Re: Development Race: China and India
RichAsianKid
> It will be nice if India can catch up with China. We don't know the
> full consequences but it is probably good. The key phrase is 'India
> is on the cusp of something big' which is the position Indian had been
> stuck at for the past 60 years.
>
> Tiger economies are snapping at US heelsBut it's not clear whether
> Beijing or New Delhi will catch up first
>
> Richard Wachman
> The Observer,
>
> China and India and are moving toward becoming the biggest economies
> in the world: with 2.4bn people, or 40 per cent of the world's
> population and annual GDP growth rates of between 8 per cent and 10
> per cent, experts say that they could one day overtake the US.
>
> Professor Pieter Bottelier, of the Centre for Strategic International
> Studies, says: 'If these two countries continue to grow at the current
> rate, they will overtake America, although that probably won't happen
> for a number of decades.'
>
> The countries are very different politically: India is the world's
> biggest democracy, but China is under tight communist government
> control. Economically, China has had a head start. Bill Emmott, former
> editor of the Economist, says in his book 'Rivals' that India's time
> has yet to come; to date it has been constrained by a poor
> infrastructure, social divisions, a caste system and mind-boggling
> poverty. But it is fast making up for lost time and no doubt Emmott
> wouldn't disagree with Steven Roach at US investment bank Morgan
> Stanley that 'India is on the cusp of something big'.
>
> Bottelier says the challenges the countries face are quite distinct.
> 'Generally, China has gone much further than India in trade
> liberalisation and in opening to foreign investment.' But he says
> things are starting to change.
>
> Bottelier adds: 'Issues facing India are much more broad-based, such
> as improvement in infrastructure and facilities, effective
> administration and labour reforms. Minus points for China include a
> lack of good quality software, a low proportion of Chinese who speak
> English and a less mature outsourcing industry.'
>
> India is hamstrung by bureaucracy: 'When the Chinese say they are
> going to do something, they get on with it and you can see the results
> much more quickly than in India where red tape is everywhere,' says
> one analyst. On the other hand, the huge increase in trade between the
> two nations has fuelled talk of the 'Chindia' effect.
>
> In 2006, trade between India and China reached $18.4bn. However, there
> is still mutual distrust. India remains suspicious of China's
> relationship with arch-rival Pakistan, while China is concerned about
> New Delhi's growing ties with Washington, especially their nuclear
> agreement allowing India access to civilian nuclear technology.
>
> Observers expect the US to deepen its ties with India, which
> Washington views as a counterweight to China. America's relations with
> the Chinese are more strained as a result of tension over Tibet and
> Taiwan, not to mention the obvious ideological political divide. But
> that hasn't stopped US companies investing heavily in China, more so
> than British ones which have been quicker to spot opportunities in
> India, perhaps because of their historic affinity.
>
> But these days investors tend to get more excited about India than
> China. True, a superficial look would argue in China's favour: its
> world class infrastructure, gleaming skyscrapers, huge supply of cheap
> labour and ability to direct resources anywhere they are needed.
> However, a report from Bloomberg says: 'For all the stories about
> China churning out millions of engineers and scientists, innovation
> isn't at the heart of the economy. Foreign investment and massive
> government spending, not ideas or start-ups, lie behind China's boom.'
> There is a dearth of internationally known Chinese companies that
> operate on a global scale and market their products abroad.
>
> In contrast, India has fostered globally known and competitive firms
> like Infosys and Reliant Industries, and has done a better job
> protecting intellectual property rights. China may get more headlines,
> yet the steady increase of Indian billionaires (Lakshmi Mittal, to
> name but one) is a reminder that India's markets are more developed.
> The demographics also favour India which has younger population.
>
> A report by Deutsche Bank cites surveys indicating that India has
> better corporate governance standards and its companies are more
> commercially driven. The bank adds: 'Although India started economic
> reforms a decade later than China, it is far more advanced in its
> institutional and financial infrastructure. This is reflected in
> contrasting outcomes: foreign direct investment is considerably lower
> than in China, but returns on investment are better on average.'
>
> A new measure of world economies, published by the International
> Monetary Fund, indicates that China and India are closing the gap on
> America. In a measure of purchasing power parity, adjusted to take
> account of exchange rates, the US is ranked at the top with $13
> trillion, China is a close second at nearly $10 trillion, while India
> is fourth with $4.2 trillion, behind Japan.
>
> The Indian academic Jagdish Sheth expects China to become the world's
> biggest economy by 2020, and India to overtake Japan to become the
> third biggest in just two years' time. That sets the stage for the
> next leg of the race between China and India in what promises to be
> one of the most dramatic developments of the 21st century.
This post, this article, is almost disingenuous knowing where
PaPaPeng's loyalties lie, but let's get some facts straight, if
RichAsianKid would take the bait (perhaps that's the real intent of
this post?) ever so masochistically (shut up!) and repost old old old
very old counter-evidence (never mind if PaPaPeng cunningly plays
hidden dragon or whatever):
http://i14.tinypic.com/5yv4x1u.jpg
Notice how China is surging way ahead of India *even after* 1991 when
India supposedly opened its markets. That is a very important point
and people often don't realize that. Yeah, the market matters, and
yeah oh sure too just ignore the role of human capital. Sure sure
sure go argue with numbers. If you don't like them, they're fudged or
forged and they disappear. If the numbers are what I don't like they
go away. But again, I don't quite see narrowing or convergence of the
two giga-economies here in spite of all the conditions favoring India.
Now here's another data point:
http://in.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm
I quote:
"Even more remarkable, the increase in China's merchandise exports in
each of the last three years was greater than total Indian exports for
that year! At a more qualitative level, you have only to compare the
hundreds of cranes deployed in adding to the thousands of gleaming
skyscrapers in Shanghai with the handful dotting Mumbai's skyline.
"During the last five years while we have debated the new Bangalore
airport, China has built quite a few new ones! Finally, how can we
hope to close the economic gap with China when almost every second
Indian child is malnourished?
"Let me put this bluntly: as an economy, we are simply not in China's
league."
And that's coming from the horse's mouth, from the Honorary Professor
at Icrier and former Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of
India.
Guess you can say that's some virtue of humility, perhaps, well,
socially conditioned. (I'm not trying to be mean)
So is there hope for the future? Well, here's what psychometrics tells
us.
http://www.vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
India falls flat. Again. Makes you wonder doesn't it? Makes you wonder
if that pathetic Indian 39% literacy rate is really a consequence or a
cause?
Bottom line let RichAsianKid summarize things up again: it's very easy
very easy to go on and on and on about India vs China. You can dig up
20 page PDFs from the internet and it's almost tedious to say that
China beats India again, again, again.
Nagging question remains: what drives India somehow seems always so
quaintly potential. What India can do. What India will achieve. How
India *will* somehow be.
And yet as for what makes China, it already is.
pg
> On May 4, 11:10 pm, PaPaPeng <PaPaP...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This post, this article, is almost disingenuous knowing where
> PaPaPeng's loyalties lie, but let's get some facts straight, if
> RichAsianKid would take the bait (perhaps that's the real intent of
> this post?) ever so masochistically (shut up!) and repost old old old
> very old counter-evidence (never mind if PaPaPeng cunningly plays
> hidden dragon or whatever):
> http://i14.tinypic.com/5yv4x1u.jpg
But the graph stops at 2002 !!
By then, India may (keyword, MAY) have quicken its pace.
Part of my investment are in India, in the field of embedded
programming, and I can tell you that in electronic fields, India has
surpassed China by a wide margin. My investment in China are not in
developing, rather, in production.
If the development is crucial, I'll place them in USA and Japan. But
if I'm in a rush, and I need to start something yesterday, India has a
lot to offer me.
China has the capacity too, but they can't act as fast as their
counterpart in India. Trust me in this.
If you read my reply above, you'll see that I have my production in
China, development in India. Many others are doing that as well.
Result? China's export are made of tangible things --- boxes of goods.
While India's export are mostly Ideas, IP (Intellectual Properties),
talents, and experience they've gained from many world class R&D
programs.
> Guess you can say that's some virtue of humility, perhaps, well,
> socially conditioned. (I'm not trying to be mean)
>
> So is there hope for the future? Well, here's what psychometrics tells
> us.
>
> http://www.vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
Please do not confuse yourself.
What propels a nation forward is not the "average" IQ, rather, it's
the creme-de-la-creme that lead the country upwards (or downwards).
The average Indians may not be smart, but those smart Indians are much
smarter than smart Chinese !!!
Trust me in this. I'm an ethnic Chinese, I know a lot of very smart
Chinese. But when I compare those very smart Chinese that I know, with
very smart Indians that I know, the Indians win !!
I'm an ethnic Chinese, and if I have any bias, my bias ought to be on
the Chinese side. But I try to be as fair as I can be, and when I do
that, I'd find that 9 times out of 10, the Indians win.
Why?
Because the Indians can think OUT OF THE BOX, while the average
Chinese, because of being poisoned by the 5,000 years of Confucius
thoughts, DARE NOT to think out of the box !!!
And I kid you not !!!!!
Even the most intelligent Chinese have reservations in taking risk, in
doing the impossible, in taking a leap out of the logical process. The
Indians, on the other hand, have none of those psychological
baggages !!!
Please open your eyes to the truth.
Thank you !
Raymond
wrote:
>On May 5, 1:26 am, RichAsianKid <richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 4, 11:10 pm, PaPaPeng <PaPaP...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> This post, this article, is almost disingenuous knowing where
>> PaPaPeng's loyalties lie, but let's get some facts straight, if
>> RichAsianKid would take the bait (perhaps that's the real intent of
>> this post?) ever so masochistically (shut up!) and repost old old old
>> very old counter-evidence (never mind if PaPaPeng cunningly plays
>> hidden dragon or whatever):
>
>> http://i14.tinypic.com/5yv4x1u.jpg
>
>
>But the graph stops at 2002 !!
>
>By then, India may (keyword, MAY) have quicken its pace.
>
>Part of my investment are in India, in the field of embedded
>programming, and I can tell you that in electronic fields, India has
>surpassed China by a wide margin. My investment in China are not in
>developing, rather, in production.
>
>If the development is crucial, I'll place them in USA and Japan. But
>if I'm in a rush, and I need to start something yesterday, India has a
>lot to offer me.
>
>China has the capacity too, but they can't act as fast as their
>counterpart in India. Trust me in this.
Every time I call my phone company, someone in India answers the
phone. Does that count as India's technological development?
Wakalukong
> On May 4, 11:10 pm, PaPaPeng <PaPaP...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > It will be nice if India can catch up with China. We don't know the
> > full consequences but it is probably good. The key phrase is 'India
> > is on the cusp of something big' which is the position Indian had been
> > stuck at for the past 60 years.
>
> > Tiger economies are snapping at US heelsBut it's not clear whether
> > Beijing or New Delhi will catch up first
>
> > Richard Wachman
> > The Observer,
----------
Comparison between China and India is just a sideshow; the US is still
the country to beat economically. If we base our assessment on how
free and how open to talent an economy is and will be, then the US
will still be ahead for a long time. On present and foreseeable
factors, the only ones who can cause America to topple from the top
are Americans themselves.
Wakalukong
rst0wxyz
And George Worthless Bush is doing a great job toppling America from
the top.
pg
From a person who have spent 20+ years in the US, I'll tell you that
US ain't _that_ free.
True, comparitively it's much freer than many Asian countries, but it
ain't free.
Many Asian students are NOT allowed admission to top schools such as
UCLA, Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton and son on simply because they
are Asians. Racial discrimination? You bet.
But in the US, they turn the thing around --- accusing the Asians
being too bright, that the Asian kids are taking up all the slots,
causing the poor black kids to lose their chance on education.
Bullshit? You bet.
But in the US, they turn THAT around again --- saying that they need
to reserve slots for the poor black kids because it is only "fair"
that the black kids got to study in Princeton. Having said that, those
black kids that got into the top schools just don't have the caliber
to compete. So how they finish school? What else? "Race Card", again.
They (black kids) get to graduate with inflated scores. But this time,
the one who inflated the scores aren't the lecturers, it's the school
admin who doctored the scoresheet (might as well calling it scoreshit)
to let those black kids attain graduation.
Ever wonder why that Condoleezza Rice being so dumb yet can get top
honor degree? Read the above.
So now she got the post of the Secretary of State of the United States
of America.
Poor Uncle Sam.
bikini
"pg" <pen...@catholic.org> wrote in message news:7f2dab54-91f2-410b...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
RichAsianKid
> On May 5, 1:26 am, RichAsianKid <richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 11:10 pm, PaPaPeng <PaPaP...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This post, this article, is almost disingenuous knowing where
> > PaPaPeng's loyalties lie, but let's get some facts straight, if
> > RichAsianKid would take the bait (perhaps that's the real intent of
> > this post?) ever so masochistically (shut up!) and repost old old old
> > very old counter-evidence (never mind if PaPaPeng cunningly plays
> > hidden dragon or whatever):
> > http://i14.tinypic.com/5yv4x1u.jpg
>
> But the graph stops at 2002 !!
>
> By then, India may (keyword, MAY) have quicken its pace.
>
> Part of my investment are in India, in the field of embedded
> programming, and I can tell you that in electronic fields, India has
> surpassed China by a wide margin. My investment in China are not in
> developing, rather, in production.
>
> If the development is crucial, I'll place them in USA and Japan. But
> if I'm in a rush, and I need to start something yesterday, India has a
> lot to offer me.
>
> China has the capacity too, but they can't act as fast as their
> counterpart in India. Trust me in this.
>
>
A lot of what I will post below is what I posted before, but I think
it's worth reposting because it makes a point.
First, in reply to your post, of course of course you can find *some*
areas that India is doing better than China. Even Hispanics, for
instance, in a Darwinian sense, actually do better than whites or
Asians in reproducing babies. Blacks are adept at welfare, for
instance, as in milking the system getting others to support their own
babies. That should not be frowned upon, no?
But really, on a technical note, that graph stops at 2004, not 2002.
And also keep in mind the y-axis - that graph was on a log axis, not a
linear one. So....what do we see on a linear axis on another
independent report of China vs India?
http://i32.tinypic.com/2nut6iw.jpg
Nope, the India-China is not closing is it? In fact it's widening. The
gap is widening.
So what's the latest in 2007? Let's check out some latest data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
Above is the list of countries by GDP.
According to the 2007 IMF, China's economy's worth 3.3 trillion,
India's only 1.1. That's
a 3 times difference. TRIPLE!
According to the World Bank, China's 2.7 trillion, India's 0.90.
Again, 3 times difference.
According to the CIA Factbook, China's 3.2 trillion, India's 1.1.
Again, almost 3 times differences.
Well, I think the data speaks for itself. The results converge that
China is not just a few percent ahead. And China's not just 30 or 40
percent ahead of India, no sir!! Economically China is 3 times 3 times
3 times (!!) the economy of India -- as population counts and sizes
are roughly comparable. No, there's just no comparison. Which is why
you actually don't see this nonsense about India vs China anymore. It
was probably way cool a few years back, that India vs China "race" was
especially credible perhaps a decade ago (?1991, see chart posted),
hmmm, who would go forwards, who wouldn't, it was all betting man's
game! Yet now it's so clear-cut and no contest and no longer funny.
I've quoted Tom Friedman a while ago who let it slip that the
linguistic advantage of India will be arbitraged out in this Japanese
newspaper interview:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/09/thomas-friedman-brains-vs-language.php
Make sure you read the above **in total**.
And I did say let it slip, let it slip....
But really it's something that most people know at heart. Some factors
(e.g. language facility) are intragenerational. It's easily learned.
Others are way more entrenched, as in, say, cognitive capital. Most
people just can't face the idea of fatalism, and they just can't bring
themselves to admit it. In other words, some qualities are concrete,
others are more fluid. Guess which is which?
And realistically China is now India's obsession, not vice-versa.
Mumbai does not even begin to register on a typical Shanghai'ers
mental map. What, India? Where? Indian children suffer from more
malnutrition compared to Africa for crying out loud. No, the Chinese
don't want to become India. They want to be the next America, and
perhaps hate Japan for a reason. But India? Hey, take a number.
No, I think people deep deep down know the score. And that's why it's
socially incorrect, politically incorrect, and even bad manners
perhaps to point this out.
Privately, Europeans agree:
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.china/msg/0f1b4261a94a7373?
Or South Koreans too (albeit written by one 'honest' "Ranjit"?):
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=412947
Have you gone nuts? If average IQ does not matter, well then, maybe
the importation of Mexcians or Muslims will not and does not matter
either for the West. America (like Brazil which perhaps should be the
Indian model) will still likely have an elite no matter what happens
and so who cares if the general population goes to shit? Does it
really matter if the population's IQ plummets down to the African
mental retardation level of 70? Does it really matter if your
population score 3 or 4 or 5 standard deviations below the (for
instance, Korean) mean?
Now, I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that India has no ideas
or talents, or that that subcontinent is just teeming with brown and
sizzling retards fresh off your 30" wide 15,000 BTU self-cleaning
stove or BBQ. I'm just hypothesizing that perhaps, just perhaps,
their talent pool is razor-thin at best. And in fact if you look at
the international Math Olympiad (IMO) which is a surrogate marker for
intelligence (as the verbal component is played down) and which I
posted elsewhere before, if India is really so smart at the very top
levels, I find it very difficult to believe that year after year after
year after year they still fail so spectacularly not just compared to
China but even to South Korea which is only 1/20th their
population!!!!! I mean, are they trying to win an oscar here to
pretend to be dumb? And I got lots more data showing how your average
Indian is stupid at the population level (they never admit this, the
euphemism is lack of education, get it)?
Surely if Indians are so intelligent they would have churned out
smarter people by now if they at least have some semblance of some
capacity for self-introspection, capacity for reflecting on their
record, belittled I'm so sure, no?
So let's review some hard facts I posted before in the rankings of the
IMO, international math Olympiad - numbers below are rankings:
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/imo-scores/
China
8 2= 1 1 2 1 1 1
6 1 1= 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 2
India
25 17 10 21 15= 14 14 15
7 18 14 7 9 15 14 36
35 25
Need I say more?
And and and and and.....Korea, Japan, Taiwan -- way way way smaller
countries
-- these still beat India hollow.
South Korea
22 28 32 17 18 15= 7 8
11 12 7 4 4= 6 6 12
5 3 3=
Japan
20 12 8= 20 9 11= 12 14
13 15 13 16= 9 8 8 7 6=
Taiwan
17 5 12 20 14 5 9 8
9 7 16 6 7 10 9=
One more thing. North Korea is desperately poor and participates only
occasionally. Guess what we find?
North Korea
19
16
8
The data speaks for itself. If you're interested there's data from the
IPO (physics) as well which I can post, but I don't find a single site
that summarizes figures as well longitudinally.
RichAsianKid
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 02:23:50 -0700 (PDT), pg <pen...@catholic.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 5, 1:26 am,RichAsianKid<richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 4, 11:10 pm, PaPaPeng <PaPaP...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> This post, this article, is almost disingenuous knowing where
> >> PaPaPeng's loyalties lie, but let's get some facts straight, if
> >> this post?) ever so masochistically (shut up!) and repost old old old
> >> very old counter-evidence (never mind if PaPaPeng cunningly plays
> >> hidden dragon or whatever):
>
> >> http://i14.tinypic.com/5yv4x1u.jpg
>
> >But the graph stops at 2002 !!
>
> >By then, India may (keyword, MAY) have quicken its pace.
>
> >Part of my investment are in India, in the field of embedded
> >programming, and I can tell you that in electronic fields, India has
> >surpassed China by a wide margin. My investment in China are not in
> >developing, rather, in production.
>
> >If the development is crucial, I'll place them in USA and Japan. But
> >if I'm in a rush, and I need to start something yesterday, India has a
> >lot to offer me.
>
> >China has the capacity too, but they can't act as fast as their
> >counterpart in India. Trust me in this.
>
> Every time I call my phone company, someone in India answers the
> phone. Does that count as India's technological development?
>
Raymond, you know the brown Indians are very very proud of their
achievement:
Bwahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim Walsh
(in article
<476e4023-7273-42ce...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
> the US is still the country to beat economically
Economics is a win-win game. The idea of "beating" America (or any other
economic unit) is silly.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
pg
> http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/09/thomas-friedman-brains-vs-language.php
>
> Make sure you read the above **in total**.
Sorry I had to cut of a large part of your message, because if I
don't, you might not even locate my answer admist a sea of words.
Enuf of my explanation ... but when I read that link you provided
(thanks!) in verbatim, I also read the comments, all 53 of them.
One of the commentor "pconroy" actually quoted a guy named "William
Pfaff", in regarding the same issue.
Please allow me to quote it below ...
"My feeling is that China's power today tends to be greatly
overestimated. I say that in full recognition of the spectacular
growth in GNP, or GDP, which China has experienced in recent years.
But I note that this economic success is based on foreign investment
and is directed toward export. In other words, it is a service to the
most developed industrial countries, not an autonomous phenomenon or
development of China and its own economy. China does not function by
autonomous technology; it is not a leading technological innovator. It
may become one, but at the present time it is a derivative economy"
Now how are you gonna argue with _that_ ??
Derivative economy, I agree. In fact, many countries (except for the
African countries who are like beggars) are living on derivative
economy. Even America.
Derivatives may mean many thing, but the most important ones include:
derivative incomes based on prior investments and/or patent owned.
In fact, UK, US, Germany, France, and Italy are living mostly on
income generated from prior investments.
China, on the other hand, is surviving (I am not going to use the
world thriving, because it ain't) on the "bread-crumb effect" ...
essentially spillover from the rich.
When the bread-crumbs stop coming, that is, when the rich ain't rich
anymore, China will suffer.
India, on the other hand, is on the inventing surge. India is
inventing things like crazy.
China, on the other hand, seems to have stuck in what they have been
doing for the past 15 years --- producing goods based on price.
There's little or no invention from the Chinese front.
Take, for example, the recent episode of "Free Tibet" movement and
their attack on the Olympic Torch .... even in this we can see that
the Tibetans actually took charge of the matter --- they practically
invented the "Hate China Movement".
On the other hand, the Chinese? Poor chinks couldn't do anything but
yelling and bitching, and hitting back with punches. ... that is, the
Chinese are only good at RE-acting .... they play second fiddle in
this.
If in social events the Chinese couldn't take charge, what do you
think what they can do in the technological front --- where the
Chinese are notoriously known as COPIER and FAKER.
I'm a Chinese, but I ain't that "China is God" type of Chinese. I see
the world as it is, and when the Chinese are fakers, I say so.
In China, there are 1.3 Billion "fakers". Perhaps there are about
1,000 inventors, but the 1.3 billion fakers have overwhelmed those who
genuinely contributed to the society.
pg
Hehehe ... among the links from you, there's something I like you to
re-read --- www.vdare.com/sailer/india.htm
Scroll down to where it mention the "meritocratic elite" ... and let
me quote from the article ...
" The top Indian colleges are by now probably the most selective in
the world. And because they teach in English, their graduates are more
of a competitive threat to American journalists and their spouses and
friends than are the Chinese, who are merely hammering blue collar
Americans. And who cares about them?"
.... and ....
"At the elite end of the journalism racket, I have more than a few
Indian readers who could step in and write this column for me (Peter,
please forget I said that!). But fewer Chinese readers could do the
same. The language barrier is a big factor. But Indians also seem more
interested in the human biodiversity topics that I specialize in.
Further, Indians tend to be of a more speculative and discursive turn
of mind than the hard-headed, practical-minded Chinese."
Proving my point, isn't it??
As I said in an earlier message .. the smart Indians are WAY WAY
SMARTER than the smart Chinese. Perhaps they are few and far in
between, but we gotta understand that the progress of a nation doesn't
really depends on the stupid masses. It's the _ELITES_ that chart the
course.
Wakalukong
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 11:17:52 +0800, Wakalukong wrote
> (in article
>
> > the US is still the country to beat economically
>
> Economics is a win-win game. The idea of "beating" America (or any other
> economic unit) is silly.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
I don't get into arguments over definations or labels. But, surely,
we can say the US economy beats North Korea's, even though any trade
between them would be win-win.
Wakalukong
Wakalukong
>
> - Show quoted text -
------
Fortunately for Americans, GWB ain't got much time left to topple.
Wakalukong
pg
And it it's not enough, read this --- http://anglosphere.com/weblog/archives/000313.html
Specifically these ....
"What struck me about the relative situations of the two countries as
described here is that most of the things holding India back are
fixable in the near future; most of the problems with China are deep-
seated and will require luck and a probably difficult transition
period to work themselves through. This suggests that India will
continue to accelerate, more slowly for a while and then faster as the
effects of reform accumulate. China may continue to go forward
smoothly, or it may hit a wall in the not too distant future."
pg
Dark clouds over the horizon, man. Dark Obama clouds.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<52bbb42b-586d-4d32...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
> What struck me about the relative situations of the two countries as
> described here is that most of the things holding India back are fixable in
> the near future; most of the problems with China are deep- seated and will
> require luck and a probably difficult transition period to work themselves
> through.
I am sorry to say but the evil caste system does not seem "fixable in the
near future".
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Raymond
Poor Indian girl. She does not deserve this. I promise I will talk
nicely next time I call my phone company.
pg
Do NOT say "Lingam" to an Indian girl. Pronunciation --- lin-gum
RichAsianKid
> On May 5, 10:34 pm,RichAsianKid<richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/09/thomas-friedman-brains-vs-language.php
>
> > Make sure you read the above **in total**.
>
> Sorry I had to cut of a large part of your message, because if I
> don't, you might not even locate my answer admist a sea of words.
>
> Enuf of my explanation ... but when I read that link you provided
> (thanks!) in verbatim, I also read the comments, all 53 of them.
>
The Chinese are copiers and fakers of course, and everyone knows this.
I've posted this previously many times before. Make sure you follow
the links:
BUT....if what you wrote represents the best the pro-India side can
come up with, then God help India! First, FDIs used to be one of those
things that countries crave for, but hey now the implication is that
it is a bad thing, perhaps it signifies dependence. Besides, when it
comes to innovation, the well-publicized EIU study in 2007 shows that
while India was 2 places ahead of China out of the 82 economies ranked
in 2002-2006, in 2007-2011 it will be 2 places behind India. In other
words: innovation is supposed to be China's **weakest** point, and
quite obviously it is (China is 54th out of 82 economies), and yet
India at best on par with China and is falling behind. And last, as I
replied earlier, the arguments *for* India especially in matters that
matter (e.g. daily livelihood of the people) seems somehow be always
rooted in the future tense - oh, what will be, the future looks
bright, there is hope for us (if China can do it we can do it) etc etc
- you know the litany as well as I do. And yet for China it already
is. Afterall, it may be very very comforting that Mexican could have
the world's richest man and beat Bill Gates, if only for a while. But
does the average American look to your average short brownie? Are we
therefore ready to conclude that America is poorer than Mexico?
RichAsianKid
But again, as I've shown above, that does not seem to show up on the
international math olympiad, or the international physics olympiad,
and looking at the results of the international chemistry olympiad
(where East Asian countries and NOT South Asian countries dominate)
you wouldn't have begun to notice that, right?
Besides, the same author also wrote this article:
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/060423_lynn.htm
Quote: "Bennett had started a discussion of the important topic of the
differences between China and India (which I discussed in VDARE.com
in "Interesting India, Competitive China"). Both economies have been
growing fast, going back to China freeing up its economy in 1978 and
India in 1991.
Bennett's view is that India is a better bet in the 21st Century
because it will benefit from institutional advantages over China. As a
former British colony, it is part of the Anglosphere, and thus enjoys
common law, representative government, and other benefits of the Anglo
tradition.
I'm sympathetic to this view. (Although, to be realistic, when it
comes to honesty and efficiency, today's Indian state isn't exactly
Her Majesty's Government under Gladstone).
Still, there's the brute fact that, despite its regime's many
shortcomings, China has been growing faster than India—and for much
longer.
The simplest explanation: the Chinese people make up for the failures
of the Beijing oligarchy."
* * *
Now you might say, a country depends more than its people, and depends
on the leadership. Fair enough, and I think a bad system or a bad
leader can ruin a people. BUT it does not therefore follow that a good
leader or a good system will have retards bustling with innovation or
churning out professionals or the staunch pillars of society
(physicians and engineers or accountants or dentists etc -- things
which is the human capital infrastructure of the country.) Take an
example - for every 3 Asians in the US with an above average IQ (IQ >
110), there is only 1 Asian with a below average IQ (IQ < 90). And yet
for every 3 blacks in the US with an above average IQ (IQ > 110),
there will be no fewer than 36 blacks with a below average IQ (IQ <
90). As you can see, a black community will founder as it collapes
under its own weight. Again, I'm NOT saying there are no bright
blacks; it's just that there are very few of them -- too few of them
to bear the burden of the rest.
And Indians aren't that intelligent as a whole.
RichAsianKid
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 22:38:20 -0700 (PDT),RichAsianKid
I'll never say that the caller was particularly polished, but at the
same time it's business 101 that the customer is always right. The
point I'm merely making is that many of these Indians are so very
proud of this accomplishment that they're the call boys or call girls
(the other kind probably won't get them any business....) for America
or elsewhere and they're ready to take on the world, be the intern'l
biz center and the cyber-magnet of the world or whatever!
Yet half of these poor poor Indians wanted to receive counselling at
some point in time based on a UK guardian article.
And they make ~ $6 a day.
Guess you're right. Indians *do* deserve pity.....
RichAsianKid
> On May 5, 10:34 pm,RichAsianKid<richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> And it it's not enough, read this ---http://anglosphere.com/weblog/archives/000313.html
>
> Specifically these ....
>
> "What struck me about the relative situations of the two countries as
> described here is that most of the things holding India back are
> fixable in the near future; most of the problems with China are deep-
> seated and will require luck and a probably difficult transition
> period to work themselves through. This suggests that India will
> continue to accelerate, more slowly for a while and then faster as the
> effects of reform accumulate. China may continue to go forward
> smoothly, or it may hit a wall in the not too distant future."
I've answered this above, in reference to the Sailer article
immediately above. Besides, even in things that matter in business,
things that China is well known to fall down flat by international
standards:
http://i32.tinypic.com/xautt4.jpg
India *still* doesn't do that well, **relatively** speaking compared
to China
But as they say, India is the country of the future. The joke is that
it will always be.
RichAsianKid
One major study showed (and another study subsequently confirmed) that
in a race neutral policy, 2 out of 3 blacks and 1 out of 2 Hispanics
would not have been admitted to elite colleges. Whites would increase
by 4%, Asians by one-third. If you're interested I can cite your
references.
As for professional schools such as medicine:
Racial and Ethnic
Admission Preferences
at the University of
Michigan Medical
School
By Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D.
http://www.ceousa.org/pdfs/UMichMed%20final.pdf
**Highlights**
Probabilties of Admission. Likewise, probabilities of admission favor
blacks and to a lesser extent Hispanics over whites and Asians for
every year. For instance, an in-state male candidate, with no parent
connection to UMMS and with an MCAT score and science GPA equal to the
medians for black admittees, in 1999 would have had the following
probabilities of admission:
· a 72 percent chance if black;
· a 17 percent chance if Hispanic;
· a 2 percent chance if Asian; and
· a 6 percent chance if white.
Significant disparities between blacks and to a lesser extent
Hispanics
versus Asians and whites were found for 2003 and 2004, although the
gaps were not as large as those in 1999.
In 2005, chances of admission for candidates with credentials of the
average black admittee were greater for blacks than in 2004, while
changing little for the other groups. The chance of admission for a
male applicant from Michigan with no parent who attended UMMS and with
the same test scores and science grades as the average black admittee
in 2005:
· rises to 23 percent if black;
· drops to 7 percent if Hispanic; and
· drops to 1 percent if Asian or white.
The disparities are perhaps even more dramatic as test scores and
grades improve somewhat. In 2005, if a candidate had a total MCAT
score
of 41 and an undergraduate science GPA of 3.6, there was a three in
four chance of admission if black, and a four in ten chance if
Hispanic. If the candidate was white, the chances drop to roughly a
one
in ten chance, and if Asian, 6 percent. With a score of 43 and a
science GPA of 3.8, chances rise to nine in ten if black and three in
four if Hispanic, but only to one in three if white and one in five if
Asian.
As for law schools -- after prop 2 took effect in Michigan
http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/19/michigan
"The percentage of African American, Hispanic and Native American
students admitted to the University of Michigan Law School for next
fall fell from 39.6 percent for those students whose applications were
considered before enactment of a state law banning race-based
preferences in December to 5.5 percent thereafter." (!!) That's before
and after prop 2 of course.
Point: when race is not taken into account, **most** underrepresented
minorities just cannot make it on their own.
***Over 86% of minorities would not be admitted to U of M law
school if race or affirmative action were not a factor.*** (!!!)
So I ask you: why would you choose to see a black doctor or lawyer
knowing that he more than likely slipped in through the back door?
Raymond
Your point regarding economic development is very well put, but there
is no need to look down on the people. Those phone operators are no
less undignified than those Chinese factory workers who must endure
the backbreaking hard labor to earn probably even less than $6 a day.
Both are victims western capitalism, and both should be changed for
the better.
pg
Would you kindly give us the link to the above "EIU study", please? I
would like to see HOW they derive whatever they claim.
I am not saying that I do not trust you, it's that the "EIU study"
itself is too damn fishy.
pg
Let's use common sense when we compare the chinks with the dots, okay?
Chinks are fakers and copiers. Chinks can not think out of the box. In
fact, Chinks prefer to box themselves in (look at chinatown all over
the world and you know what I mean)
Chinks can not innovate. Chinks have all the 5,000 years of burden to
carry, that "Confucius" burden alone has destroyed millions of Chinks'
outlook in life.
Dots, on the other hand, prefer to see beyond the horizon. Yes, you
can say that they are dreamers, but the Dots are more than MERE
DREAMING, they are working towards their dream.
Dots prefer to think OUT of the box. They innovate, they focus on
inventing things for the future.
While the Dots have also a long, long history, they refused to be
burdened by it. True, the Dots have a caste system. While others may
see it as a hindrance, I see it as a boost.
A caste system effectively preventing those low IQ people from getting
more than their fair share of what a society can give them.
The caste system in India is actually the opposite of the Affirmative
Action of the USA. In USA, you have low IQ blacks getting into Harvard
and Princeton and UCLA and MIT, just because they are black, and
nothing else.
The actual working of caste system in India (if the Indian government
don't fuck it up) is that those low IQ tribe WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED to
abuse the meritocratic operation of the human hierarchy ... In other
word, if you are stupid, stay stupid and don't come into the smart
world.
Cruel? You bet ! But all of us live in a cruel world.
Utopia isn't reality. The "utopian" political correct world that many
US bleeding hearts believe in is actually killing the US of A. You
import tons and tons of useless idiots into your country, and they
keep on producing even more little useless idiots. You end up in a
situation whereby the SMART MINORITY has to work VERY HARD to feed the
STUPID MASSES !!!
If that is not bad enough, you guys promote the STUPID to become
judge. Still remember that black judge who sue the Korean laundry for
tens of millions? Who the fuck that nigger think he is?? How the fuck
that nigger becomes a judge, in the first place???
Ask yourself the above questions and you know why your country, the US
of A, is sinking.
Back to the Chinks and the Dots.
The Chinks are egalitarian in nature --- in other words, Chinks are
more like the bleeding heart liberals of the USA. They believe that
through hard work, everyone should be enjoying the equal share of the
society.
That is why SMART Chinks work doubly hard to help their STUPID
cousins. Smart Chinks should have been putting their time and effort
into making themselves EVEN SMARTER ... but the damn 5,000 years of
burden made them think otherwise.
For Chink, if they do not help their stupid cousins, they would have
that "I'm a bad guy" conscience weighting down on them. So they put
their best to help out their stupid cousins.
In doing so, the SMART Chinks are not smart anymore. They wasted their
precious life in helping those who ought to have died much earlier,
due to their own stupidity, in the first place.
On the other hand, the SMART Dots don't have that burden on them. They
just let their idiot cousins die on the the road side, which is, in
the real world sense, FAIR.
You go see the animals in Savannah. Do you see healthy wilderbeast
trying to help the sick wilderbeast, and ended up being killed
themselves???
Of course NOT !!! Law of the nature is fixed --- that if you are
stupid, if you are weak, if you are sick, YOU ARE GONE !!!
But Human Beings thought that they are no longer animal. (Are they
trees???) They think that they have to help the weak, the poor, the
sick, the IDIOTS. Sure, helping all those asshole and you end up dead
yourself.
That is why the Dots have it in the right place. They just leave those
who are to be gone, gone at their own pace. The Smart Dots put all
their time and effort to MAKE THEMSELVES BETTER.
Which in itself a good thing.
Why? Because if the SMART PEOPLE BETTER THEMSELVES, they become even
Smarter. And a country as large as India, with burdgeoning population
(soon to surpass that of China), need TRULY, TRULY SMART PEOPLE to
chart its future.
China, on the other hand, is being ruled by a bunch of idiotic
motherfuckers. Motherfuckers who think they can rule the world by
hosting the stupid Olympics.
Now, China is ahead of India. China is ahead because of the SMART
Chinese living OUTSIDE of China went back to help their IDIOT cousins
left behind.
But SMART Chinese are limited in number. As soon as those SMART
Chinese ran out of their resources, their idiotic cousins took over.
When their idiotic Chinese start to chart the course for China, you'll
see that China will NOT go forward anymore.
In fact, it will go back, back, and BACK !!!
The hosting of the Olympics is but the FIRST SIGN of China going
backward. They wasted so much of their time, efforts, and resources to
host that stupid game.
The time, efforts and resources that could have been used to make
China even better.
But no. Them idiotic Chinks think otherwise. They think they can rule
the damn fucking world by hosting the Olympics.
So what do you get? Red flags flying all over. For what the fuck???
What has that to do with making China better? NOTHING !!!!
India, on the other hand, do no such thing. They knew better than to
host that stupid Olympic. Instead, they use their limited resources
into building MORE universities, training MORE of their smart people
to be even MORE smart, helping MORE of their people to compete MORE
efficiently in the world, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Do you see Indian flags flying all over the world? No. Why not?
Because that ain't gonna help India a bit.
Unlike the stupid Chinks, the Dots understand that to TRULY BE NUMBER
1, they have to work doubly hard. They have to have THE NUMBER 1 HUMAN
RESOURCES to invent things, to innovate, to be technologically
SUPERIOR !!!
So the Dots are investing all they have to ensure that they will excel
in technology, that they have to be ahead of the USA, JAPAN and
EUROPE, in the technological fields.
The Dots are doing this, while we speak. In the meantime, the Chinks
are still waving their red-flags.
Perhaps you and I could never live to see the world where the Dots are
in front of the Chinks, but one day, maybe your children and my
children will see that.
I'm a Chink myself, and I'm telling you all these not because I'm
ashame of my own people. I'm telling you these because I am FULLY
AWARE of the UTTER STUPIDITY of my own people.
In conclusion,
The product of Chinks are visible --- goods in boxes.
The product of Dots are invisible --- strength, ideas, intellectual
properties.
Which product is better, my friend??
PaPaPeng
wrote:
>I'm a Chink myself, and I'm telling you all these not because I'm
>ashame of my own people. I'm telling you these because I am FULLY
>AWARE of the UTTER STUPIDITY of my own people.
Aw baboo. Do have some dignity.
RichAsianKid
You’re quite right that the product of the Dots are **invisible** -- I
(we) still don’t see it!! Their ideas, their intellectual properties?
Oh really? Based on what we know about the sore lack of Indian
cognitive capital – from their low IQs to their well-known 39%
illiteracy rate to how their own children are 2-3 years behind
international standards in elementary school education – not just in
poorer districts but also in private schools -- you’d never have
guessed they’re bubbling with geniuses waiting to be discovered would
you? Don’t worry, I’ll provide some links for your edification. But
let’s look at a few other points first as to what you wrote.
It appears that poster ‘pg’ is yet again imbued with idealism and a
lot of what is written here about India’s greatness is, once again,
rooted in the future tense. Guess hope springs eternal huh? Still, a
bird in hand is worth two in the bush. What’s potential is not what’s
actual. India’s still pining for some real or imaginary future while
*compared to India*, China already is. You see this in anecdotal
accounts of Indian students and international travelers. I’m not
saying China is a great country. What I’m merely stating is an obvious
fact: if China is shit, then India is shittier.
You then raised points about how the caste system and egalitarianism
and alluded to the lower castes of India being low IQ. But that’s
point conceded: there are lots and lots of these lower caste Indians
that the upper castes have to keep them out. From previous exchanges
Indian posters (and I believe some Indian visiting professors too)
know this deep down and have expressed that the best that India can
hope for is something like Brazil. And this is a dirty little secret
that is kept outside non-Indians. What is the Brazilian scenario? It
is one where a razor-thin competent elite that leads the teems of
smelly, brown, dirty, uneducated masses of poor poor Indians. Not
exactly a first world technological-advanced information-based
society.
And here are more technical aspects on these uneducated masses:
India’s lower castes/uneducated classes are known to be reproducing at
way higher rates than the educated class. Here:
http://i29.tinypic.com/14j5ajb.jpg
Pretty damning isn’t it? Illiterate women have a TFR of 3.09, while
graduate women have a TFR of only 1.35. But here’s the kicker: How
many percent of women in India are illiterate? If you guessed 39% as I
quoted in the beginning that is the WRONG answer. That’s illiteracy
rates for the total population. No sir, India’s women have a 52.2%
illiteracy rates!!! That is, more than half of women in India are
illiterate, and these dregs of society in India are reproducing like
crazy, while those who have graduate degrees and above are not. But
China? It has the much maligned one child policy. Yes, some lower IQ
ethnic minority groups may be exempt as some have pointed out, and
implementation is never perfect. But at the same time some richer
Chinese and those more politically savvy ones may also have found
loopholes. But most importantly it would be very difficult to imagine
that China’s one child policy will have *consistently* produced as
much of a *dysgenic* effect compared to India’s policy of liberal
reproduction that favor the illiterates over the past generation or
two. And I’d bet that after one or two generations of such an
experiment, cognitive capital would tip steeply in favor of China, not
India.
Which leads to this business about egalitarianism. While Chinese are
"egalitarian" in birth rates in that the poor and illiterate are seen
not to deserve more children than the rich, they certainly ain’t that
egalitarian when it comes to acquisition of wealth and how they run
the country, at least not in recent decades, at least not in the 21st
century. Afterall, for modern Chinese, ‘to get rich is glorious’ by
any means necessary (including cheating, including knockoffs,
including selling kidneys) while many Indians (I was told) especially
the teems of poor people (oh wait, that means virtually the whole
India!!!) are still so romantically enamoured by Ghandi’s philosophy
and the seven sins: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience,
knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science
without humility, worship without sacrifice, politics without
principle. And this is reflected in the societies they build: the
rural mainland Chinese are currently toiling in a country that has a
GINI index that is way way higher than India’s – 47 versus 37. Surely
if the Chinese are so egalitarian, this inequitable distribution of
wealth must be the source of outrage and indignation (real or moral)
for mainland Chinese all around the world!!! Look, they’ll say, even
with the caste system India is so much more equitable. We are the
champions of egalitarianism, we need to care for our fellow men, and
and yet our country’s GINI index so terribly high at 47?? We got to do
something about this!! But you don't see that happening. Those who
pontificate about China’s income inequality are almost invariably
Westerners: “how can you ignore these poor poor illiterate rural
people, razing their homes without their consent while building your
80-storey skyscrapers??” No, I don’t think the majority of overseas
mainland Chinese gives a crap about inequality of income in their own
country – as long as the country is getting richer. There are some
dissenters of course, but a lot are more politically motivated against
the ruling party than economically motivated for the poor. For many
mainland Chinese, practical wealth comes first, not some abstract
notions of equality. Charity begins at home, meaning, probably, it
should end there too.
Now, other points: your idealism is yet again so very loud and
blinding when you let slip that hard work is enough. And that is of
course why IQ is so contentious. It limits the freedom of the
individual in a sense, and while a lazy high IQ person may not get
anywhere, it does not therefore follow that a hard-working low IQ
person will become Einstein. And we know that IQ predicts subsequent
educational outcome. The correlation between IQ and international test
scores are in the > 0.90 range (if you want I can cite references and
diagrams but this is getting long here). And we know that IQ at a
country level is correlated with GDP (the red circle is the sub-
Saharan African countries)
http://i22.tinypic.com/2ufap8j.jpg
And so what do we see about India? Let’s look at the (1) top (2)
private (3) metro schools:
http://www.ei-india.com/full-report.pdf
Which demonstrates that:
"Findings: The findings are, to say the least, quite worrying.
Students from the 'top' schools of our metros are performing below
average international levels. The performance of the class 4 students
is significantly lower than the international average in each one of
the 11 questions. More strikingly, students of a higher class (class
6) performed only marginally better than the international average for
class 4 students." (page 33 of 70)
Now, a student who is one class below is slow, but two classes below
is probably borderline retarded. But the most severe indictment of
Indian students is the sample of the study:
"Public debate in India bemoans the lot of government schools in the
country. The implicit assumption is that all's well (or at least
almost well) with private schools. In this research study, an attempt
has been made to verify that assumption. And instead of looking at
private schools in general (which come in a wide variety), an attempt
has been made to measure how well students are learning in the 'top'
English medium schools (as per public perception) in 5 metros -
Mumbai, Kolkata, New Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore."
Not exactly a bright picture is it? Remember, these are supposed to be
the future elite of India!!!!!! Whether they're lazy or just plain
stupid, they just don't measure up.
But here’s the rub: Democracy, by definition, is people + rule. How
can the quality of the people not matter? And yet, it is precisely the
low quality of the Indian people that we see again, again, and again,
even at the top levels – in private schools, in international
Olympiads etc. Never forget Tom Jefferson’s “if a country expects to
be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”
Yes, perhaps in a dictatorship cognitive capital of the serfs may not
be as important – they just need to follow the edict and ukase of the
state. But in a democracy – as in India’s – to assume that only the
leaders count is a contradiction in terms. “People” “rule” in a
democracy. I think your quaint notion that somehow the top Indians can
somehow act like Superman and magically lift retarded India out of
poverty is a fantasy. Your fantasy may make a good comic book or night
time story though.
I’ll leave you with three random thoughts which arguably are more
speculative in nature. First, regarding innovation, as you’ll note in
my subsequent reply above to the oft-quoted EIU study (http://
tinyurl.com/32cey6 ), India is not that far ahead. In fact, it is
projected to fall behind. Some pertinent quotes:
“China has more favourable conditions for innovation than India. With
annual expenditure of US$136bn on R&D, China now outspends Japan.”
“China is breaking out of its position as a member, along with India,
of the underdeveloped world. While it is still not as efficient at
innovation as India, the huge sums of money it is pouring into R&D and
education will ensure that it climbs steadily up the rankings,
**leaving India some way behind.**”
And don’t forget: in the conclusion section the rise of China is
mentioned again, again, and again. India – not even once.
Second, there’s the matter of recent economic trajectory. South Asian
countries (e.g. Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh) as a whole
grow way way slower than East Asian countries (e.g. HK/Singapore,
Taiwan, South Korea, Japan). India’s trajectory is very similar to its
South Asian counterparts (which are not shown) and in fact form a
distinct blue cluster, while NE Asian countries form another. As you
can see, China has crossed percentiles compared to India. There is
just quite similarly no concurrent “South Asian” economic miracle.
http://i12.tinypic.com/43hq0b6.jpg
And last, there’s the matter of precedent. I leave this to an Indian
who will sum things up for you:
I quote: "The diaspora is worth a post in its own right...suffice to
say that
the type of South Asian immigrant (unskilled, middle class, or
professional) is quite important in predicting the prosperity of the
resulting diasporic population. In other words, this outcome
variability stands in sharp contrast to the relative homogeneity of
the
Chinese diaspora, where the descendants of the laborers shipped to
Singapore built one of the most powerful economies in the world. The
South Asian comparison would be the UAE, which is actually fairly
wealthy even without the oil revenue. . But other countries like
Mauritius and Fiji have shown only middling success for the Indian
emigrants. The point is that unlike the Chinese, the IQ signposts for
Indians do
not all point in the same direction….So, with all this in mind, I
think China has many advantages over India including:
1. racial and religious homogeneity
2. no neighbor which is as hostile as Pakistan
3. a higher GDP and a higher growth rate
4. no particularly dysgenic trends in birth rate (given the
homogeneity of China)
5. And, of course, the ability of the Communist party to push
eugenics/genetic engineering
Also, there is the question of precedent - racially similar Koreans,
Chinese, and Japanese have built powerful country-scale economies.
Indian diaspora accomplishments are significant, but they are mainly
company-scale and individual-scale...and the individuals involved are
almost entirely from the upper castes. In my opinion, India's lower
castes (easily more than 50% of the population) are incapable of
sustaining a technological economy, given that the features of Indian
modernization: nuclear weapons, IITs, IT companies, drug companies,
etc. are mainly due to Brahmins, particularly South Indian Brahmins.
So will India catch China? Probably not."
RichAsianKid
israeliteknight
> On May 7, 10:25 pm, pg <pen...@catholic.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 9:12 am,RichAsianKid<richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's use common sense when we compare the chinks with the dots, okay?
>
> > Chinks are fakers and copiers. Chinks can not think out of the box. In
> > fact, Chinks prefer to box themselves in (look at chinatown all over
> > the world and you know what I mean)
>
> > Chinks can not innovate. Chinks have all the 5,000 years of burden to
> > carry, that "Confucius" burden alone has destroyed millions of Chinks'
> > outlook in life.
>
> > Dots, on the other hand, prefer to see beyond the horizon. Yes, you
> > can say that they are dreamers, but the Dots are more than MERE
> > DREAMING, they are working towards their dream.
>
> > Dots prefer to think OUT of the box. They innovate, they focus on
> > inventing things for the future.
>
> > While the Dots have also a long, long history, they refused to be
> > burdened by it. True, the Dots have a caste system. While others may
> > see it as a hindrance, I see it as a boost.
>
> > A caste system effectively preventing those low IQ people from getting
> > more than their fair share of what a society can give them.
>
> > The caste system in India is actually the opposite of theAffirmative
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have an Indian friend who disagrees: he says that India will "beat"
China by 2050.
When I asked him how that could be, economically, or legislatively, or
militarily--he said "population, of course". To an Indian, nothing
but population counts--which is why almost a trillion of them are
lucky to earn $200 per month each. There certainly are races and
nations of the world who're going backwards so fast they don't even
know which way is forward, and in spite of all the "technological
advancement" hoopla, India is one.
Your chart on iq and gdp shows only 7 nations with iq's less than 70,
but just in Africa [and only in Africa] are more than two dozen
nations with iq's lower than 70 and incomes to match. The reason
that's significant is that these are the ancestors of many American
blacks who now want us to do something for them that their own
ancestors couldn't do for them in ten thousand years or a hundred
thousands years, and won't in the next ten or hundred thousand years
[see below].
Your chart on innovation is interesting--I'm surprised that we, having
scored dead last in 17 of 34 TIMSS subjects, were ranked only third
behind Japan, and ahead of Germany, Denmark, and Netherlands. With
all the products coming from Japan [and companies in China owned by
Japan], it's surprising that Japan produces only 3-4 times as many
patents per capita as us. This must be just leftovers from the era
when we used to teach calculus, because now we can't even find time to
teach our students algebra. With all the vitally important
sensitivity and multiculturalism classes that come first, current
graduates would be lucky to even flip hamburgers, much less make
shoes.
fc.. Burundi - 70*
fd.. Cameroon - 70*
fe.. Rwanda - 70*
ff.. Angola - 69*
fg.. Benin - 69*
fh.. Togo - 69*
fi.. Central African Rep. - 68*
fj.. Djibouti - 68*
fk.. Eritrea - 68*
fl.. Mali - 68*
fm.. Somalia - 68*
fn.. Niger - 67*
fo.. Nigeria - 67
fp.. Burkina Faso - 66*
fq.. Gabon - 66*
fr.. Zimbabwe - 66
fs.. Congo (Zaire) - 65
ft.. Gambia - 64*
fu.. Liberia - 64*
fv.. Senegal - 64*
fw.. Sierra Leone - 64
fx.. Ethiopia - 63
fy.. Guinea - 63
fz.. Guinea-Bissau - 63*
ga.. Sao Tome/Principe - 59*
gb.. Equatorial Guinea - 59
pg
> And here are more technical aspects on these uneducated masses:
> India’s lower castes/uneducated classes are known to be reproducing at
> way higher rates than the educated class. Here:
>
> http://i29.tinypic.com/14j5ajb.jpg
Personal insults aside, what you have pointed out, sir, is already a
wide known "secret" --- that the stupids are reproducing like
rabbits !!!!
This "phenomenom" is happening EVERYWHERE !!! I mean, look at Europe.
Which group of people are reproducing like crazy? The Anglos? The
French? The Germans?
No, it's the mooooozlims !!! Yes, those who pray five times a day and
while fucking their wives/daughters/cousins 20 times a second. THEY
are the one who are reproducing !!!
So what is new, my man? This whole world is being inundated with
STOOOOOPIDs, and what are we gonna do about it???
Ooooooh, no, I'd be the target for those bleeding hearts again.
India's problem isn't unique. India has its own set of problems, but
the whole world is facing many of the problems India is facing as
well .... namely, the STOOOOOPIDs are demanding more than their fair
share of the precious resources !!!
That is why the caste system of India, in a way, is a plus. It has
effectively, thus far, preventing the STOOOOOOPIDs from grabbing too
much of the social resources away. India should thank God for giving
her the caste system, or she wouldn't have any resource left to
develop the country.
Imagine if the STOOOOOOPIDs inundated the universities .... what will
it be?
Imagine if the STOOOOOOPIDs got into the government .... what future
would India have?
At least, for the time being, the caste system has prevented too much
damage being done by the STOOOOOPIDs. I am not saying that there ain't
"stoooopids" in the university and/or the government, there are ---
they are just too many, and you just can't stop them all.
But the damage is still being kept in a minimal.
On the other hand, China has its own share of STOOOOOPIDs as well, and
because of the so-called "socialism ideology", many STOOOOOOPIDs and
their offsprings are on the leadership role!!
Don't believe? Read the politburo list of the CCP ! 8 out of 10 of
those who's who on the "red list" are STOOOOOOPIDs.
That is why the Olympics is gonna be held in China this year.
That is why China signed away hundreds of BILLIONS of their own money
to that French guy, only to have that motherfucker turned against
them.
That is why with tens of thousands of children falling pray to the
vicious virus, and CCP still don't know what to do.
That is why until today, 30 years after the opening of the Chinese
door, China has yet to CREATE ANY NEW THING for the world. What China
has done, for the past 30 years, was MAKING THINGS.
Creation is always better than making. Innovation is always better
than fabrication. Inventing is always better than producing.
China is a producer. India, on the other hand, is fast becoming a
CREATOR / INVENTOR / INNOVATOR.
I agree, India still has a LONG WAY TO GO before achieving the top
creative country in the world, but China .... well .... the way it
seems, China is going nowhere fast.
pg
"Multiculturalism course" ought NOT be taught in school. School is,
after all, a place where students are taught the skill for EXCELLING
in the future, and multiculturalism ain't worth shit, in this respect.
I pity the students, because their parents are TOO STOOPID and TOO
TIMID to stand up for them. Their parents ought to STAND UP OPPOSING
ALL THESE MINDBOGGLING ASININE COURSES BE SHOVED DOWN THE THROATS OF
THE CHILDREN.
But from the way I look, no, it is not happening.
Everyone is singing "kumbaya", hugging each others, saying nice words
to each others, while their children are slowly being brainwashed into
zombies.
The enemy of the Americans are not foreigners. The real enemy of the
United States of America is Political Correctness.
israeliteknight
> It is always tragic when education is being hijacked by politics.
>
> "Multiculturalism course" ought NOT be taught in school. School is,
> after all, a place where students are taught the skill for EXCELLING
> in the future, and multiculturalism ain't worth shit, in this respect.
>
> I pity the students, because their parents are TOO STOOPID and TOO
> TIMID to stand up for them. Their parents ought to STAND UP OPPOSING
> ALL THESE MINDBOGGLING ASININE COURSES BE SHOVED DOWN THE THROATS OF
> THE CHILDREN.
>
> But from the way I look, no, it is not happening.
>
> Everyone is singing "kumbaya", hugging each others, saying nice words
> to each others, while their children are slowly being brainwashed into
> zombies.
>
> The enemy of the Americans are not foreigners. The real enemy of the
> United States of America is Political Correctness.
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"The enemy of the Americans are not foreigners. The real enemy of the
United States of America is Political Correctness."
True.
But where does political correctness come from? Not from within. It
comes from without, from jews originally could not vote nor hold
public office in the US, who took over publishing in the US in 1906
with an evil agenda, just like it came from jews in the Bolshevik
Revolution which killed 20-64 million Christians in Russia, just like
it came from jews in WWII which killed another 264 million Christians
in Europe:
Pastor Dowsett goes on to say, “For those who might be skeptical
regarding the aforementioned statements, they are derived from the
Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th Edition, of 1903, and the Dead Sea
Scrolls. [From] “After 40 Years,” by Hershal Shanks and James C.
Vandercamp. It is interesting to note that after that year, that is
1903, Jewish companies bought out most of the publishing and printing
establishments that printed encyclopedias, historical and educational
books. After this date, true unadulterated history is hard to
find.”
I detest people who don't stand up for their children. I especially
detest WHITE fathers who even *CONSIDER* an Obama who most likely has
an iq lower than Koko the Gorilla (85) to be a valid "presidential
candidate":
RichAsianKid
We're talking in circles. I've already answered your points above:
http://i29.tinypic.com/14j5ajb.jpg
Pretty damning isn’t it? Illiterate women have a TFR of 3.09, while
graduate women have a TFR of only 1.35. But here’s the kicker: How
many percent of women in India are illiterate? If you guessed 39% as I
quoted in the beginning that is the WRONG answer. That’s illiteracy
rates for the total population. No sir, India’s women have a 52.2%
illiteracy rates!!! That is, more than half of women in India are
illiterate, and these dregs of society in India are reproducing like
crazy, while those who have graduate degrees and above are not. But
China? It has the much maligned one child policy. Yes, some lower IQ
ethnic minority groups may be exempt as some have pointed out, and
implementation is never perfect. But at the same time some richer
Chinese and those more politically savvy ones may also have found
loopholes. But most importantly it would be very difficult to imagine
that China’s one child policy will have *consistently* produced as
much of a *dysgenic* effect compared to India’s policy of liberal
reproduction that favor the illiterates over the past generation or
two. And I’d bet that after one or two generations of such an
experiment, cognitive capital would tip steeply in favor of China, not
India.
Just saying India innovates will not make it so. Once again, it's
tedious to quote what's already posted,
First, regarding innovation, as you’ll note in
my subsequent reply above to the oft-quoted EIU study ( http://tinyurl.com/32cey6
), India is not that far ahead. In fact, it is projected to fall
behind. Some pertinent quotes:
“China has more favourable conditions for innovation than India. With
annual expenditure of US$136bn on R&D, China now outspends Japan.”
“China is breaking out of its position as a member, along with India,
of the underdeveloped world. While it is still not as efficient at
innovation as India, the huge sums of money it is pouring into R&D and
education will ensure that it climbs steadily up the rankings,
**leaving India some way behind.**”
And don’t forget: in the conclusion section the rise of China is
mentioned again, again, and again. India – not even once. To quote it
in full:
--------
Conclusion: The mothers of innovation
This paper has shown that governments and
companies are no longer paying lip service
to innovation, if they ever did. Heightened
global competition is forcing both to find new ways
to increase productivity. They have little choice but
to innovate, or at least to encourage the innovators.
But what is the best way to become more innovative?
One thing is clear from this study: there
is no single, right method. Take, for example, the
diversity of the countries at the top of the ranking.
Some are large and some are small. Some value
rote learning, others improvisation and spontaneity.
Innovation is certainly not a Western preserve;
witness the position of Japan at the top of the
innovation ranking, as well as the strong performance
of Taiwan and Singapore, not to mention the
emergence of China. All heavily emphasise the use
of government policies to encourage innovation,
along with educational systems that produce large
numbers of scientists and engineers.
Our forecast for innovation rankings over the
next five years highlights the rise of China in
the league table. But it would have been more
surprising if the ranking had not predicted that
the world’s second-largest economy in terms of
purchasing power would climb up the ladder. Less
predictable was the strong showing of Mexico and
Lithuania, hardly countries famed for their innovation
prowess. This is particularly so for the former,
being part of a region, Latin America, not noted for
its innovativeness.
Clearly, it helps to be close to the United States,
which ranks number three in the innovation league.
The same is true for companies too. Our survey
found that many more firms that are located in or
near high-tech clusters in such countries as Israel
perform better than their peers than companies that
are not in such a location. One answer is to move to
a high-tech cluster. A less drastic course, however,
would be simply to open an outpost there and
breathe the same air.
Despite the diverse reasons for success in innovation,
some common themes emerge:
l There is no real substitute for a good education—
and a good education system. Whether you are China
or BMW, it is highly advantageous to be able to tap
deep, wide reservoirs of technical expertise.
l Investments in IT and communications infrastructure
provide a good pay-off in terms of innovation.
l Sizeable spending on R&D is likely to yield dividends
in terms of new products and services. In our
survey, among respondents who say their firm’s R&D
spending is equal to at least 5% of their revenue,
44% say their firm performs better than its peers; this
compares with 35% among those who say their firm
spends less than 5% of revenue on R&D.
l Irrespective of performance, the pace of innovation
overall is faster than ever. Seventy-one percent
of those responding to our survey said that more
than one-half of their sales came from products and
services that are five years old or less.
l Innovative scientists and researchers work best
when given a high degree of autonomy, and then
allowed to work closely with the business functions to
put ideas into effect.
Without these people—the designers, the entrepreneurs,
the scientists and the marketers—economies
and companies would not grow as fast and we
would all be less well off.
------
Get it? India is not mentioned even once, but China again and again.
Oh, and let's look at yet another index that comes to mind. The
Digital Opportunity Index.
Datapoint (1): Worldwide distribution.
http://i16.tinypic.com/4yala4l.jpg (click on the diagram to get
higher rez)
Top 10: S Korea, Japan, Denmark, Iceland, Singapore, Netherlands,
Taiwan, Hong Kong, Sweden, UK.
Datapoint (2): Here're the top 50 economies/countries out of the 181.
http://i1.tinypic.com/6b9k0ib.jpg (again, click on the diagram)
Why is this important? It's a composite measure of opportunity,
infrastructure, and utilization of digital technology....
http://i10.tinypic.com/4z2klro.jpg
And as we know digital technology will play an increasing role in our
lives in an advanced, 21st century, postindustrial, information-based
economy.
Oh, and notice that China is way way ahead of India (not shown well,
but look at first link). China is ranked 77, India 124 (!!!!!)
Where's India again? Where? Where? Where?
And the bottommost countries are, not surprisingly, all in retarded
Africa.
Can this be one more glimpse of the future?
RichAsianKid
Thank you for this great reply. A few points:
(1) Education. Here's what we know in America:
Fifty Years of Math 1950s - 2000s
Teaching Math In 1950s: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
Teaching Math In 1960s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His production cost is
4/5 of the price or $80. What is his profit?
Teaching Math In 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
is $80. Did he make a profit?
Teaching Math In 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number
20.
Teaching Math In 1990s
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and
inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the
preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of
$20. What do you think of this way of making a living?
Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did
the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? There
are no wrong answers.
Teaching Math In 2000s
Un hachero vende una carretada de madera para $100. El costo de
produccion es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
(2) India vs China (again)
Just to be brief here, here's yet another forecast:
http://i31.tinypic.com/95zfqp.jpg
Of course, this is size-dependent, so the US still leads. But look at
China vs India.
In fact another article I read says that by 2025 China will outstrip
the GDP (PPP) of the US, while even at 2050 India will merely be at
90% the GDP (PPP) of the US!!
My point is not to say that China is rich as posters no doubt know.
The point here is that no matter how you slice and dice the data,
China comes out ahead of India.
(3) Darwinian reproduction
Note that I don't necessarily fault the Indians for reproducing like
crazy. The non-mainland Chinese have now controlled themselves (check
out total fertiliy rates here
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
and see that the LOWEST nations of the world [223 of them] are
actually not in Europe or North America - but in East Asia - Hong
Kong, Macau, Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan and S Korea not far behind)
but really is this strength or weakness in the long run in a Darwinian
struggle? You just have to look at which countries are at the top. It
is true that African countries are poor, uneducated, and just plain
retarded (do you know that in the US black kids who come from parents
who make over $100K score LOWER than white kids who come from parents
who make less than $10K???). But they're good at one thing:
reproduction. And in America they get paid to reproduce in the form of
welfare! Now how sweet a deal is that? So no, in a way, it is merely a
survival strategy (no pun intended) I think, from a Darwinian
perspective. And there are many who just don't see the whole picture.
(4) The innovation index - a speculation
If you look at page 10 of the EIU report posted earlier, it highlights
how Japan and Taiwan are very efficient innovators: They produce a lot
of innovations for a low level of inputs. Cross-reference that to page
28 and you'll see that in terms of innovation 'enablers' Taiwan ranks
14, 16, 16 in Direct input, innovation environment, and aggregate
innovation enablers index, while it's output is ranked much higher at
8th. Japan's low levels of 11,23,14 inputs are likewise matched by its
high output that is ranked 1st. It may be important to control for
input as well. It goes back to the illustration of black children -
how is it possible that black kids whose parents make over $100K
actually do worse off than white kids whose parents make less than
$10K?
I think environment can only do so much. People and groups are
different. But of course, that's one heresy and taboo we can never
acknowledge. ;)
RichAsianKid
If capitalism is so evil, why is it the mainland Chinese are now so
deeply in love with it? Are the Chinese evil?
Never forget that wealth has a thousand fathers, but poverty is an
orphan.
israeliteknight
Very good points.
I LOVE the way you represent the change of "education" in the US.
People who don't believe SAT scores are down 30-60 points just can't
be thinking about this change in the way we "teach" children today.
Focusing just on GDP and ignoring Personal Savings misrepresents the
power of Japan--who now has OFFICIALLY 95% of the world's Personal
Savings, mostly in Postal Savings Accounts for which there are no
accountability and reporting requirements. It wasn't that long ago
that we were one of the 5 creditor nations, but now we're the biggest
debtor nation in human history with no end in sight, while the
creditor nations laugh all the way to the bank.
The fertility rates are very revealing. When you put that into
perspective with the UN population estimates and forecasts, they are
shocking.
http://christianparty.net/population.htm
Between 1950 and 2000, a period of 50 years, the world population more
than doubled, from 2.56 billion to 5.77 billion, an annual growth rate
of 1.5%. Most of that growth was in the less developed countries
where the population grew from 1.7 to 4.9 billion. The population of
India increased 3.5 fold (2.5% per year) and of China 2.5 fold (1.7%/
year), adding another 1.4 billion people to the world, the equivalent
of 5 TIMES the total US population and 6 TIMES the US White
population.
The slowest growing countries were in Eastern Europe where growth was
either flat or less than 10%. The population of Russia actually
decreased during some of those years. Even Belgium, Italy, the UK,
Portugal, Austria, and Denmark experienced growth of less than 20%
over this half century. The 1.75 fold increase in the US population
(1.1% per year) was quite a bit higher than the 25% growth in Western
Europe, but just the increase in the number of people in China and
India was five times larger than our total population.
Many of the fastest growing countries during this time were Arab and
African countries. The population of the United Arab Emirates
increased 84 fold (8.1%/year), of Qatar 29 fold (6.5%/year), and of
Kuwait 24 fold (5.8%/year). The populations of Namibia, Benin,
Nigeria, Liberia, Sudan, Senegal, Swaziland, Cote d'Ivoire, Togo, and
French Guiana increased more than seven fold, or more than 4% per
year.
Many of the countries with the fastest growing populations are also
the ones with the shortest life expectancies, and vice versa. The
life expectancy of men in Rwanda is only 33 years, but their
population increased almost five fold, whereas the life expectancy for
men in Japan is 80 years, but their population increased only 50%.
Just in half a century, the INCREASE in the number of blacks in Africa
was two TIMES the entire population of the US, and in the next half a
century, even WITH AIDS, it will increase another THREE TIMES the US
population [by 900 million, CONSERVATIVELY].
> I think environment can only do so much. People and groups are
> different. But of course, that's one heresy and taboo we can never
> acknowledge. ;)
American blacks expect us to do for them what their ancestors and
cousins and relatives could NEVER do, not in 10-100,000 years: achieve
"racial equality" with Whites and Asians.
It's hopeless. We BLEW TEN TRILLION DOLLARS just on increased
education expenditures JUST for blacks and got exactly WHAT?
ZERO.
All we got is their red hot HATRED, just like "pastor" Wright and
obamabanana ADMIT on national TV@!
Big deal. I can get blacks to HATE us even more, and not spend a
NICKEL doing it.
israeliteknight
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's an update on the analysis of SAT scores, which can be seen in
the proper format at:
http://christianparty.net/satrace2004.htm
SAT Score for actual Whites is 162 points higher than reported by the
College Board.
What they report as a 202 point gap between blacks and Whites is
actually a 424 point gap between White men and black women.
States which are mostly Whites score 100 to 153 points higher than the
"national average" for Whites.
Whites in Iowa score 154 points higher than "whites" in New York.
Based on the racial composition of Iowa, the highest scoring state
with an SAT score of 1195, New York, one of the lowest scoring states
at 1007, and Washington, DC, ground zero in intellectual achievement
on EVERY test imaginable at 965, and the SAT scores reported by race,
we should see scores of 1052, 1003, and 934 respectively. This means
that Iowa’s actual score was 134 points higher than its racial
composition would suggest it should be, New York’s was 4 points
higher, and DC’s was 31 points higher.
In other words, if the SAT scores provided by the College Board for
SAT scores by each race are correct, we would expect Iowa to score
1048 rather than 1195, we would expect New York to score 1003 rather
than 1007, and we would expect DC to score 934 rather than 965.
Indian
Asian
black
Mexican
Puerto Rican
Hispanic
White
jew
Mamzer
Pre dicted
Actual
Diff
SAT Score
971
1084
857
909
909
926
1059
860
1002
Iowa
0.40%
1.60%
2.5%
3.80%
91%
0%
1%
N.Y.
0.50%
6.90%
17.4%
16.30%
57%
0%
1.50%
100%
D.C.
0.4%
3.2%
56.5%
0%
0%
8.20%
30.3%
0.%
1.40%
100%
Iowa
3.9
17.3
21.4
0.0
0.0
35.2
960.5
0.0
10.0
1048
1195
-147
N.Y.
4.9
74.8
149.1
0.0
0.0
150.9
607.9
0.0
15.0
1003
1007
-4
D.C.
3.9
34.7
484.2
0.0
0.0
75.9
320.9
0.0
14.0
934
965
-31
If all else is equal except the score of Whites, then the SAT score
for Whites in Iowa must be 1221 [162 points higher than the national
average for Whites], the SAT score for Whites in N.Y. must be 1067 [8
points higher], and the SAT scores for Whites in DC must be 1163 [104
points higher than the national average].
And the SAT score for actual Whites in the nation must be 1221 rather
than the 1059 reported by the College Board, which means they
misrepresent White intellectual talent by 162 points, and that the gap
between Whites and blacks is 364 points rather than 202 points.
How can it be, though, that the White Race in Iowa scores 154 points
higher than the White Race in New York, 58 points higher than the
White Race in DC, and 162 points higher than the score for Whites
reported by the College Board? How can this be rationalized or
explained?
Because Whites are a majority in Iowa, their scores must be higher
than Iowa’s average of 1195. Because blacks are now only 56% of the
population of DC and Whites are 38.4%, it's not completely unexpected
that the average score for DC of 965 is 108 points higher than the
average score for blacks of 857. It's revealing, though, that blacks
in the “state” which spends more per capita for “education” than any
other part of the globe [five times as much per student as Iowa], and
have the absolutely highest per capita incomes for blacks anywhere in
the world, and have more police protection and more different forms of
police and have the world's toughest gun control and drug war laws
than most dictators, would score LOWER than Mozambique. But this is
what international tests like IAEP have shown.
The answer is jews.
Because jews demanded in the 1960’s that they not be counted as a
separate race, we don’t know the exact population of jews in either DC
or New York. Because Whites are only 91% and Asians are only 1.6% of
Iowa’s population, if Whites there score 1221, then Iowa’s calculated
score is exactly 1195. But in order to explain the very low score of
DC where blacks are only 56.5% of the population, we must assume that
at least 4.5% of the population there are jews who score closer to
their brethren in Israel than to any local populations.
Viola. That fits the equation perfectly, giving DC a calculated score
of exactly 965, exactly as reported by the SAT.
If that's not the case [if there are no jews who participate in SAT in
DC], then the only way to explain why DC's actual score is 18 points
lower than predicted is that the score of blacks in DC is only 826,
which is 31 points lower than the national average for blacks. IAEP
suggests that's possible.
But what about this whopping 154 point difference between Whites in
Iowa and “whites” [note lower case ‘w’] in New York?
jews.
Jews themselves claim there are 6 million jews in the US and that 4.6
million are in New York. If so, this might mean that 24% of New
Yorkers who are listed as Whites are actually jews who score in the
range of their brethren in Israel rather than in the range of our
brethren in Germany or Ireland.
In order for the calculated score for New York to match its actual
score, the percentage of jews there must be 24.5%, producing a score
of exactly 1007, exactly what the actual SAT score is.
So by claiming that the SAT score for Whites is only 1059, the College
Board misrepresents our intellectual advantage by 162 points, and they
make it appear that the gap between Whites and blacks is 202 points
rather than 364 points. And it's not just Iowa which is
misrepresented. South Dakota scores 1191, which is 132 points higher
than the national average for Whites, Wisconsin scores 1183, 124
points higher, North Dakota scores 124 points higher, Illinois scores
123 points higher, Minnesota scores 121 points higher, Missouri scores
113 points higher, etc.
Furthermore, this also ignores that ever since SAT began, within each
race, there's been a consistent 58-60 point gap between the sexes.
Actually, the gap is 60 points for Whites, blacks, Mexicans,
Hispanics, Asians, and Indians, and only 58 points for Puerto Ricans
[a difference which is actually within the standard error].
So where public perception is that there's only a 202 point gap
between Whites and blacks, the REAL gap between White men and black
women is 364 points + 60 points, or 424 points, virtually the opposite
ends of the spectrum.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<073086ac-7a58-4dba...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Whites in Iowa score 154 points higher than "whites" in New York.
>
Must be different races (LOL).
RichAsianKid
wrote:
>
Regarding Japanese wealth, in yet another UN-WIDER study that's very
well publicized late 2006, in terms of personal net worth in US
exchange rates in US dollars (which partly reflects savings) the
Japanese rank at the top. Hong Kong ranked #2, and the US ranked
fifth.
http://i17.tinypic.com/42vv8ev.jpg
The study further highlights that if you cut off the bottom 99% of the
world population (which actually, believe it or not, translates to
*only* a net worth of $500K US but that's a detail), a whopping 27% of
these individuals are Japanese, even if the Japanese themselves are
~2% of the world population. That number itself is staggering.
Japanese are as humble as always, but it is probably very difficult
not to feel some visceral sense of superiority towards the mainland
Chinese, let alone Indians.
As for population growth, here's another future projection:
http://www.buchanan.org/blog/?p=985 Also as noted elsewhere by
Buchanan, feminism often translates into lower fertility rates as
women defer child-bearing and pursue higher careers, and on a societal
level this leads to a demographic implosion, which in turn often
necessitates the importing poor and failed peoples, the "wretched
refuse", from all around the globe and who are utterly unlike the host
population (if these people were successful to begin with in their own
country they probably wouldn't have migrated in the first place). That
is, civilization crumbles.
Last, about Africa and blacks, there is in fact strong evidence that
spending per student does not increase student performance as you no
doubt know.
http://i5.tinypic.com/5xfyi55.jpg
As side point there's an interesting study http://tinyurl.com/5obn8y
that points to how wealth negatively correates with crime across
European and East Asian countries (not surprising), but is
**positively** correlated with crime in African countries.
Quote: "These data speak to one of the most important issues facing
the field
of criminology in showing there are significant differences in murder,
rape,
and serious assaults in East Asian, European, and African countries
that
parallel those found within Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Moreover,
the crime differences cannot simply be attributed to “poverty” for
such an explanation does not fit the finer-grained analyses found
within
African countries where violent crime increased with GDP. This could
be
because only wealthier nations have the infrastructure to gather and
report
crime statistics comparable to those for East Asia and Europe. It is
also
possible that there are some gene-culture interactions when
opportunities
become available for engaging in behavior not otherwise affordable. In
Africa, for example, there is a link between wealth and AIDS:
wealthier males turn their resources into sexual partners (Rushton &
Bogaert, 1989)."
And in the US, in spite of affirmative action and in spite of all the
handouts, black behavior has gotten much more pathological (by white
standards) over the decades. It may not be unreasonable to speculate
that newfound resources liberated the true 'inner nature' of the
blacks when they're freed from constraints -- and this is in
contradistinction to other population groups.
The authors found it perplexing why it is that in AFrican countries
there is a link between wealth and AIDS - and they quoted wealthier
males turn their resources into sexual partners. .
RichAsianKid
Is there an original link to the score of Jews? This is fascinating as
people are endlessly told that Jews score higher and are very smart
etc. I should note that Ashkenazi Jews probably score much higher than
Sephardics and Oriental Jews. And it's interesting also that Israel
does so badly on the TIMSS and PISA. And while its showing was strong
in the international math olympiad, most recently Israel consistently
scored very low (e.g. the only East Asian "country" that it can be
matched to is Hong Kong, given their similar population size). E.g.
this is the most recent year in 2007:
http://www.imo2007.edu.vn/statics/result/all_country.xls
Normally China is #1-- not surprising given its population size, but
note how India is very very low in spite of similar population size.
Russia has had a consistently strong showing. Also note how strong
South Korea has been over the years (given its meager population
size):
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/imo-scores/
But back to Hong Kong and Israel: HK is ranked 14, but Israel is
ranked 52!
Raymond
<richas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Your point regarding economic development is very well put, but there
>> is no need to look down on the people. Those phone operators are no
>> less undignified than those Chinese factory workers who must endure
>> the backbreaking hard labor to earn probably even less than $6 a day.
>> Both are victims western capitalism, and both should be changed for
>> the better.
>>
>
>If capitalism is so evil, why is it the mainland Chinese are now so
>deeply in love with it? Are the Chinese evil?
>
>Never forget that wealth has a thousand fathers, but poverty is an
>orphan.
There is nothing evil about creating wealth, but capitalism is evil
because capitalism is not based on creating wealth but based on
exploiting the poor and disadvantaged. It is a serious mistake to
think that capitalism creates wealth. Capitalism is only a tool to
accumulate wealth by robbing the poor. The reason people would mistake
capitalism as the quick way to create wealth is only because wealth is
always harder to create than to steal.
The reason capitalism is running rampant in China is only because
Chinese people are more creative in creating wealth once they are free
to engage in economical development. Still, capitalism is the beast
that must be tamed and controlled if Chinese people want to keep their
newly created wealth for themselves.
RichAsianKid
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:15:18 -0700 (PDT),RichAsianKid
>
You wrote in your very first sentence: "There is nothing evil about
creating wealth".
But is there anything evil about creating inequality? Even if the
worst off is better off? And isn't that the unspoken dimension of all
those who rail against the free market (which, btw, is very different
from all this muttering and stuttering of 'democracy' as you'll no
doubt note [think democracy is a form of political socialism, that is
the familiar 1960s slogan power for the people, power for the weak,
yeah!!], but I guess that's a detail)?
Besides you then said capitalism is a tool to accumulate wealth by
robbing the poor. Well, isn't socialism worse, i.e. isn't socialism
merely a tool or disguise for the government to rob all its *people*,
i.e. rob everyone involved? Some are more equal than others of course,
but at the same time the values of the weak triumph precisely because
the elites have used them as devices of power (Nietzsche).
Look at the city of Hong Kong which is now considered part of the PRC.
Or Singapore for example. Both of these places are not exactly shining
hills or illuminating beacons of democracy, and yet both represent the
most successful economic oases in East Asia. In terms of GDP, these
two places rank even higher than Japan and NW European countries.
And at the same time, they also rank highest in the 2008 Index of
Economic Freedom:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/pdf/index2008_execsum.pdf
No, I think it's part of human nature to be selfish. And capitalism,
believe it or not, is actually a toned down version of our universal
quest for power. It may be an unhappy compromise for some reading
this, but it's a compromise that somehow works. That is, it harnesses
our selfish human potential to its fullest in a less destructive and
manageable form.
And with drive (if not instinct) on our side, so much is possible.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<338f70f3-70d5-4c9b...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>):
>
> You wrote in your very first sentence: "There is nothing evil about creating
> wealth".
>
> But is there anything evil about creating inequality? Even if the worst off
> is better off?
There is quite a big difference between creating wealth and creating
inequality.
When someone invents a better way of doing something useful, they are
creating wealth. When someone invents a builds something new, they are
creating wealth. And so on.
All of these are good generally.
On the contrary, when someone takes from the poor to give to the rich, they
create inequality. This is simply evil. It hurts everyone (even the rich).
Example of this "creating inequality} is when the local CCP takes land from
farmers and gives it to capitalists, without just compensation. The farmer
does not benefit, and, considering the risk of increased social instability,
the capitalists' benefit may be illusory.
Jim Walsh
(in article <nnrg24hsbcivgesfl...@4ax.com>):
>
> There is nothing evil about creating wealth, but capitalism is evil because
> capitalism is not based on creating wealth but based on exploiting the poor
> and disadvantaged.
Simplistic but with a grain of truth. Which makes it odd that you support the
CCP (otherwise known as the Chinese Capitalist Party).
israeliteknight
> On May 10, 10:12 pm,israeliteknight<israelitekni...@gmail.com>
Great charts.
And great points, as usual.
The only serious errors I see on the net worth chart are:
1) The US--per household, even after including home "ownership" [which
really means debt to the Japanese who own the banks which charge usury
they don't charge their own citizens], our net "worth" is a NEGATIVE
$73,000, not a positive $143k. And that figure might be low because
of the way Congress has concealed much of this debt, which only Ron
Paul understands and has been willing to risk his life and reputation
to expose.
2) Japan--even the Bank of Japan admits that net worth per household
in Japan, excluding real estate, is in excess of $1 million. In ONE
month, in December, each household in Japan socked away another TEN
THOUSAND DOLLARS:
http://christianparty.net/japanmonetarybase.htm
"Also as noted elsewhere by Buchanan, feminism often translates into
lower fertility rates as women defer child-bearing and pursue higher
careers, and on a societal
level this leads to a demographic implosion", PLUS feminazis didn't
gain a single slim dime, because as noted by the US Census Bureau:
1) Adding women to the ownership of a man owned business reduces its
potential receipts by $323,300 or 55.5%.
2) Adding men to the ownership of a woman owned business increases
its potential receipts by $108,100 or 71.5%.
3) Completely removing women from ownership increases potential
receipts by $431,400 to four fold greater than a woman owned business
with no men owners present.
iow, even the US Census Bureau knows that the net contribution of
women to GDP is a NEGATIVE number, a HUGE negative number.
That chart on education spending is way too conservative, in my
opinion. If we take the opposite ends of the spectrum, which are
essentially obliterated on that graph, we'll see that the country
which spends the LEAST [less than $3,000 per student annually] is also
the country which almost always scores the HIGHEST [Korea, TIMSS =
605], and the country which outspends almost everyone else [more than
$16,000 per student annually] is also the country which scores the
LOWEST of any industrialized nation [US, TIMSS = 496].
While we pretend that a public education is "free", most students in
Korea are in PRIVATE schools--which are obviously "free-er" in that
context, not just in cost, but subject matter which parents have ONE
HUNDRED PERCENT control over [while parents here can't even make their
children do homework without them dialing 911].
If a teacher in Korea ever tried to teach a student that their own
Korean Race was sub-human, which teachers here are REQUIRED to do now
regarding the WHITE RACE, every parent in Korea would have their kids
out of that school within the hour.
That's a great study on crime rates and wealth. It was absolutely
certain even by our own data that this was the case, but it's sure
nice to see it verified in other countries.
WHO WAS THE MURDER CAPITOL OF THE WORLD MORE THAN ANY OTHER CITY?
Well, Washington, DC. Where are the WEALTHIEST BY FAR blacks in the
world? WASHINGTON, DC.
duh.
Who has the lowest murder rate in the world? West Virginia. Who has
the LOWEST incomes [at least in the US]? West Virginia.
And EXACTLY WHAT is the difference? When DC achieved that status, 82%
of its population were blacks. Less than 4% of West Virginia's
population are blacks.
Same pattern for EVERY other US city EXCEPT those with a high
percentage of Hispanics--need I say more?
israeliteknight
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:15:18 -0700 (PDT), RichAsianKid
>
Good points.
What must be included in the equation is that our form of "capitalism"
DID work--but ONLY when White MEN were in charge of it.
Now that jewish men are, it's a controlled implosion.
Except it's really not that controlled any more.
israeliteknight
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:54:46 +0800, RichAsianKid wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > You wrote in your very first sentence: "There is nothing evil about creating
> > wealth".
>
> > But is there anything evil about creating inequality? Even if the worst off
> > is better off?
>
> There is quite a big difference between creating wealth and creating
> inequality.
>
> When someone invents a better way of doing something useful, they are
> creating wealth. When someone invents a builds something new, they are
> creating wealth. And so on.
>
> All of these are good generally.
>
> On the contrary, when someone takes from the poor to give to the rich, they
> create inequality. This is simply evil. It hurts everyone (even the rich).
>
> Example of this "creating inequality} is when the local CCP takes land from
> farmers and gives it to capitalists, without just compensation. The farmer
> does not benefit, and, considering the risk of increased social instability,
> the capitalists' benefit may be illusory.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
I don’t own black slaves. I don’t know anyone who owns black slaves.
I don’t even know anyone who knows anyone whose ancestors ever owned
black slaves, and if any ever did, I’m positive they’d have done the
same we’d have done and that our Forefathers like Mr. Jefferson did:
get rid of them as fast as they could. If slavery was ever a viable
economic construct, then Mr. Jefferson, who was born into being one of
the largest slave holders at the time, would not have died $200,000 in
debt [the equivalent today of $200 MILLION in debt]. None of his
slaves had that problem, and it was when he freed his slaves that
their troubles really began.
Today, there are 1.2 million blacks in American prisons, compared to
less than a third as many blacks who were ever under slavery. And
being on a plantation like Monticello is a LOT nicer than being in one
of our concrete barb-wired prisons.
It was jews not Whites who brought black slaves here and who were the
only ones who profited from slavery of blacks, so let THEM pay the
blacks reparations. Many slaves were Whites, and many of us might be
the descendants of these White slaves, so where are our reparations?
Are blacks going to pay that? Many slave holders were blacks and
jews, so why don’t THEIR DESCENDANTS chip in and pay the $18 TRILLION
blacks today “think” WE owe THEM? Most blacks were NOT slaves, so why
should their descendants receive any reparations—instead, THEY owe US
for: tripling their life expectancy, increasing their household
incomes TWENTY FOLD, and reducing their odds of dying a horrible AIDS
death TEN FOLD, compared to their 700 million cousins back in Africa.
If the following statement from Mr. Lincoln to blacks on the White
House Lawn is correct, then blacks ALSO owe us FOR THE ULTIMATE
SACRIFICE—the TWO WHITE MEN who died for each ONE black freed from
slavery:
“Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I
cannot alter it if I would. See your present condition, the Country
engaged in war, our white men cutting one another's throats, and then
consider what we know to be the truth — But for your race among us
there would be no war, although many men engaged on either side do not
care for you one way or another. It is better for us both therefore to
be separated.”
The REAL slavery is that each taxpaying White man in this country must
work 42 days each year JUST to earn enough money to pay JUST the taxes
which fund JUST the welfare which is paid JUST to blacks, even though
not a single one of them ever got a nickel’s worth of return on that
investment. Instead, all they ever got was the moral equivalent of a
sharp stick in the eye:
· The world’s undisputed highest murder rate.
· The world’s undisputed highest incarceration rate.
· The world’s undisputed highest divorce rate.
· The world’s undisputed highest illegitimacy rate.
· The world’s undisputed highest rap rate.
· The world’s undisputed lowest personal savings rate.
· The industrialized world’s only negative savings rate.
· FOUR White-built modern cities which have each qualified as
The Murder Capitol of the World.
· The world’s undisputed most expensive and least effective
education system.
· The world’s undisputed most expensive and least effective
health care system.
· The world’s undisputed most expensive and least effective
justice system.
· The world’s undisputed most expensive, least productive, and
most censored communications system [“news” media].
· The industrialized world’s undisputed most dangerous
transportation system—three times the fatalities per mile than
countries like Germany and England.
· The world’s undisputed most expensive and least effective
education system.
· The industrialized world’s worst capitol city subway system.
Without blacks, none of this would have been true. After they’ve all
gone back to Africa, it will be resolved overnight and White men,
rather than paying blacks ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR, will bank
that money.
The average productivity of their 700 million black cousins in Africa
is $50 per month, and it’s doubtful if they, as slaves, ever produced
more than half that, or $25 per month [otherwise Mr. Jefferson would
not have died IN DEBT]. Over the course of a century, 400,000 black
slaves producing $25 per month would have produced a maximum of $12
billion [$25/mo x 12 months x 100 years x 400,000 blacks = $12
billion], not a trace of which remains visible today. In one WEEK
today, social transfer payments from WHITES to blacks are more than
NINETEEN BILLION DOLLARS [$1,000 billion / 52 weeks = $19.2 billion],
meaning that in the first WEEK of every year, American Whites pay
almost twice as much to blacks as their ancestors EVER contributed to
GDP.
So who’s the slave now, when each WHITE man must work 42 days EACH
year, JUST to pay the taxes which fund JUST the welfare paid JUST to
blacks. WHEN are WE going to get paid BACK for that?
And this nation will finally be in accord with God’s Law—hallelujah!
So, Jim, I'm going to correct your FALSE presumption:
<<<On the contrary, when someone takes from the WHITES to give to the
BLACKS, they
create inequality. This is simply evil. It hurts everyone (even the
BLACKS). >>>
israeliteknight
>
>
>
> > There is nothing evil about creating wealth, but capitalism is evil because
> > capitalism is not based on creating wealth but based on exploiting the poor
> > and disadvantaged.
>
> Simplistic but with a grain of truth. Which makes it odd that you support the
> CCP (otherwise known as the Chinese Capitalist Party).
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
On several international math tests, 8% of Chinese students WOULD have
scored over 800, had 800 not been the limit.
What does that tell you about OUR tests--they were not designed for
students who were THIS bright.
IF this is representative of China as a whole, and I see nothing to
indicate that it's not, then 96 MILLION Chinese know and understand
math better than 99.9% of American students, INCLUDING White students
[IF we don't take a VERY close look at how the data has been
manipulated]. Such people will prosper no matter what you think about
their form of government.
CONVERSELY, more than 24 African nations have average IQ's lower than
70, and more than 80 of them [like ALL of them] have average IQ's
lower than 85. The LOWEST scoring non-African nation in TIMSS was
Iran, with an iq of 88 and a TIMSS math score of 411--who scored MUCH
higher than ALL African nations, including South Africa's whose
average IQ of 72 includes 9% of the population who're Whites.
Equatorial Guinea has an IQ of 59 and a population of 616,000. Tell
us how many Guinean students scored over 800?
I know you won't look it up, so permit me to answer: 0.
There are four standard deviations between Guinea and China.
Out of ALL 700 million blacks of Africa, IF they follow the normal
Gaussian Distribution [and I'm sure they do NOT], you'd be LUCKY to
find 2,000 who score as high as 96 MILLION Chinese.
Isn't Obama a Guinean? Why don't we just bring the 96 million
brightest Chinese over here to run the country and forget about Obama?
Do NOT blame this on Chinese. Nor on WHITES. NONE of us had a thing
to do with educating 700 million Africans, much less dumbing them down
[much less giving them frontal lobotomies, which is about the only way
to intentionally reduce a normal iq by this much].
In your lexicon, is this "inequality"? Is it OUR duty to raise
African incomes by $100,000 per year, JUST to match the Japanese?
If your own ancestors couldn't do it in 100,000 years, how long do you
think it will take US?
And, again, would you mind explaining why WE have to pay for it?
Raymond
There is nothing wrong with inequality in regards with personal
wealth. Inequality is not about wealth. It's about the unequal
possession of natural resources and the intrusion of other people's
living spaces. You are not wrong by being rich, but when you use your
wealth to take advantage of other people, you are wrong and you are
called a capitalist.
Even if the
>worst off is better off? And isn't that the unspoken dimension of all
>those who rail against the free market (which, btw, is very different
>from all this muttering and stuttering of 'democracy' as you'll no
>doubt note [think democracy is a form of political socialism, that is
>the familiar 1960s slogan power for the people, power for the weak,
>yeah!!], but I guess that's a detail)?
>
>Besides you then said capitalism is a tool to accumulate wealth by
>robbing the poor. Well, isn't socialism worse, i.e. isn't socialism
>merely a tool or disguise for the government to rob all its *people*,
>i.e. rob everyone involved? Some are more equal than others of course,
>but at the same time the values of the weak triumph precisely because
>the elites have used them as devices of power (Nietzsche).
Just because socialism is not yet perfect doesn't mean capitalism is
the solution. Socialism can always be improved. Capitalism, on the
other hand, must be eradicated in order to have any real equality in a
civilized world. Nietzsche is dead just as his god. There is no need
to worship a dead man's gibberish.
>
>Look at the city of Hong Kong which is now considered part of the PRC.
>Or Singapore for example. Both of these places are not exactly shining
>hills or illuminating beacons of democracy, and yet both represent the
>most successful economic oases in East Asia. In terms of GDP, these
>two places rank even higher than Japan and NW European countries.
>
>And at the same time, they also rank highest in the 2008 Index of
>Economic Freedom:
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/pdf/index2008_execsum.pdf
>
>No, I think it's part of human nature to be selfish.
It may be part of human nature to be selfish, but it is definitely not
part of human nature to harm others for the purpose of being selfish.
There must be a clear line, and capitalism is crossing that line.
That's why government control is vital in keeping capitalism in check
in both Hong Kong and Singapore.
Jim Walsh
(in article <2v2j24h3njjpr05ku...@4ax.com>):
> , but when you use your wealth to take advantage of other people, you are
> wrong and you are called a capitalist.
Nah, those who do that are called members of the CCP.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Raymond
<israeli...@gmail.com> wrote:
International bankers are the modern day vampires. All of them deserve
a stake driven through their heart in the middle of public square in
serving justice. I don't really care whether they are Jewish or not.
RichAsianKid
Why is equality this holy grail, this "summum bonum", this chief good
anyway? Equality can only be achieved thru mediocrity and this very
idea of equality of somehow every last single soul (as in democracy,
for instance) where every last person whether he's smart or stupid or
rich or poor is somehow of "equal" "worth" -- no, that's the
"socialist" equivalent from a political arena perspective. Should dumb
or borderline retarded people have equal say as someone with 130 IQ?
If that's not ideology, then what is? Moreover, power can only be
exercised through differential, else what utility would economic power
ever be? What good is $1 million if all your neighbors have $2M?
You're already so naive and so utopian. As I quoted the fable: genie
grants farmer a wish: you can have anything you want but the catch is
everything you wish for your neighbor gets double. Farmer pensively
thought for a sec before he wishes half his crops destroyed.
No, rank and percentile are way more important in the grand scheme of
things, be it SAT scores or socioeconomics.
> Even if the
>
> >worst off is better off? And isn't that the unspoken dimension of all
> >those who rail against the free market (which, btw, is very different
> >from all this muttering and stuttering of 'democracy' as you'll no
> >doubt note [think democracy is a form of political socialism, that is
> >the familiar 1960s slogan power for the people, power for the weak,
> >yeah!!], but I guess that's a detail)?
>
> >Besides you then said capitalism is a tool to accumulate wealth by
> >robbing the poor. Well, isn't socialism worse, i.e. isn't socialism
> >merely a tool or disguise for the government to rob all its *people*,
> >i.e. rob everyone involved? Some are more equal than others of course,
> >but at the same time the values of the weak triumph precisely because
> >the elites have used them as devices of power (Nietzsche).
>
> Just because socialism is not yet perfect doesn't mean capitalism is
> the solution. Socialism can always be improved. Capitalism, on the
> other hand, must be eradicated in order to have any real equality in a
> civilized world. Nietzsche is dead just as his god. There is no need
> to worship a dead man's gibberish.
>
>
To put the above point slightly more bluntly: people *know* deep deep
down not every last single soul counts equally. Let's say your brother
(or your parents, or your child) is now trapped behind one door in a
burning building. And there's another stranger trapped next to it.
Unfortunately there's time to only open one door. Which door would you
open and which person would you let out?
Or perhaps, let's repeat the same scenario but this time there are
*two* strangers trapped next door. By opening one door you can save
(one of) your child/brother/parents, but if you open the other door
you can save two. Which door would you open?
What if there are five strangers? Ten? Twenty? What if these strangers
don't look, speak, talk like you. They are of different skin color,
worship different religions, and they stink etc etc. Really, would you
let out your brother or parent or child or would you let out the
strangers?
It's a hypothetical situation of course, but I think the metaphysical
fact is that our loyalties are concentric and that fact very very
strongly, and perhaps fatally, undermines the naive utopian
"allcomers" worldview that the West is now exhorted to rally behind.
Put slightly differently, promiscuous altruism is not exactly an
'evolutionarily stable' strategy.
>
> >Look at the city of Hong Kong which is now considered part of the PRC.
> >Or Singapore for example. Both of these places are not exactly shining
> >hills or illuminating beacons of democracy, and yet both represent the
> >most successful economic oases in East Asia. In terms of GDP, these
> >two places rank even higher than Japan and NW European countries.
>
> >And at the same time, they also rank highest in the 2008 Index of
> >Economic Freedom:
>
> > http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/pdf/index200...
>
> >No, I think it's part of human nature to be selfish.
>
> It may be part of human nature to be selfish, but it is definitely not
> part of human nature to harm others for the purpose of being selfish.
> There must be a clear line, and capitalism is crossing that line.
> That's why government control is vital in keeping capitalism in check
> in both Hong Kong and Singapore.
>
But like I said before, capitalism is already a compromise. It allows
the healthy expression of power *without* actually directly hurting
the poor. Of course you will say, well, how can the rich be so cruel
to let the poor starve in some libertarian society etc. Maybe if the
poor should have a leash on the rich then capitalism really,
relatively speaking, hurts them. But that's only assuming that somehow
the rich will have some responsibility to take care of the poor. Which
brings up an unspoken dimension: and that is, if you're Japanese or
Korean or Taiwanese or mainland Chinese that above formulation may
seem cruel. For what you have in your mind is some form of welfare
state that at least some of your alms goes directly towards your own
kin. It works way less so in America (or Russia too, where I read one
study that they donate less to gypsy panhandlers than to those who
'look' more like Russians). Should Asians, for instance, foot the bill
of blacks who in turn claim outrageous grievances against whites even
though it's heaven-on-earth for blacks in America?
RichAsianKid
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:54:46 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > You wrote in your very first sentence: "There is nothing evil about creating
> > wealth".
>
> > But is there anything evil about creating inequality? Even if the worst off
> > is better off?
>
> There is quite a big difference between creating wealth and creating
> inequality.
>
> When someone invents a better way of doing something useful, they are
> creating wealth. When someone invents a builds something new, they are
> creating wealth. And so on.
>
> All of these are good generally.
>
> On the contrary, when someone takes from the poor to give to the rich, they
> create inequality. This is simply evil. It hurts everyone (even the rich).
>
> Example of this "creating inequality} is when the local CCP takes land from
> farmers and gives it to capitalists, without just compensation. The farmer
> does not benefit, and, considering the risk of increased social instability,
> the capitalists' benefit may be illusory.
>
In life there is no right or wrong and there is no 'evil'. There are
only things you see as furthering your own interests, and things that
you don't. There are only winners and losers. All those value-laden
terms are childish, like some child crying out "unfair" when things
don't go your way.
If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether
you agree or disagree with it or not. The fact that someone like you
cannot let go of this subject suggests to me that some deeper reason
is involved. And that's coming from someone who doesn't care much
about the CCP.... (check out RichAsianKid's history if you don't
believe me)
Oh one more thing. You violated your 30-day self-imposed exile yet
again, nigger! This topic must mean very much to you.
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.china/msg/8c9676840d94c22f?
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
RichAsianKid
All very illuminating points, and thank you again for all those
numbers! Certainly a lot of food for thought.... I think it
illustrates a point: it looks like nature somehow returns with a
pitchfork, whether it's feminism (low fertility rates and societal
collapse) or multiculturalism (dumbing down, "no child left behind!")
or communism (poverty).
I agree with practically everything you said, and I bet a lot of
posters here on these newsgroups do to. And that's why I just want to
ask this $1M question as if I'm the MC here: one of the things
NorthEast Asians won't understand is why do gentile whites allow this
"tragedy" to happen and/or self-afflict this tragedy upon themselves.
Now, of course, the US won WWII and so it perhaps has this leeway,
this luxe, this leverage, but as times goes by it surely looks
increasingly masochistic if not outright suicidal. And this has been
somewhat of a puzzle to me too. I know what you're going to say, Jews
are responsible for this and that. Again, fair enough, but really, do
you think the Koreans or NE Asians in general would even have allowed
this to happen if given a choice? Given a choice, as in, 'not
conquered'. People submit under force, but who would submit
voluntarily? You just have to look at the poor poor third world lower
IQ Malays vs the higher IQ Chinese. The Malays don't exactly welcome
the Chinese with open arms even if the Chinese (perhaps?) bring
benefits to Malaysia.
As for Korean education, here's a fascinating illustration of what
they're taught about the Japanese:
http://uqmgp.hp.infoseek.co.jp/
And the thing is this: Koreans and Japanese are phylogenetic brothers
and sisters!!!
And still one other point which I posted before: Singapore's founder
Lee Kwan Yew is way more realist:
Keep in mind that respect stems from self-respect, and if you don't
respect yourself, nobody else will. That's how many white liberals are
sabotaging their own. Yes, it's true, white guilt may be the
counterpart of Asian shame; I still highly doubt Asian shame will go
so far.
Raymond
Because it's the only way to have peace and justice on earth.
Equality can only be achieved thru mediocrity and this very
>idea of equality of somehow every last single soul (as in democracy,
>for instance) where every last person whether he's smart or stupid or
>rich or poor is somehow of "equal" "worth" -- no, that's the
>"socialist" equivalent from a political arena perspective. Should dumb
>or borderline retarded people have equal say as someone with 130 IQ?
>If that's not ideology, then what is? Moreover, power can only be
>exercised through differential, else what utility would economic power
>ever be? What good is $1 million if all your neighbors have $2M?
>You're already so naive and so utopian. As I quoted the fable: genie
>grants farmer a wish: you can have anything you want but the catch is
>everything you wish for your neighbor gets double. Farmer pensively
>thought for a sec before he wishes half his crops destroyed.
Equality is not about having the exact same kind of power for
everybody. Equality is about recognizing the fact that everyone is
entitled to enjoy life the way they prefer without causing harm to
others or being harmed by others. You are free to have all the money
and power of the entire world if you guarantee with your own life that
you will never use such wealth and power to harm anyone. That is the
true meaning of equality. Money can buy you anything you ask for
except somebody else's suffering. That's why the farmer in your fable
is a criminal who deserves to be hanged.
The world is never perfect, and disasters do happen from time to time
to all of us, and we as mere humans can never be perfect to always do
the right thing. However, if we ever give up on doing the right thing,
we will stop being humans altogether.
Life is not easy. That is why we enjoy living life.
>
>
>
>>
>> >Look at the city of Hong Kong which is now considered part of the PRC.
>> >Or Singapore for example. Both of these places are not exactly shining
>> >hills or illuminating beacons of democracy, and yet both represent the
>> >most successful economic oases in East Asia. In terms of GDP, these
>> >two places rank even higher than Japan and NW European countries.
>>
>> >And at the same time, they also rank highest in the 2008 Index of
>> >Economic Freedom:
>>
>> > http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/pdf/index200...
>>
>> >No, I think it's part of human nature to be selfish.
>>
>> It may be part of human nature to be selfish, but it is definitely not
>> part of human nature to harm others for the purpose of being selfish.
>> There must be a clear line, and capitalism is crossing that line.
>> That's why government control is vital in keeping capitalism in check
>> in both Hong Kong and Singapore.
>>
>
>But like I said before, capitalism is already a compromise. It allows
>the healthy expression of power *without* actually directly hurting
>the poor.
I disagree. Without the protection of the government, capitalism would
eat human beings alive. That was what happened in China before 1949.
And that was what happened in the west as well in the early days of
industrial revolution.
Of course you will say, well, how can the rich be so cruel
>to let the poor starve in some libertarian society etc. Maybe if the
>poor should have a leash on the rich then capitalism really,
>relatively speaking, hurts them. But that's only assuming that somehow
>the rich will have some responsibility to take care of the poor. Which
>brings up an unspoken dimension: and that is, if you're Japanese or
>Korean or Taiwanese or mainland Chinese that above formulation may
>seem cruel. For what you have in your mind is some form of welfare
>state that at least some of your alms goes directly towards your own
>kin. It works way less so in America (or Russia too, where I read one
>study that they donate less to gypsy panhandlers than to those who
>'look' more like Russians). Should Asians, for instance, foot the bill
>of blacks who in turn claim outrageous grievances against whites even
>though it's heaven-on-earth for blacks in America?
It's nothing but a Capitalists' lie to claim socialism is all about
being a welfare state. No, the rich does not need to take care of the
poor if the rich does not take away the already limited livelihood the
poor is relying on. On the other hand, if you are in control of 90%
the country's economy, then you are naturally responsible for the
welfare of at least 90% the country's people. This is not footing
anyone's bill. It is your responsibility for being rich.
Jim Walsh
(in article <g0ik249btidssff87...@4ax.com>):
>
> Equality is not about having the exact same kind of power for everybody.
> Equality is about recognizing the fact that everyone is entitled to enjoy
> life the way they prefer without causing harm to others or being harmed by
> others.
Well said.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> agree or disagree with it or not.
Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible suffering
in the short run.
Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
people.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
> nigger
Idiot.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
israeliteknight
Well, of course, it's no secret, Lee Kwan Yew is far more qualified to
be president of the US than a crypto-jew like Clinton EVER could be,
MAINLY because being REALISTIC about races would be better for ALL
races, but particularly the WHITE race.
WHITE MEN, not White women, must work 42 days each year JUST to earn
enough to pay JUST the taxes which fund JUST the social transfer
payments JUST to blacks, which works out to a TRILLION DOLLARS
ANNUALLY, or 2 Dubais per year.
http://christianparty.net/dubai.htm
> Now, of course, the US won WWII and so it perhaps has this leeway,
> this luxe, this leverage, but as times goes by it surely looks
> increasingly masochistic if not outright suicidal
I was unaware that we won any wars. To win a war, somebody has to
lose.
German household incomes are now more than TWICE as high as ours, and
that's AFTER reunification with a quarter of the country which had
been dumbed down by half a century of communism. And their personal
savings rates are higher than 27%, compared to our NEGATIVE rate.
Japanese household incomes are more than two and probably three times
higher than ours, and the official savings rate of 33% greatly under-
represents how much they REALLY save.
Of course neither country got saddled with a trillion dollar black
albatross.
The cost of government per household in Japan is $8,000/year, and
household incomes are 14 times that. The cost of government per
household in the US is $44,000 annually and average male incomes are
86% of that.
I lived in both Japan and Korea and know that this contest between
them is a two way street. I actually favor the Korean view right now,
as I'm on my way to North Korea and China to see first hand more than
200 pyramids, some of which are clearly bigger and perhaps grander
than the Giza Pyramid. The most interesting one is the tomb of
Dangun, the patriarch of Korea [and perhaps both Japan and China].
It's really frustrating to be in countries like these where people can
be openly proud of their races, then come back to the US and be called
a "racist" for DARING to just say "white". But I'm gonna say it
anyway--the other pyramid in China is the Great WHITE Pyramid );
It's only when I'm away from the country and come back that I sense or
feel the answer to your question "why do gentile whites allow this
'tragedy' to happen and/or self-afflict this tragedy upon themselves"?
The White Race bashing in our "media" is chronic, incessant,
pervasive, unstoppable, continual, never ending, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. And there's no question that jews are involved in this
intricate process: though they are way too stupid to have masterminded
such an ingenious and *successful* plan. It's not just the US, it's
most White nations. Even in places like Ireland, where the flow of
this garbage is about 1% of what it is here, it REALLY gets on your
nerves [even though it's much more subtle].
The DAY we cut it off is the DAY all Whites will snap out of the
trance. We had a chance with the internet, and if Ron Paul wins
because of the internet, and crypto-jews like McCain whose OPENLY jew
wife is the DAUGHTER of the jewish mafia leader [who's OPENLY AND
ILLEGALLY funding him] LOSES, jews can pack it up and go home.
I agree that no Asian race would allow this to happen, so it's really
embarasing that we let it happen here. Had it not been for AIDS
knocking off million jews recently, they might have realized their
wildest dreams.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<c57844a4-3938-4780...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
> The White Race bashing in our "media" is chronic, incessant, pervasive,
> unstoppable, continual, never ending, 24 hours a day,
it seems you do something to keep my filter from deleting your posts. I will
improve my filter.
In the meantime, there is no white race (or any other race). The human
species is not divided into races.
israeliteknight
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:29:22 +0800,israeliteknightwrote
> (in article
>
> > The White Race bashing in our "media" is chronic, incessant, pervasive,
> > unstoppable, continual, never ending, 24 hours a day,
>
> it seems you do something to keep my filter from deleting your posts. I will
> improve my filter.
>
> In the meantime, there is no white race (or any other race). The human
> species is not divided into races.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Well, Walsh, when we divide ourselves from you and yours, no matter
what you want to call yourselves, no "white people" or "honkies" are
going to be in your boat. You're gonna be all on your own. This
White Non-Race is gonna stop funding your non-race no matter what you
call yourselves:
http://christianparty.net/pollblacks.htm
We also want our money back. That's a TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR for
about the last 40 years. Do you have any idea how many of your non-
race it would take to pay it back? Not even four million Michael
Johnson's could pay it back, so it sure does look like a bad
"investment".
rst0wxyz
> On May 14, 6:51 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:29:22 +0800,israeliteknightwrote
> > (in article
> > <c57844a4-3938-4780-bbde-2a54d7841...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > The White Race bashing in our "media" is chronic, incessant, pervasive,
> > > unstoppable, continual, never ending, 24 hours a day,
>
> > it seems you do something to keep my filter from deleting your posts. I will
> > improve my filter.
>
> > In the meantime, there is no white race (or any other race). The human
> > species is not divided into races.
>
> > --
> > Love, Jim
> > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> > crossposts.)
>
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
> Well, Walsh, when we divide ourselves from you and yours, no matter
> what you want to call yourselves, no "white people" or "honkies" are
> going to be in your boat. You're gonna be all on your own. This
> White Non-Race is gonna stop funding your non-race no matter what you
> call yourselves:
>
> http://christianparty.net/pollblacks.htm
>
> We also want our money back. That's a TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR for
> about the last 40 years. Do you have any idea how many of your non-
> race it would take to pay it back? Not even four million Michael
> Johnson's could pay it back, so it sure does look like a bad
> "investment".
You mean Michael Jordan.
RichAsianKid
RichAsianKid asks innocently: what about Obama in reference to your
Lee Kwan Yew comment? Asians will never (seldom) go Obama and they
vote massively for Hillary (much like Hispanics) not so much because
they're for Hillary but because they're against Obama. But there're 3
points worth considering I think: (a) if Obama becomes the Dem nominee
and if he becomes prez beating McCain (huge assumption of course)
then it will wake a lot of Americans up as to where the country is
going (b) if Obama is prez then everytime there’s some earth-
shattering cry & complaint about alleged "racism" the reflexive
response has got to be “yo how then can a majority white country vote
some retard negro into power”? That is, remember this: when Condi Rice
visited China a while back the Chinese were calling her black bitch
and scratching their heads wondering “how can the US vote a chimpanzee
as secretary of state”? And so I guarantee you if Obama were to become
prez any residual US real or alleged prestige will be flushed down the
toilet; but still: (c) doesn't Hillary deserve her comeuppance, i.e.
isn’t it sweet poetic justice that those little little people that she
spent her lifetime championing for ends up rejecting her in favor of
something (sic) else?
As a friend of mine quipped, if you mix ice cream with shit, the ice
cream becomes shit, but the shit still doesn’t taste any better.
Here's an interesting take on Japan from an American nationalist --
fast forward to the 35 minute mark after that Elvis song and then you
can start listening. I've posted this before but it bears repeating.
Very very highly recommended: http://tinyurl.com/32c36t Once
again fast forward to the 35 minute mark
first
Cheers,
RichAsianKid
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 18:17:24 -0700 (PDT), RichAsianKid
>
Why don't you read the entire paragraph before your reply? i.e. hint:
there's no such thing as peace or justice. You may as well march on
the street crying out 'no justice, no peace' like some negro on
America streets. I know you swallowed all those 1960s slogans without
even digesting it and RichAsianKID was there too but snapped out of
it. You're still some junior judging from how you defended China. ;)
>
> Equality can only be achieved thru mediocrity and this very
>
> >idea of equality of somehow every last single soul (as in democracy,
> >for instance) where every last person whether he's smart or stupid or
> >rich or poor is somehow of "equal" "worth" -- no, that's the
> >"socialist" equivalent from a political arena perspective. Should dumb
> >or borderline retarded people have equal say as someone with 130 IQ?
> >If that's not ideology, then what is? Moreover, power can only be
> >exercised through differential, else what utility would economic power
> >ever be? What good is $1 million if all your neighbors have $2M?
> >You're already so naive and so utopian. As I quoted the fable: genie
> >grants farmer a wish: you can have anything you want but the catch is
> >everything you wish for your neighbor gets double. Farmer pensively
> >thought for a sec before he wishes half his crops destroyed.
>
> Equality is not about having the exact same kind of power for
> everybody. Equality is about recognizing the fact that everyone is
> entitled to enjoy life the way they prefer without causing harm to
> others or being harmed by others. You are free to have all the money
> and power of the entire world if you guarantee with your own life that
> you will never use such wealth and power to harm anyone. That is the
> true meaning of equality. Money can buy you anything you ask for
> except somebody else's suffering. That's why the farmer in your fable
> is a criminal who deserves to be hanged.
>
>
A rich guy needs a kidney transplant. He arranges a mutually agreeable
and *voluntary* agreement between donor and recipient. Then some human
rights advocate jumps in crying out no no no, you're taking advantage
of those little poor people, we the third party will NOT and will
NEVER permit this!! What do you think Raymond?
There's no right or wrong. There's only what you prefer and what you
don't, and you cry out or justify or rationalize accordingly to tap
into the other party's guilt. As usual, there are only winners and
losers. Might makes right and it's so elegantly Darwinian!
>
>
> >> >Look at the city of Hong Kong which is now considered part of the PRC.
> >> >Or Singapore for example. Both of these places are not exactly shining
> >> >hills or illuminating beacons of democracy, and yet both represent the
> >> >most successful economic oases in East Asia. In terms of GDP, these
> >> >two places rank even higher than Japan and NW European countries.
>
> >> >And at the same time, they also rank highest in the 2008 Index of
> >> >Economic Freedom:
>
> >> > http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/pdf/index200...
>
> >> >No, I think it's part of human nature to be selfish.
>
> >> It may be part of human nature to be selfish, but it is definitely not
> >> part of human nature to harm others for the purpose of being selfish.
> >> There must be a clear line, and capitalism is crossing that line.
> >> That's why government control is vital in keeping capitalism in check
> >> in both Hong Kong and Singapore.
>
> >But like I said before, capitalism is already a compromise. It allows
> >the healthy expression of power *without* actually directly hurting
> >the poor.
>
> I disagree. Without the protection of the government, capitalism would
> eat human beings alive. That was what happened in China before 1949.
> And that was what happened in the west as well in the early days of
> industrial revolution.
>
So to extend what you just wrote, you realize how democracy is merely
political socialism (can we guess that Jim Walsh will respond here?).
Do you think that a IQ 70 Negro should have as much political say as
an IQ 130 Professor? That's democracy, wow! One man, one vote. Isn't
that romantic, isn't that charming. What do you think?
> Of course you will say, well, how can the rich be so cruel
>
> >to let the poor starve in some libertarian society etc. Maybe if the
> >poor should have a leash on the rich then capitalism really,
> >relatively speaking, hurts them. But that's only assuming that somehow
> >the rich will have some responsibility to take care of the poor. Which
> >brings up an unspoken dimension: and that is, if you're Japanese or
> >Korean or Taiwanese or mainland Chinese that above formulation may
> >seem cruel. For what you have in your mind is some form of welfare
> >state that at least some of your alms goes directly towards your own
> >kin. It works way less so in America (or Russia too, where I read one
> >study that they donate less to gypsy panhandlers than to those who
> >'look' more like Russians). Should Asians, for instance, foot the bill
> >of blacks who in turn claim outrageous grievances against whites even
> >though it's heaven-on-earth for blacks in America?
>
> It's nothing but a Capitalists' lie to claim socialism is all about
> being a welfare state. No, the rich does not need to take care of the
> poor if the rich does not take away the already limited livelihood the
> poor is relying on. On the other hand, if you are in control of 90%
> the country's economy, then you are naturally responsible for the
> welfare of at least 90% the country's people. This is not footing
> anyone's bill. It is your responsibility for being rich.
>
So you're for the flat tax then? Rich people shouldn't pay a higher
*percentage*. I actually don't disagree.
RichAsianKid
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> > agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible suffering
> in the short run.
>
> Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
> but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> people.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
And you care so much about the Chinese people because....?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<cf2debca-d8cc-445c...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
I live among them.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<0d87ac34-10d8-471b...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> As a friend of mine quipped, if you mix ice cream with shit, the ice cream
> becomes shit, but the shit still doesn t taste any better.
Well, that's true. But since no human being is shit and no human being is
ice-cream, the metaphor has no meaning.
israeliteknight
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:01:46 +0800, RichAsianKid wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> >> (in article
> >> <7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5-aced-747613fbe...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> >>> agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> >> Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible
> >> suffering
> >> in the short run.
>
> >> Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
> >> but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> >> people.
>
> >> --
> >> Love, Jim
> >> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> >> crossposts.)
>
> >> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> >> 120,000+ Newsgroups
> >> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
> > And you care so much about the Chinese people because....?
>
> I live among them.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm really surprised that a Chinaman would let you even close.
israeliteknight
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
100% agreed.
israeliteknight
> On May 14, 4:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> > (in article
> > <7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5-aced-747613fbe...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> > > agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> > Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible suffering
> > in the short run.
>
> > Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
> > but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> > people.
>
> > --
> > Love, Jim
> > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> > crossposts.)
>
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
> As a friend of mine quipped, if you mix ice cream with shit, the ice
> cream becomes shit, but the shit still doesn’t taste any better.
I heard an even better one. If you make ten batch of brownies, and
announce to your guests that only one of the ten batches contains just
a small amout of dog .hit, but don't tell them which one--how many
brownies will your friends eat?
One part in 2,048 is STILL too much miscegenation in the Eye of the
LORD--and that didn't even begin to address miscegenation with
dog .hit:
A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to
his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the
LORD, Deuteronomy 23:2
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the
LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the
congregation of the LORD forever: Deuteronomy 23:3
ONE ancestor who was not of the holy seed, after ten generations, is
one part in 2,048, STILL too much to be accepted as "brethren":
When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee,
and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will
set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou
shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall
choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee:
thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
Deuteronomy 17:14-15
Obama is not our brethren as described above--and he's not even the
"stranger", as this was usually a reference only to WHITE strangers.
So when you say:
> some retard negro into power”? That is, remember this: when Condi Rice
> visited China a while back the Chinese were calling her black bitch
> and scratching their heads wondering “how can the US vote a chimpanzee
> as secretary of state”? And so I guarantee you if Obama were to become
> prez any residual US real or alleged prestige will be flushed down the
> toilet;
you make the FALSE presumption that there isn't a single nation out
there that doesn't already HATE us with a PASSION, and that's BEFORE
our upcoming unprovoked attack on Iran.
Loss of credibility is minor compared to that: but it WILL by itself
destroy the country. Whenever I hear a "white" [lower case 'w']
person claiming that they "support" obama, I hear a "white" person who
belongs in Africa along with obama and his, just as 91% of the 160,000
who took the following poll DEMAND:
http://christianparty.net/pollblacks.htm
Because you've clearly done your research, and because YOU understand
it, you know exactly what would happen if obama were required to take
the iq test we used to administer to soldiers: HE WOULD FLUNK, just as
"justice" clarence thomas would FLUNK, just as Congolese Rice would
FLUNK. By our PRIOR standards, not a single jew would ever have been
admitted as citizens:
<<<Gould's most inflammatory allegation consists of blaming IQ testers
for magnifying the toll of those lost in the Holocaust (p. 263). Here
he has followed the lead of Leon Kamin's (1974) The Science and
Politics of IQ. The Kamin-Gould thesis is that early IQ testers
claimed their research proved that Jews as a group scored low on their
tests and that this finding was then conveniently used to support
passage of the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 which then denied
entry to hapless Jewish refugees in the 1930s. Gould goes so far as to
claim (1996, pp. 195-198; 255-258) that Henry H. Goddard (in 1917) and
Carl C. Brigham (in 1923) labeled four-fifths of Jewish immigrants as
"feeble-minded ... morons".>>>
Ironically, Gould was right and Rushton was wrong.
Before the jewsmedia began promoting obama, hitlery, and son of CAIN,
the BIGGEST standing either of them ever showed in REAL polls was less
than 4%, and was usually less than 1%. It was only after they began
to promote these pariahs that they became "popular", and that is NOT
how a democracy, a republic, a constitutional republic, nor a "free"
country is supposed to work.
The message we need to get across is that the alien enemy foreign
agents who run our "news" are NOT supposed to be a fourth branch of
government which controls the other three, which is *exactly* and ONLY
why we have these three degenerates "running" for "president".
rst0wxyz
> On May 18, 2:01 am, RichAsianKid <richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> > > (in article
> > > <7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5-aced-747613fbe...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> > > > agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> > > Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible suffering
> > > in the short run.
>
> > > Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
> > > but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> > > people.
>
> > > --
> > > Love, Jim
> > > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> > > crossposts.)
>
Spoken like a true Nazi supremist.
israeliteknight
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:01:46 +0800, RichAsianKid wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> >> (in article
> >> <7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5-aced-747613fbe...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> >>> agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> >> Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible
> >> suffering
> >> in the short run.
>
> >> Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
> >> but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> >> people.
>
> >> --
> >> Love, Jim
> >> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> >> crossposts.)
>
> >> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> >> 120,000+ Newsgroups
> >> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
> > And you care so much about the Chinese people because....?
>
> I live among them.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>
> - Show quoted text -
ah, walsh, I'll bet even YOU comprehend this metaphor and are just
pulling our leg.
ps--but then again, when someone HATES the ESTABLISHED English
languate so much and "thinks" only in Ebonics that the sheer concept
of "race" cannot even be grasped, maybe you really don't.
israeliteknight
> On May 18, 9:38 am, israeliteknight <israelitekni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 2:01 am, RichAsianKid <richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 14, 4:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> > > > (in article
> > > > <7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5-aced-747613fbe...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > > If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> > > > > agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> > > > Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible suffering
> > > > in the short run.
>
> > > > Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
> > > > but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> > > > people.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Love, Jim
> > > > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> > > > crossposts.)
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
For the record, your racist slur is ill-founded, to say the least.
Nazis [as well as neo-nazis] are jews, and I do NOT support jews, in
any capacity. A nazi would be a person who claimed that expecting to
have QUALIFIED leaders running the country rather than degenerate
misfits is "supremist".
Neither of these three stooges would be qualified to be dog catcher in
my county, so what makes you nazis think they're qualified to be
"president"?
Our Founding Fathers, as well as GOD HIMSELF, would BARF on all three
of them, as none of the three are our brethren in ANY sense of the
word:
rst0wxyz
wrote:
> On May 18, 9:49 am, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 18, 9:38 am, israeliteknight <israelitekni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Spoken like a true Nazi supremist.
> For the record, your racist slur is ill-founded, to say the least.
> Nazis [as well as neo-nazis] are jews, and I do NOT support jews, in
> any capacity. A nazi would be a person who claimed that expecting to
> have QUALIFIED leaders running the country rather than degenerate
> misfits is "supremist".
>
> Neither of these three stooges would be qualified to be dog catcher in
> my county, so what makes you nazis think they're qualified to be
> "president"?
>
> Our Founding Fathers, as well as GOD HIMSELF, would BARF on all three
> of them, as none of the three are our brethren in ANY sense of the
> word:
>
> When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee,
> and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will
> set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou
> shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall
> choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee:
> thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
> Deuteronomy 17:14-15-
Save all your bible reading to yourself as I don't believe in such
superstition as god or Jesus Christ ro Mohammed, or a Buddha,...
Your religious crutch only hightlight your weak mind.
Raymond
Because it is the simple truth. There is no need to read the rest of
your excuses just like now. What you are saying is fundamentally wrong
and you know it.
That rich guy who depends on his money for everything never really
lived. It doesn't matter he can buy the entire world to prolong his
miserable pity earthly existence. He will suffer and he is suffering
both on earth and in hell regardless. The fact he can buy other
people's body part is not a show of his power over life. It's his one
way ticket to hell. It's the proof that his evil existence is based on
the suffering of the poor. With that kind of certificate, he the
richest man on earth is going to be the most miserable soul in hell.
It is called eternal suffering, and it's only given to these kind of
rich men who have privileges.
Then you know nothing about life. What you said is proof enough that
you never really lived either, just like that rich man buying body
parts to stay alive.
I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about. Democracy is a good
theory just like Communism is a good theory, but in real practice,
western democracy has failed because it has been hijacked by the rich
men in the west. Today's western democracy is entirely money
autocracy. Only the rich can speak and western public opinion is no
other than rich people's opinion.
>
>
>> Of course you will say, well, how can the rich be so cruel
>>
>> >to let the poor starve in some libertarian society etc. Maybe if the
>> >poor should have a leash on the rich then capitalism really,
>> >relatively speaking, hurts them. But that's only assuming that somehow
>> >the rich will have some responsibility to take care of the poor. Which
>> >brings up an unspoken dimension: and that is, if you're Japanese or
>> >Korean or Taiwanese or mainland Chinese that above formulation may
>> >seem cruel. For what you have in your mind is some form of welfare
>> >state that at least some of your alms goes directly towards your own
>> >kin. It works way less so in America (or Russia too, where I read one
>> >study that they donate less to gypsy panhandlers than to those who
>> >'look' more like Russians). Should Asians, for instance, foot the bill
>> >of blacks who in turn claim outrageous grievances against whites even
>> >though it's heaven-on-earth for blacks in America?
>>
>> It's nothing but a Capitalists' lie to claim socialism is all about
>> being a welfare state. No, the rich does not need to take care of the
>> poor if the rich does not take away the already limited livelihood the
>> poor is relying on. On the other hand, if you are in control of 90%
>> the country's economy, then you are naturally responsible for the
>> welfare of at least 90% the country's people. This is not footing
>> anyone's bill. It is your responsibility for being rich.
>>
>
>So you're for the flat tax then? Rich people shouldn't pay a higher
>*percentage*. I actually don't disagree.
Taxation is only a temporary solution. It is not the final solution.
Tax itself is a form of exploitation just like the interest rate.
Limiting the power of the money is the way. People are poor because
they are nor paid fairly. If everybody is paid fairly, then capitalism
will cease to exist automatically. Wherever you see capitalism, you
know somebody is getting exploited.
israeliteknight
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who's problem is it that you live in a Christian nation, where 93%
claim to be Christians [that's more than 281 million]? Not ours,
that's YOUR problem.
Who's problem is it that 99% of OUR [not your] Founding Fathers were
PROTESTANTS, less than 1% were Catholics, NONE were jews, NONE were
blacks, NONE were Muslims, and NONE were pagans? Not ours, that's
YOUR problem.
"We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious
establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and
especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence,
than the framers of the Constitution) . . . Probably at the time of
the adoption of the Constitution, and of the first amendment to
it . . . . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was,
that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far
as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the
freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and
to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference,
would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal
indignation . . . The real object of the amendment was not to
countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or
infidelity [secularism], by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all
rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national
ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the
exclusive patronage of the national government." Supreme Court Justice
Joseph Story on the First Amendment
http://christianparty.net/christianation.htm
If you don't like it, LEAVE. JUST LEAVE.
israeliteknight
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:29:54 +0800, RichAsianKid wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > As a friend of mine quipped, if you mix ice cream with shit, the ice cream
> > becomes shit, but the shit still doesn’t taste any better.
>
> Well, that's true. But since no human being is shit and no human being is
> ice-cream, the metaphor has no meaning.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
I bet even YOU comprehend this metaphor, walsh.
RichAsianKid
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT),RichAsianKid> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 18:17:24 -0700 (PDT),RichAsianKid
I once again ask you to re-read the entire paragraph before
prematurely replying. What I've been alluding to all thru is what I
posted before: http://tinyurl.com/34r6t4
I hope you reflect on that before continuing. And that is, why is
equality so ever elusive in spite of millions and millions if not
billions of dollars spent on it? Maybe that's even something fabled
Yankee ingenuity can't achieve? Have you ever thought about? And
isn't egalitarianism our new religion, our crusade, in the non-
communist West, that 'holy grail' that I said before? You sound like a
reasonably smart guy, I just don't think that you should swallow 1960s
cliches without digesting it, that's all.
> i.e. hint:
>
> >there's no such thing as peace or justice. You may as well march on
> >the street crying out 'no justice, no peace' like some negro on
> >America streets. I know you swallowed all those 1960s slogans without
> >even digesting it andRichAsianKIDwas there too but snapped out of
It's meant as a metaphor and the question is why should some third
party interfere on behalf of the perceived 'weaker party' when two
people have reached some mutual agreement. Besides it's not a question
of whether the rich depend on their money, something that you might
not understand - e.g. think why is it that some practise their violin
or golf swings or just work out in the gym or just simply play
warcraft and accumulate resources. No, the rich want more money not
because they *need* the money but because it's satisfying. Making
money becomes an art. Form and function. Beauty and mundane. Idealism
and pragmatism. This synthesis, isn't that your idealistic ideal? And
the fact that I can make more money than my neighbor makes me feel
good. It's not because I need the money, but to be able to achieve
something which my neighbor in his damn hardest try try try and
*still* can't achieve now *that* primal sense of rank is sublime.
Not to mention the sense of power. That is, sex. Sexual selection. And
isn't that another reason why too much is never enough, red queen
effect, whatever you call it. All factors equal, women always choose
those with higher status, be it money, be it good looks, smarts,
physical traits. Again, all factors equal. And that puts the lie to
this idea of utopianism that even some darwinists succumb to - once we
can all survive it's all's utopian and everyone's happily holding
hands singing Kumbaya.
Look who's talking! Know nothing about life? You're quite a dreamer I
must say! But I don't blame you for perhaps I've been there before
too. Say, will you share your girlfriend (never mind that some posters
said you're gay before) with someone else? That instinctual and tribal
sense is inherent and apparent for most of us. Will you sacrifice your
parent or brother or child to save just one, two, five, ten strangers
from the Sichaun earthquake? And if you say yes what if that's
genocide in Darfur? Hmmmm, our loyalties are concentric, no? And
living in this utopian egalitarian fantasy in some hypothesized utopia
may always seem easier for then you don't have to make choices. And it
wins you lots and lots of moral status points when you mouth the right
slogans because it shows how much you can afford to *spare*.
"Democracy is a good theory just like Communism is a good theory"???
Wow, thanks for CONFIRMING! You mentioned both in the same breath and
it's more than what I can possibly illustrate!! Thank you again.
Life's not fair. Grow up, Raymond. And again, you're for the flat tax
right? I make $1 million I pay $200K, you make $100K you pay $20K.
Fair, no?
RichAsianKid
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:01:46 +0800, RichAsianKid wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> >> (in article
> >> <7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5-aced-747613fbe...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> >>> agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> >> Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible
> >> suffering
> >> in the short run.
>
> >> Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
> >> but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> >> people.
>
> >> --
> >> Love, Jim
> >> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> >> crossposts.)
>
> >> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> >> 120,000+ Newsgroups
> >> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
> > And you care so much about the Chinese people because....?
>
> I live among them.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
You're not in Taiwan are you? Thought you are (were):
Remember this:
Abstract: (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - The vast majority of people in
Taiwan consider their republic as sovereign and independent, according
to a poll by Zogby International. 63 per cent of respondents share
this opinion, while 31 per cent think Taiwan’s sovereignty remains
undetermined.
Are you now saying that Taiwanese are Chinese? The CCP should extend
their grip to Taiwanese?
RichAsianKid
> On May 18, 9:01 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:29:54 +0800, RichAsianKid wrote
> > (in article
> > <0d87ac34-10d8-471b-84b7-f210b96af...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > As a friend of mine quipped, if you mix ice cream with shit, the ice cream
> > > becomes shit, but the shit still doesn’t taste any better.
>
> > Well, that's true. But since no human being is shit and no human being is
> > ice-cream, the metaphor has no meaning.
>
> > --
> > Love, Jim
> > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> > crossposts.)
>
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
> I bet even YOU comprehend this metaphor, walsh.
Here's Walsh's website if you're interested....
http://my.opera.com/jimwalsh/about/
He wrote that homosexuality is normal. He's what I'd call a caricature
of a campus leftist activist. Problem is he's just a generation late.
Here:
Follow the links & posts and go to post 30 and start reading.
And here's what he thinks about EuroAmericans in another exchange.
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.taiwan/msg/ef5afcb310bbc2b1?
Guess the West is indeed exceptional......
israeliteknight
> Author points out that scientists don't rely on non-science media for
> their scientific knowledge. Also describes the unreliability of
> (aallegedly) scientific conclusions presented in those non-science media.
> ##############
> http://bitchmagazine.org/article/mad-science
> Mad Science: Deconstructing Bunk Reporting in Five Easy Steps
> By Beth Skwarecki
> *Beth Skwarecki majored in biology but ended up as a programmer and a
> writer. She lives in Ithaca, New York.
> Bitch Magazine --Spring Issue
> British scientists have uncovered the truth behind one of modern culture's
> greatest mysteries: why little girls play with pink toys. Is it because
> toy companies flood whole store aisles with the color? Or because
> well-meaning relatives shower girl babies with pink blankets and clothing?
> Nope. According to the men in lab coats, it's purely biological.
> Apparently, women are hardwired to like pink because our cavewoman
> foremothers spent their days gathering red leaves and berries amongst the
> trees while their husbands were out hunting. Later, women needed to notice
> red-faced babies and blushing boyfriends. And why do men like blue?
> Because it's the color of the sky.
> This evolutionary just-so story takes up three pages of a 2007 issue of
> Current Biology. To back up the assertion that pink is a universal girly
> preference worth examining, the authors refer to a 1985 study finding that
> little girls use more pink and red crayons in their drawings than little
> boys do.
> Dig further, however, and the story completely falls apart.
> British women do prefer pink, but the author's claim of a "robust,
> cross-cultural sex difference" turns out to be neither. The scientists
> compared British natives with Chinese immigrants to Britain, and glossed
> over the differences. For example: The girliest color in the British
> results, a purplish-pink, was in fact the Chinese men's favorite.
> Nowhere do scientific findings get more mangled than when they're about
> the differences between men and women. According to the science pages,
> women aren't just biologically hardwired to prefer pink to blue. We're
> also predisposed to backstab one another in the workplace, cry in the
> boardroom, and have both lower iqs and less of a sense of humor than men.
> Some misleading stories come from bad science, where the study authors'
> conclusions aren't supported by their own data. Others are well-conducted
> studies whose conclusions mutate upon contact with the mainstream media.
> Newspapers and websites are prone to playing fast and loose with their
> reports on studies, often neglecting to reveal salient facts about a
> study's sample group or methodology.
> The fact is that science articles aren't designed to be read by
> non-scientists. College and grad students in the sciences are trained in
> how to do it: They review papers and discuss them in journal clubs; learn
> how to question methodologies (Is that sample really big enough? Was that
> the right test to use?); and learn how to be critical of authors'
> interpretations (Do the results really mean what they say they mean?).
> Students also know to look at context for each study, looking up previous
> papers on the subject, reviewing the authors' previous work, and searching
> out any evidence of bias that might color a study's findings.
> Journalists looking for a quick story, however, do little such research.
> And in an age where news sites, wire services, and blogs pick up stories
> with lightning-fast speed, bad research gets around. When London's Sunday
> Times reported on a 2007 study claiming that men get dumber in the
> presence of blond women, the paper got the name of the journal wrong,
> citing the Journal of Experimental Psychology rather than the Journal of
> Experimental Social Psychology. Nearly every subsequent news article
> repeated the error because they were content to simply reword the Times'
> version of the story rather than finding and discussing the study itself.
> The Times reported that blond-exposed subjects "mimic the unconscious
> stereotype of the dumb blonde." But that's not exactly what the study
> tested. Rather, subjects - most of them female - fared slightly worse on
> online trivia quizzes after rating hair color (is she a blond, brunet, or
> redhead?) on pictures of beauty queens. You could just as easily say that
> beauty queens make people dumb, or photos of dazzling smiles make people
> dumb. It seems this study made the news mostly because it could be
> illustrated with photos of Marilyn Monroe and filled out with dopey quotes
> from blond models and actresses, as well as blond jokes from the Times
> itself.
> Ben Goldacre, who writes the "Bad Science" column for the UK's Guardian,
> speculates that science stories come in three varieties: the wacky story,
> the breakthrough story, and the scare story. Most widely reported studies
> ongenderseem to fall into the wacky category - the supposed innate
> preference for pink is one of them - and their media strength is that they
> tend to support existing stereotypes of women, reassuring readers that
> social stereotypes do, in fact, reflect reality.
> We can't put all the blame on mainstream media, of course. Scientists are
> part of the same culture as the rest of us, and they too have biases that
> shape their hypotheses and interpretations. The scientific community can
> also be as fad-driven as popular culture, creating a climate in which many
> researchers simultaneously geek out over one specific theory while
> competing ideas get lost or abandoned. So let's learn how to read between
> the lines of these dubious articles. Next time you see an article
> reporting that women are happiest when they're picking up their man's
> dirty socks, try asking these questions:
> 1. DO THE CONCLUSIONS FIT A LITTLE TOO WELL WITH CULTURAL STEREOTYPES?
> Science has the capacity to surprise and amaze us, but sometimes it's more
> satisfying when you can jump up and say, "Yes! I knew it all along!" Which
> is why articles touting the awesomeness of traditionalgenderroles are an
> evergreen subject in the science pages.
> A 2007 study from the American Society for Cancer Research journal Cancer
> Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention titled "Physical activity and
> breast-cancer risk" found fame in such headlines as the BBC's "Housework
> cuts breast-cancer risk." That's not to mention the 2006 study on
> housework and cancer in Canadian women, the 2005 study on housework and
> cancer in Chinese women, or the 2004 study ... you get the idea. [See
> "Home Is Where the Cardio Is," Bitch no. 27]
> The reality? Being physically active seems to help prevent cancer, and the
> researchers behind the recent studies have been counting housework as
> physical activity. Housework, sports, and active jobs all had significant
> effects in reducing cancer risk, and the authors think the key may be
> frequent, low-impact exercise.
> An author on several of these studies, Christine Friedenreich, told the
> Calgary Herald that in past studies, researchers counted jobs like
> construction work as physical activity, but not housework - and it turns
> out that domestic tasks are, duh, hard work.
> This means that many women are getting more exercise than they (or their
> doctors) had realized. That should be good news for them - but instead,
> the message imparted by the news reports is, "Get back into the kitchen!
> That's all the exercise you need!"
> It's worth noting that one of the study's sponsors, Cancer Research UK,
> answered questions about the 2006 study on its website, pointing out that
> for many of the older women in the study group, housework was their
> primary form of exercise. The organization went on to address charges of
> sexism directly, making sure to mention a related 2006 study that found
> housework cuts the risk of bowel cancer for both men and women,
> concluding, "There's absolutely no excuse for men to dodge the dusting!"
> 2. DOES THE STUDY AGREE WITH THE HEADLINE?
> Behind every junk-science headline is a scientific journal article.
> Sometimes the university or organization that was home to the study sends
> out a press release to mainstream outlets, hoping for attention; other
> times, journalists simply scan the abstracts of academic journals for
> newsworthy fodder. Chances are a story will make the papers if it's got
> some kind of hook - weird (like the idea that housework has curative
> properties), controversial (like claims that men are smarter than women),
> can be illustrated with bikini babes (like the dumb-blond study), etc.
> Especially for online news outlets, these hooks are valuable because they
> make good linkbait: the kind of thing they hope you'll forward to friends
> or post on your blog.
> The London Times probably hadn't read the full study titled "Prejudice
> against women in male-congenial environments: Perceptions ofgender-role
> congruity in leadership" when they summarized it under the headline
> "Office Queen Bees Hold Back Women's Careers" in a 2006 article. The
> paper's charge - that "women bosses are significantly more likely than men
> to discriminate against female employees" - may indeed have surprised the
> study's authors.
> The actual study went something like this: Participants weren't put in a
> boss's role, but an observer's. They read a purposely vague description of
> a manager who was being considered for promotion and were asked to imagine
> how qualified the candidate was, and whether he or she was likely to
> succeed. The study made a number of interesting points that the Times
> could easily have reported on - for instance, that female managers were
> judged to have both very masculine and very feminine traits, possibly in
> an attempt to reconcile theirgenderwith the traditionally
> masculine-associated role of leadership.
> Both the male and female participants were optimistic about the male
> manager's success, but not about the woman's (except when she worked in a
> female-dominated industry). Sounds pretty realistic, right? The
> researchers thought so too. They write, "Participants' predictions about
> the [female] candidate's future salary ... mirrored the fact that women
> earn less money in the same position [than] men do in real life." So where
> are those "queen bees" that the Times so gleefully name-checked? Exactly.
> It's not difficult to track down the science behind the story. Look for
> the names of the researchers, the journal their work appeared in, and (if
> you're lucky) the title of the article. Type whatever info you've got into
> Google Scholar (www.scholar.google.com), and soon you'll be looking at an
> abstract for the paper. Scientific journals are usually locked behind
> paywalls, unfortunately, so you may need to call upon a pal at a
> university for access to the entire study.
> 3. CAN YOU SPOT THE DOUBLE STANDARD?
> Whether it's lions fathering all the cubs in their pride, or human males
> getting a pass for cheating on their girlfriends, males sleeping around
> rarely make the news - it's the natural order, after all - unless the
> article is happily touting the genetic advantages a male gets from
> spreading his dna around.
> But when female cheetahs were found to do the same by a Zoological Society
> of London study, the study's words about "promiscuous" felines were
> quickly outnumbered in Google's index by the phrase, "cheetahs are sluts!"
> Study author Dada Gottelli was quoted thus: "Mating with more than one
> male poses a serious threat to females, increasing the risk of exposure to
> parasites and diseases. Females also have to travel over large distances
> to find new mates, making them more vulnerable to predation." Sounds like
> a cheetah-specific version of certain sex-ed curricula: Don't sleep
> around, girls, or you'll catch lots of diseases and the male cheetahs
> won't respect you in the morning. Male cheetahs, however, aren't
> "promiscuous" - they're creating a healthier gene pool.
> Not too surprising, then, that most of the coverage glossed over the
> evolutionary benefit of promiscuity for both male and female cheetahs:
> Multiple cubs by multiple cub daddies increases the likelihood of genetic
> diversity - a definite positive for a threatened species. Furthermore, the
> study noted that the rates of infanticide in cheetahs are much lower than
> in other big-cat populations, likely because male competitors don't know
> which offspring might be theirs. But why let the facts slow down a good
> headline?
> In a human example of a double-standard story, women were found to be
> "worse oglers" than men, according to the Sydney Morning Herald summary of
> a study published in the journal Hormones and Behavior. (The Herald
> inexplicably illustrated its story with headshots of Sharon Stone and Mr.
> Bean). What does that even mean, you ask? When researchers showed "sexual
> stimuli" (read: Internet porn) to heterosexual men and women, they
> expected women to look more at faces and men to look more at genitals. The
> newspaper reported that, in fact, "almost the reverse was true."
> Actually, the study says that men looked at women's faces more than women
> did, and men and women looked with equal frequency at the pictured
> genitals; women who weren't on oral contraceptives looked slightly more.
> So where did that headline come from?
> The study authors didn't originate the "worse oglers" language; they even
> warn in the study that they can't say why subjects' gazes lingered where
> they did, or whether they were turned on as they looked. So it's not fair
> to say that the study was about "ogling," a word that suggests that
> looking is lustful and perhaps inappropriate.
> To say that women are "worse" at ogling, we have to believe, first, that
> ogling is bad, and second, that men do it at some normal, baseline level
> that women are exceeding. The judgmental language makes it sound like
> women in the study were indulging a bad habit. Right there in the headline
> is the double standard: If men ogle, it's normal, but when women do it,
> they're "worse."
> 4. IS THERE ANOTHER CONCLUSION THAT WOULD BE JUST AS VALID?
> Sometimes a news story is an accurate representation of the scientists'
> conclusions, but the scientists' conclusions don't follow their results.
> Take this 2005 BBC headline: "Men Cleverer Than Women." The study, at the
> time of the headline yet to be published in the British Journal of
> Psychology, claims that as iq scores rise, thegendergapwidens, with 5.5
> men for every woman scoring at the "genius" level of 155 or higher on iq
> tests. That's all the evidence the authors (one of whom, Richard Lynn, has
> published similar studies on racial differences in iq) give to support
> their claim.
> But there is another, equally powerful explanation that's been considered
> for years before this study came along: iq tests - which don't measure
> intelligence directly, but try to approximate it - have a wealth ofgender, racial, and cultural biases.
> In a 2000 survey of sex differences in intelligence called "The Smarter
> Sex: A Critical Review of Sex Differences in Intelligence," in the
> Educational Psychology Review, Diane Halpern and Mary LaMay write that
> Lynn's approach "rests on the belief that the test of intelligence is
> really measuring what psychologists mean by intelligence, and that it is
> doing so in a way that will yield a fair assessment for males and females
> - two assumptions that may not be justified."
> Statistically, men do outperform women on certain types of questions, but
> the reverse is also true; test designers use this fact to calibrate iq
> tests, balancing male-biased with female-biased questions so that men and
> women average the same scores on the same test. Addressing Lynn's research
> directly, Halpern and LaMay say, "Using data from tests that are designed
> to yield no sex differences to argue for a difference is psychometric
> nonsense." Either the tests were miscalibrated (and thus biased) or Lynn's
> results are a fluke: Probably the latter, since other studies (like a 1995
> study on a population similar to Lynn's, done by scientists at the
> Flinders University of South Australia and published in the British
> Journal of Clinical Psychology) found no difference between males and
> females.
> So why even report the latest study from this obviously biased researcher?
> Perhaps it's reassuring to believe that sexism isn't sexism, it's science;
> that the status quo reflects some kind of natural order; and that anyone
> who claims otherwise is a whiner. Or perhaps Lynn's studies make the news
> because he's sort of a one-man show of bunk science - after all, this is
> the same guy who claims that African-Americans have higher iqs than
> Africans because they have Caucasian genes that make them smarter.
> Then there are the stories that point the finger at feminism for a variety
> of historical incidents and ills. The 2007 Boston Globe story titled
> "Stone Age Feminism? Females joining hunt may explain Neanderthals' end"
> is one of these.
> The supporting study, authored by archaeologists Steven Kuhn and Mary
> Stiner, turned on the hypothesis that Neanderthal women participated in
> hunting alongside Neanderthal men. The dangers of hunting - among them,
> getting stomped and gored by various beasts - along with the fact that
> many cavegals' lives were cut short before they could produce baby
> Neanderthals, meant that the breeding population dwindled and the species
> died out.
> But the evidence for this "stone age feminism" wasn't evidence at all. The
> hypothesis that the women hunted alongside the men was developed because
> the study's authors found no clues suggesting that Neanderthal women were,
> well, homemakers - no grinding stones and bone needles that would signal a
> traditional division of labor in the species. So is it possible that male
> and female Neanderthals hunted together successfully, and the species
> dwindled for some other, totally unrelated reason? And, for that matter,
> why not hypothesize that coed hunting parties actually contributed to the
> Neanderthals' longevity? More than 100,000 years of existence is nothing
> to sneeze at, after all. Why jump to the conclusion that feminism ruins
> everything? Ah, yes: because it's a story that will sell papers.
> 5. IS THE STUDY EVEN SCIENCE?
> In his "Bad Science" column, Goldacre reminds us that so-called studies
> may not have studied anything at all. A hair-removal cream company once
> asked Goldacre to come up with a formula calculating which celebrity had
> the sexiest walk. "We know what results we want to achieve," they told
> him, naming celebrities with shapely legs whose high-ranking walks could
> move units of their product.
> When Goldacre refused, another scientist supplied the company with a
> formula, thinking it would be used as a joke. The company's press release
> became an article in the Telegraph, crediting a nonexistent "team of
> Cambridge mathematicians" and with no mention of the so-called study's
> actual source.
> Lesson learned: If you can't find the source article, it may not actually
> exist.
> In another example of non-science, BBC News studiously reported in late
> 2007 that humor "comes from testosterone." The article? Based on a British
> Medical Journal study recording the casual responses of passers-by to a
> unicyclist. The article notes that little boys had more "aggressive"
> responses to the unicyclist (trying to knock him over) and young men made
> the most jokes - typically an unimaginative variant of "Lost your wheel?"
> - with elderly men's jokes being less hostile ("Does it crush your
> bollocks, mate?"). The article also featured a graphic showing the ebb of
> testosterone in men over time; since young men have the most testosterone
> and made the greatest number of jokes, the author concludes, testosterone
> must be the source of humor.
> If all you read was the BBC piece, you might think that there's a clutch
> of professors somewhere in England taking this theory seriously. In fact,
> the deliberately hilarious study was published in the BMJ's Christmas
> issue, famous for its joke articles. (A study from the previous year was
> titled "Surgeons are taller and more handsome than physicians" and used a
> photo of George Clooney as a control.)
> The fact that the BBC didn't pick up on the joke speaks volumes about the
> mainstream media's unceasing appetite for gendered potshots. How many of
> us would really be surprised to see a "legitimate" report linking
> testosterone and humor? Would it look anything like the 2005 report from
> Stirling and St. Andrews universities in the UK that claims testosterone
> causes women to be "career-driven" like men? The humbling take-home
> message from these studies is that traditionally masculine traits still
> belong to men - even when women share them.
> Although there is an element of humor in how wrong the news media can get
> science, the trend isn't a harmless one. While plenty of smart people
> question biased headlines of all stripes, casual readers - particularly
> young ones - are likely to skim the stories and tuck them away in the
> pocket of their brains where stereotypes are kept. It's bad enough when we
> see images of women as passive, petty, dumb, or slutty in fiction or
> advertisements, but stereotypes that come with the lofty stamp of science
> have the air of being, well, factual.
> After all, if women are biologically wired to be weak or catty or dumb or
> humorless, then there's nothing wrong with writing consistently airheaded
> female movie and tv characters, dismissing women in positions of power as
> "bitches" or "too emotional," or claiming that institutional sexism
> doesn't exist, women just aren't smart enough to be ceos, grand masters,
> or surgeons. These studies reassure people that media images reflect
> reality, that society reflects biology, and that nothing can or should be
> changed.
> Perhaps we should just take solace in one final study, released by the
> American Psychological Association in 2005 but picked up by very few
> mainstream sources. The title? "Men and women found more similar than
> portrayed in popular media."
> ____
I would like to understand more about what his motivation is for
wanting it to appear that men and women are "more similar than
portrayed in popular media".
They are DIFFERENT.
They are VERY DIFFERENT.
Celebrate the HUGE DIFFERENCES because it will ALWAYS BE.
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the
man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ, 1
Corinthians 11:3
israeliteknight
Our Founding Fathers never wanted "equality" with muds. In fact, muds
NEVER had the vote until the snivel war, so you sure can't blame this
"concept" on them:
“It is better for the Negro and white races to be separated,”
President Abraham Lincoln said in an address to some 500 free Negroes,
on the White House lawn, April 14, 1862. “You and we are different
races. We have between us a broader physical difference than exists
between any other two races.
“Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical
difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think.
“Your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us,
while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each
side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason, at last, why we should
be separated."
Isn't the "equality" you seek exactly what gave us FOUR cities, not
just ONE, [one of which was our nation's capitol] which qualified as
Murder Capitol of the World?
Isn't it why ONE OUT OF EVERY THREE MEN in the world who're behind
bars are in the US [yet we're only 4.8% of the world population]?
Isn't it why we have the world's HIGHEST DIVORCE RATE, bar none?
What has happened to blacks since MLK marched on Washington demanding
"equality"?
baldeagle
>... The vast majority of people in
> Taiwan consider their republic as sovereign and independent,...
>
A lie.
> Are you now saying that Taiwanese are Chinese?
Taiwanese are Chinese.
achtung
israeliteknight
> On May 19, 2:07 pm, israeliteknight <israelitekni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 9:01 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:29:54 +0800, RichAsianKid wrote
> > > (in article
> > > <0d87ac34-10d8-471b-84b7-f210b96af...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > As a friend of mine quipped, if you mix ice cream with shit, the ice cream
> > > > becomes shit, but the shit still doesn’t taste any better.
>
> > > Well, that's true. But since no human being is shit and no human being is
> > > ice-cream, the metaphor has no meaning.
>
> > > --
> > > Love, Jim
> > > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> > > crossposts.)
>
> > > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
> > I bet even YOU comprehend this metaphor, walsh.
>
> Here's Walsh's website if you're interested....
>
> http://my.opera.com/jimwalsh/about/
>
> He wrote that homosexuality is normal. He's what I'd call a caricature
> of a campus leftist activist. Problem is he's just a generation late.
> Here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5pov9a
>
> Follow the links & posts and go to post 30 and start reading.
>
> And here's what he thinks about EuroAmericans in another exchange.
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.taiwan/msg/ef5afcb310bbc2b1?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Heh, EXCELLENT trap you set for walsh:
<<<I'll just be cowering under the table here - so cowardly and humbly
-
and submit this innocent thesis: immigration can be harmful too!
Wouldn't you agree Jim Walsh? Because you said that *every* wave of
immigrants has enriched America. But then by your logic - look at
what
the Europeans did to the Native Americans! So then you're now saying
that not every wave of immigrants has enriched America. Who knows,
should we look forward to the next phase of Mexican enrichment? Do
you
think it is? What do you think? Any practical solutions here? >>>
Since walsh thinks that the "wave" of immigration which destroyed the
savage indian RACE which cut the legs off White settlers, impaled them
on carts, and rolled them around the teepee so they could torture them
to death, was bad for these savages, you have to wonder what would
happen to walsh if we'd left him on the plain with no Cavalry to call.
Of course we all know that the Mexicans coming to this country will
make the US look worse than Mexico. In fact, downtown Santa Ana
already looks WORSE than Tijuana did BEFORE WE CLEANED TIJUANA UP.
Poor self-hating, White Race Traitor [and now sodomite] Walsh to whom
the concept "race" is so esoteric--he'd be the FIRST one to call the
ALL-WHITE Cavalry if the savages were sawing his legs off.
RichAsianKid
wrote:
> On May 18, 2:01 am, RichAsianKid <richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> > > (in article
> > > <7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5-aced-747613fbe...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> > > > agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> > > Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible suffering
> > > in the short run.
>
> > > Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
> > > but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> > > people.
>
> > > --
> > > Love, Jim
> > > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> > > crossposts.)
>
When you see a black it's almost certain that he got in through
affirmative action http://tinyurl.com/2zl5wl
I do wonder about your repeated claims about low Jewish IQ though.
It's true that Sephardics are not Ashes, and there is of course
evidence of low Jewish IQ (Lynn and Vanhanen IQ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:QHC_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png
) , and as you've (we've) posted low Israelis TIMSS scores, or the
relatively poor performance of the intellectual math olympiad for
Israelis, or even recent GMAT scores for Israelis ( http://i28.tinypic.com/2hpr5gm.jpg
, keeping in mind that this is not necessarily a representative
sample) and business is supposed what Jews are so adept at; but on the
whole there is a lot more (it seems) that Jews or at least Ash Jews
actually do have higher IQ. I'm sure you don't need me to cite the
references but from Charles Murray to Kevin MacDonald (who can hardly
be called a philosemite) there's a lot written about this subject.
Even so-called (gentile) white nationalists have uncomfortably
admitted this. I'm very open to this question and you may actually
have a very sympathetic ear here with no axe to grind (though some
Asians esp mainland Chinese view Israel as merely some deformed
appendage of the West, and who knows, even your typical leftist would
agree) but the question still remains as to how this low IQ Jewish
people can somehow manipulate and persecute a gentile white majority
with such finesse.
I think a sounder approach for any nationalist may be that you love
your kin more than your love those of strangers, and that's not
because he is necessarily objectively better. Parents love their own
children simply because they're theirs. Frank Salter from the Max
Planck Institute wrote this very thought-provoking tome which is
highly recommended:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=lPuW_J_NowkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=frank+salter&ei=JSIySOHvLqCmigGzvOWdDw&client=firefox-a&sig=QXUuiE9f3HYyo-4arhGC9-MSq64
That is, family > kin > ethny > humanity. Our loyalties are concentric
as I've said many times before and it would be stupid and silly to
imagine that somehow you can or should love children of strangers more
than your own. I think that's the fatal folly of the left, and the
fatal folly of of this ideology of universalism and promiscuous
altruism -- if for no other reason that this group survival strategy
is evolutionarily unstable.
I'd also point out one other thing about 'race' as I've read your
other replies to Bob Chavalier or Jim Walsh etc. It may sound like
some heresy to you but actually it doesn't matter whether there are
concrete races, just as you may disagree with what 'tallness' means,
whether it's 5'11 or 6'2 or 6'5 as classified as tall, or how many
categories of 'tallness' there really are. It still does not
invalidate the concept of 'height' even if it exists in a contiuum.
And yes it may mean different things to different peoples but the
differences still remain, and in the case of races, in the form of
gene clines which the human genome project educates us. Besides,
remember Clinton and his babbling about how we're all 99.9% equal?
Well, tell that to someone with cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia.
The mutation of 3 or 1 *nucleotides*, respectively, i.e. the loss of
or
substitution of just *one* amino acid is already enough to cause such
grief for a normal human being. And what are we to make of the fact
that we are 98.5% similar to chimpanzees? To the extent that we share
similarities, we share that almost instinctual tribal sense with our
animal kingdom - we're territorial, we're hierarchical, and we prefer
our own kin. We certainly do NOT prefer repeated acts of *promiscuous
altruism* which has virtually never been found in nature. No, that's
not how we behave. And a very damning piece of evidence to this idea
that 'race' is somehow a social construct all around the world and
that it's all some figment of imagination -- what you can't tell the
difference between an Mbuti Pygmy and an Icelander or Japanese?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372
Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in
Case-Control Association Studies
Hua Tang,1 Tom Quertermous,2 Beatriz Rodriguez,4 Sharon L. R. Kardia,5
Xiaofeng Zhu,6 Andrew Brown,7 James S. Pankow,8 Michael A. Province,9
Steven C. Hunt,10 Eric Boerwinkle,11 Nicholas J. Schork,12 and Neil J.
Risch3,13
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were
typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of
individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family
Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging
to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American,
East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different
geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic
cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major
clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-
reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/
ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different
from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we
detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current
geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient
geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified
race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major
determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications
of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are
discussed.
And that's all there is to it. Ancestry matters. Just cuz you're born
in the manger doesn't make you a bale of hay. And a simple checkbox
next to your self-identification reveals so much info about your
genetic structure and differences.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<e2936ef3-521b-4fba...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>):
> gook
30 days in my ignore file for racist slurs.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<f410438a-59d1-4b59...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
> You're not in Taiwan are you? Thought you are (were):
>
> http://jimwalsh.mindsay.com/
>
> Remember this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6yfkm8
>
> Abstract: (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - The vast majority of people in
> Taiwan consider their republic as sovereign and independent, according
> to a poll by Zogby International. 63 per cent of respondents share
> this opinion, while 31 per cent think Taiwan s sovereignty remains
> undetermined.
>
> Are you now saying that Taiwanese are Chinese? The CCP should extend
> their grip to Taiwanese?
I live in the Republic of China. It is a sovereign country. Singapore is
also a sovereign country. If I lived there, I might well say that I live
among Chinese people.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<b62dd042-0fa0-4fb6...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> When you see a black it's almost certain that he got in through affirmative
> action
1. There are no black people.
2. There is not the slightest evidence of affirmative action in the life of
the next President of the USA.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<f410438a-59d1-4b59...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
> On May 18, 12:01 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> Are you now saying that Taiwanese are Chinese? The CCP should extend
> their grip to Taiwanese?
Of course not. The CCP should lose its grip over the Chinese.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
israeliteknight
> On May 18, 12:38 pm, israeliteknight <israelitekni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 2:01 am, RichAsianKid <richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 14, 4:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> > > > (in article
> > > > <7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5-aced-747613fbe...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > > If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> > > > > agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> > > > Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible suffering
> > > > in the short run.
>
> > > > Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
> > > > but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> > > > people.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Love, Jim
> > > > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> > > > crossposts.)
>
> ) , and as you've (we've) posted low Israelis TIMSS scores, or the
> relatively poor performance of the intellectual math olympiad for
> , keeping in mind that this is not necessarily a representative
> sample) and business is supposed what Jews are so adept at; but on the
> whole there is a lot more (it seems) that Jews or at least Ash Jews
> actually do have higher IQ. I'm sure you don't need me to cite the
> references but from Charles Murray to Kevin MacDonald (who can hardly
> be called a philosemite) there's a lot written about this subject.
> Even so-called (gentile) white nationalists have uncomfortably
> admitted this. I'm very open to this question and you may actually
> have a very sympathetic ear here with no axe to grind (though some
> Asians esp mainland Chinese view Israel as merely some deformed
> appendage of the West, and who knows, even your typical leftist would
> agree) but the question still remains as to how this low IQ Jewish
> people can somehow manipulate and persecute a gentile white majority
> with such finesse.
>
> I think a sounder approach for any nationalist may be that you love
> your kin more than your love those of strangers, and that's not
> because he is necessarily objectively better. Parents love their own
> children simply because they're theirs. Frank Salter from the Max
> Planck Institute wrote this very thought-provoking tome which is
Very good points. I pretty much agree with your take on race. And
I'm sure you agree with me that the self-hating, White Race Traitor
BITCH at the U. of Michigan needs to be taken behind the barn, never
to resurface ever again, and ESPECIALLY never ever be allowed to utter
"diversity" ever again. We have professors like that in California
who did the same with Proposition 209 who we THREW out of office,
physically. It was great seeing the police breaking down their doors
and dragging them out.
How can jews do what they did if they're as STUPID as their scores in
"Israel" prove they are? I'm looking at the table from PISA on mere
READING, and jews can't even READ. "Israel" scored 439, which is 217
points lower than Korea and only 46 points higher than half-black
Brazil [and Indonesia and Montenegro]. It seems about two standard
deviations lower than the median for the OECD countries.
They claim to be only 15-25% Negroid--but this puts them at more like
50%, just like Brazil, which explain their love affair [even though
less than 0.01% of jews are married to blacks].
http://christianparty.net/jewsiq.htm
The Talmud tells us exactly how this race of criminal parasites do
what they do, why they do it, and what to do when caught: as they were
in 86 nations before us who booted their sorry hides OUT!
http://christianparty.net/talmud.htm
But jews are not the mastermind. These dumbbells are just mindless,
spineless, whining foot soldiers. Follow the money and you'll find the
mastermind.
israeliteknight
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:12:59 +0800, achtung wrote
> (in article
>
> > gook
>
> 30 days in my ignore file for racist slurs.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
30 days in my ignore file for STUPID STATEMENTS. Not to mention
sodomy. And another 90 days for claiming, in spite of the 36 million
niggers in the country who *claim* to be "black Americans", that they
don't even exist: "There are no black people."
You and logjam need to start your own country--somewhere close to
where the average IQ is 59, central Africa, where they don't have time
to think how stupid that statement is.
israeliteknight
Such a mind numbing, racist, sexist statement is really hard to find a
place to even begin to understand or critique. We must first remember
the role played by the huge race/sex gap of 234 GRE points between
Asian men and black women, which just recently, in spite of all the
media hooplah [which they claim WE should not ever trust at face
value] about the "narrowing of the gender gap", jumped by another 33
points, to 267. What this proves is that their mental acuity is just
not at the level required for them to even comprehend much less
analyze what these tests and data mean. Only those who score at the
higher end understand it, and it's not possible for them to impart
this intelligence or knowledge to someone with a GRE quantitative
score of 386, or 267 points lower.
The most honest study of intelligence would be to start with a clean
slate "designed to yield no sex differences", without the pre-
determined agenda of narrowing the "gender gap", with no understanding
or knowledge of exactly what the gap is. It would NOT be honest or
valid to design a test which starts with the subjective and sexist
goal of proving "equality" between sexes, and then claim success while
ignoring ALL other data.
The problem is, "When Wechsler was developing his IQ test, he found
that out of 105 tests assessing skills in solving maze-puzzles,
involving the most heterogeneous populations throughout the world, 99
showed an incontrovertible male superiority. (Wechsler resolved this
type of problem by eliminating all those tests that resulted in
findings of significant sex differences.)",so they really have not had
the benefit of analyzing any "IQ test" which hasn't been biased in
that fashion anyway.
After decades of being taught that the sexes are "equal" in
intelligence based on such biased "research", American women [and many
American men as well] actually believe it in spite of 100% data to the
contrary.
Standardized tests like SAT for example have shown consistently for
decades that the sex gap between the sexes of ALL of the races is
exactly the same--and this is a far better measurement of intelligence
than Wechsler's manipulated and mangled and massaged data. Many of
these tests have also been politicized, but because industry tends to
seek the best college graduates and universities tend to seek the best
high school graduates, test scores can be twisted a bit less often
than "IQ tests" administered by a government which has lost sight of
its job. In other words, there is honor amongst thieves.
"Lynn's results are a fluke"? What a silly girlie statement.
Professor Lynn has spent decades researching numerous sources and
reached conclusions which NO honest mathematician or scientist or
engineer or physicist can dispute, or would want to dispute. He's
taken plenty of barbs just being HONEST, so why would he MISREPRESENT
his findings anyway to INCREASE the flow of insults? If they really
don't "trust" his data, which shows the IQ's of 185 nations, all they
need to do is use their simple keyboard connected to the internet to
open any number of international tests which VALIDATE every single
point on his data, like PISA or TIMSS.
Of course what they don't like, based on the following statement, is
that there are 94 nations with IQ's of 84 or lower, that most of these
nations are black African nations, that two dozen black African
nations have IQ's lower than 70 [considered borderline retarded by
psychologists], and that two African nations have IQ's of 59:
> Lynn's studies make the news
> because he's sort of a one-man show of bunk science - after all, this is
> the same guy who claims that African-Americans have higher iqs than
> Africans because they have Caucasian genes that make them smarter.
Actually I too question the notion that mixing a black with an IQ of
59 with an Asian with an IQ of 106 would produce offspring any smarter
than the black. But he's correct that "African-Americans" do have
more Caucasian genes than Africans. From what I've witnessed, though,
that's made them stupider, not smarter.
F'rinstance:
You don't see Africans burning down their OWN cities like "African-
Americans" burnt down Detroit and East Lost Angeles, do you?
The murder rate in the US cities dominated by blacks is ten fold
higher than in any city of Africa.
These are things that suggest some kind of mental problem, if not
mental illness.
Exactly how big is the "gender gap" within different races? Each
year, for decades now, more than a quarter of a million college
graduates have taken the Graduate Record Exam hoping to get into
graduate school, and EACH year this gender gap is EXACTLY the same as
that reported by Professor Lynn. The gap between sexes is 74 points
for Other Hispanic and Other, 72 points for White, 66 points for Asian
and Mexican, 56 points for Puerto Rican, and 42 points for black. How
big is that? While there's not an exact one to one correspondence
between GRE scores and PISA scores, they're based on the same type of
scale and are roughly equivalent. The gap between the US and Mexico
is 68 PISA math points, smaller than the 72 GRE point gap between
White men and White women. Considering that this represents a four
fold difference in per capita income ($12,000 vs. $48,000) this simply
cannot be discounted as an insignificant difference.
Israel scores 78 points lower than Belgium and 72 points higher than
Columbia, very significant race gaps, and smaller than the gender
gaps.
Each year more than 1 million high school graduates take the SAT test,
and again the gender gap within each race is consistent.
Howard Wainer analyzed the SAT math scores and college grades for
47,000 math majors and found an IDENTICAL gap, except that he also
discovered why it is that so many educators think that men and women
are "equal"--women who get As have identical math skills of men who
get Cs, and women who get Bs have identical math skills of men who get
Ds. Most significantly, women who get Cs have significantly lower
math skills than men who flunk, who get Fs, meaning that the letter
grade given to women is three letter grades higher than that given to
men with the same skills.
Also significant are the 13,050 boys who scored higher than ALL the
girls but still received an A, the same letter grade given to girls
who scored up to 251 points lower.
"... a 1995 study on a population similar to Lynn's, done by
scientists at the Flinders University of South Australia and published
in the British Journal of Clinical Psychology ... found no difference
between males and females"
With this voluminous data right at her fingertips, why oh why did Beth
Skwarecki accept at face value an obscure study from lower Slobovia
(actually lower South Australia), without even mentioning why she
trusted this over Professor Lynn's data, TIMSS, PISA, SAT, GRE, IAEP,
NAEP, ACT; or even what the sample size was, or what was meant by
"equal", or which TRAIT it considers "equal", or what the methodology
was, or who was tested or studied, or if it included only Aboriginies.
Most likely she doesn't even know this because she never bothered to
check it out, the key to which is her statement "a population similar
to Lynn's". In order to accomplish this, the "study" would have had
to examine the IQ's of the entire globe, because this is the main
focus and result of Professor Lynn's research.
She accepted it as correct for only one reason: it fits her
predetermined bias, and she doesn't have the intellect to grasp just
how important this DESIGNED IN sex difference is, to both men and
women.
The 68 PISA Math point gap between the U.S. (474) and Mexico (406)
corresponds with an 11 point gap in IQ, about 6.2 PISA points per IQ
point. The 80 TIMSS Math point gap between the U.S. (504) and Jordan
(424) also corresponds with an 11 point gap in IQ, about 7.3 TIMSS
math points per IQ point. So the 72 point GRE quantitative gap
between White men and White men has a strong probability of being in
the range of 9.9 to 11.6 IQ points, and the lowest gap between sexes,
42 points, the one between black men (446) and black women (404), has
a strong probability of being in the range of 5.8 and 6.8 IQ points.
israeliteknight
American Whites score lower on international standardized tests like
TIMSS and PISA, so what makes her believe in the first place that
American blacks don't score lower than their counterparts in Africa.
Sao Tome comes to mind: they have an average IQ of 59. How do we know
Obama's isn't even lower?
RichAsianKid
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:27:29 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > When you see a black it's almost certain that he got in through affirmative
> > action
>
> 1. There are no black people.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17578982
The highest correlations were Pearson r = - 0.92 (Spearman rho=-0.91)
for skin color. So no need to talk about race. Dark skin correlates
with lower IQ. Do you have counter-evidence that dark skin correlates
with higher IQ?
> 2. There is not the slightest evidence of affirmative action in the life of
> the next President of the USA.
>
Even as a 'mulatto' many in America will have nagging doubt. (One
cited numbers that the Harvard Law Review he presided over is **the
least cited** volume over 20 years....) Meaning as one datapoint he
may or may not have benefited, BUT if he were 'white' or 'asian' you
*know* in way less certain terms that he didn't. Recall the example of
U of M (one of few schools where data is available) where prop 2
(banning race-based preferences) led to a 86% drop in underrepresented
minorities in U of Michigan (one of few schools where stats available,
others won't divulge) Says a lot doesn't it:
http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/19/michigan
"The percentage of African American, Hispanic and Native American
students admitted to the University of Michigan Law School for next
fall fell from 39.6 percent for those students whose applications were
considered before enactment of a state law banning race-based
preferences in December to 5.5 percent thereafter." (!!) That's before
and after prop 2 of course.
Point: when race is not taken into account, **most** underrepresented
minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans) just
cannot make it on their own.
***Over 86% of these minorities would not be admitted to U of M law
school if race or affirmative action were not a factor.*** (!!!)
86%!! 86%!! 86%!!
Makes you think twice doesn't it?
Or consider elite schools as a whole - published in the Stanford Law
Review:
http://i29.tinypic.com/mhvhwz.jpg
The data is self-explanatory. Look at the third bottom row.
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
RichAsianKid
> On May 19, 6:27 pm,RichAsianKid<richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 12:38 pm, israeliteknight <israelitekni...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > > On May 14, 4:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> > > > > (in article
> > > > > <7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5-aced-747613fbe...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > > > If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether you
> > > > > > agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> > > > > Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible suffering
> > > > > in the short run.
>
> > > > > Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle 1950s,
> > > > > but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> > > > > people.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Love, Jim
> > > > > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> > > > > crossposts.)
>
Make sure you see her in action too:
mms://141.211.196.219/MSC_Diag_11_8.wmv
If that does not work click on http://www.umich.edu/pres/speeches/061103div.html
and then click on "View Video" and don't miss her rage and intensity
after prop 2!
Once again, this is the PRESIDENT of a University, not head of some
campus socialist club! It's just embarrassing for a president to be
so...."unpresidential".
Also I posted the wrong graph on global IQ - here it is -- a minor
correction -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png
>
> How can jews do what they did if they're as STUPID as their scores in
> "Israel" prove they are? I'm looking at the table from PISA on mere
> READING, and jews can't even READ. "Israel" scored 439, which is 217
> points lower than Korea and only 46 points higher than half-black
> Brazil [and Indonesia and Montenegro]. It seems about two standard
> deviations lower than the median for the OECD countries.
As I know posters are reading this I'll just post the reference:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf
It's amazing that Israel does so badly in math, science, and reading.
And as I've posted above even at the highest levels they perform
poorly on the GMAT and relatively poorly in the international math
Olympiad (posted above/before). A glance at the international
chemistry Olympiads and physics Olympiads shows that Israel seems weak
as well but they do not rank countries as a whole so comparisons are
difficult. Here's a sample of the 1999-2007 results. Note that Israel
did not participate in 2007, possibly because it's held in Iran? Look
at the special prizes - year after year not one has been awarded to
Israel even though China, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong, and East Europe
nations snatch the "special prizes":
1999
http://www.jyu.fi/kastdk/olympiads/minutes1999.html
2000
http://www.jyu.fi/kastdk/olympiads/minutes2000.html
2001
http://www.jyu.fi/kastdk/olympiads/minutes2001.html
2002
http://www.jyu.fi/kastdk/olympiads/minutes2002.html
2003
http://www.jyu.fi/kastdk/olympiads/minutes2003.html
2004
http://www.jyu.fi/kastdk/olympiads/minutes2004.html
2005
http://www.jyu.fi/kastdk/olympiads/minutes2005.html
2006
http://www.jyu.fi/kastdk/olympiads/minutes2006.html
2007 (Israel not participating)
http://www.jyu.fi/kastdk/olympiads/minutes2007.html
I mean, you would have expected Israel to have won *one* special prize
by now throughout all these years? Even Sri Lanka, Pakistan,
and ...Nigeria (!!) have won prizes!!
And get this from 2002: "Dr. Waldemar Gorzkowski informed the
International Board about the Israeli proposal whose aim was
establishing Friday, Saturday and Sunday as days free of any
competition to satisfy certain religious requirements. The proposal
was discussed in the Advisory Committee. As the Advisory Committee was
strongly against it (12 Members against, 3 Members in favour), the
Authors decided to cancel the proposal." Ha ha ha!!!
>
> They claim to be only 15-25% Negroid--but this puts them at more like
> 50%, just like Brazil, which explain their love affair [even though
> less than 0.01% of jews are married to blacks].
>
> http://christianparty.net/jewsiq.htm
>
> The Talmud tells us exactly how this race of criminal parasites do
> what they do, why they do it, and what to do when caught: as they were
> in 86 nations before us who booted their sorry hides OUT!
>
> http://christianparty.net/talmud.htm
>
> But jews are not the mastermind. These dumbbells are just mindless,
> spineless, whining foot soldiers. Follow the money and you'll find the
> mastermind.
Here's slightly off topic but this now classic and famous article (in
case you haven't read it) is a subject that may resonate with you. It
will resonate with many posters as well.
RichAsianKid
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:34:51 +0800, RichAsianKid wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 12:01 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:01:46 +0800, RichAsianKid wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <cf2debca-d8cc-445c-93bb-98d128b0b...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> On May 14, 4:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:30:12 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> >>>> (in article
> >>>> <7f4c26d3-7f46-4fc5-aced-747613fbe...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>>>> If the CCP is really so 'wrong', it will implode regardless of whether
> >>>>> you
> >>>>> agree or disagree with it or not.
>
> >>>> Agree. But, sadly, it will take too long and there were be terrible
> >>>> suffering
> >>>> in the short run.
>
> >>>> Mao and Maoism was demonstrably incompetent as earlier as the middle
> >>>> 1950s,
> >>>> but he remained in power until his death, to the sorrow of the Chinese
> >>>> people.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Love, Jim
> >>>> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> >>>> crossposts.)
>
> >>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> >>>> 120,000+ Newsgroups
> >>>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> >>>> =----
>
> >>> And you care so much about the Chinese people because....?
>
> >> I live among them.
> > You're not in Taiwan are you? Thought you are (were):
>
> > http://jimwalsh.mindsay.com/
>
> > Remember this:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/6yfkm8
>
> > Abstract: (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - The vast majority of people in
> > Taiwan consider their republic as sovereign and independent, according
> > to a poll by Zogby International. 63 per cent of respondents share
> > this opinion, while 31 per cent think Taiwan’s sovereignty remains
> > undetermined.
>
> > Are you now saying that Taiwanese are Chinese? The CCP should extend
> > their grip to Taiwanese?
>
> I live in the Republic of China. It is a sovereign country. Singapore is
> also a sovereign country. If I lived there, I might well say that I live
> among Chinese people.
>
Shouldn't you say you care more about Taiwanese in Taiwan than the
mainland Chinese in China then if you're in the ROC - especially if
it's a sovereign country?
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
RichAsianKid
> > How can jews do what they did if they're as STUPID as their scores in
> > "Israel" prove they are? I'm looking at the table from PISA on mere
> > READING, and jews can't even READ. "Israel" scored 439, which is 217
> > points lower than Korea and only 46 points higher than half-black
> > Brazil [and Indonesia and Montenegro]. It seems about two standard
> > deviations lower than the median for the OECD countries.
>
Here's a chart showing the correlation between IQ and PISA/TIMSS
scores at the national level:
http://i26.tinypic.com/znanh1.jpg
International Assessment of Educational Progress [IAEP]-II 1991, TIMSS
1995, TIMSS 1999, TIMSS 2003, Programme for International
Student Assessment [PISA] 2000, PISA 2003, Progress in International
Reading Literacy Study [PIRLS] 2001)
Legend: R-reading, M-math, S-science, P-problem solving, thus TM-8 99
= TIMSS Math Section Grade 8 1999; PS-15 03 = Pisa Science Age 15 2003
assessment etc.
Note how high the correlations are at the national level between g and
PISA and TIMSS scores... All 0.90+ !!