Raphael, and Titian were
Italian? Most Italians, indeed most whites, could NOT paint the Sistine
Chapel ceiling. Most people couldnt. A very few talented artists of any
"race" have that ability. The existence of those works does NOT confer any
superiority on me, or gelding, or Mussolini, or Jeffrey Dahmer, just because
we are white.
JJ at Stanford
Lorrill Buyens <buyensl@prime*SPAMMERS.GO.HOME*net.com> wrote in message
news:387a52c1....@news.primenet.com...

> >>someone elseąs.

> >>itąs measurement capture in any way the degree to which an individualąs

[Chris Whitman]

Gelding wrote:

<snip>

> But again all you can do is attack our evidence.

Yes, because that's what attacking a scientific theory is all about.

> In short, you can only offer what can be twisted and lied about.

Huh?

<snip>

> Science will accept a theory until it is disproven by a better one.

Or until it's shown to be invalid, but the scientific community won't
even begin to accept a theory until at least some sort of reliable
evidence has been produced.

> Where is your counter-evidence?

It's unnecessary, you still haven't shown us any reliable evidence to
prove your theory.

> A simple higher black civilization would be a starter.

A 'higher' civilization? And what constitutes 'higher' in this case?
From what I gather, based on your posts, you use the term 'higher' to
denote, 'more western.' Now it's quite obvious to me that no society
will ever be like ours than ours is. It seems that the data from an
experiment using this terminology would be flawed and unreliable.

> I have proposed a theory. Now you propose one
> that makes MORE sense of the observed facts.

Your 'facts' are all unreliable studies based off the theories of social
'sciences,' which all share the property of producing data which, in
addition to often being drawn from ridiculously small samples, cannot be
directly shown to be invalid (As it's based off averages, which are
rather hard to test except through more extremely biased studies). As
your data is notoriously hard to test, it is not good data on which to
base a theory. Try showing us some biological evidence.

> It can be demonstrated that blacks have not contributed
> to civilization in and meaningful way.

Meaningful is a very subjective term. Some consider modern art
meaningful, while many others consider it a load of crap.

> It can be demonstrated that
> black crime numbers are higher than white numbers.

Even if there are more crimes committed by black people than white
people per capita, which I doubt, it does not prove your theory that
blacks are more violent and less intelligent. Please provide direct
supporting evidence.

> It is completely proper for us to make certain conclusions about these
> observations.

Yes, assuming for a moment that a 1999 report of crime in a certain area
showed that more crimes had been committed by black people than white
people per capita then it is completely proper to come to the conclusion
that, in 1999, in that area, more crimes were committed by black people
than white people. This does not prove any predisposition of any
particular race to violent behaviour. You are making a huge logical
leap here.

> It is on you to not only attack our claims (which you do in a
> strikingly incompetent manner: Haiti, Egypt, crime, black history),
> but to offer substantive evidence to support your explanation of the
> demonstratable observations.

No it's not, it's enough to show that your theory is either invalid or
lacks sufficient evidence. Which we have, several times.

---------------
Chris Whitman

"I want to make fun!"
"No, you are messing up again" - Comet, Sword, and Butterfly