This forum is full of it, but it's all true. The facts are there. Maybe there is a little hyperbole, sure black people can become doctors, fly planes etc... I'm a reasonable human being, I was raised in a liberal environment. I have bullied before, but never been racist and I see bigotry as immature, however I can't escape the fact that they are indeed very unusual looking.
"golly, niggers are hideous with their buck teeth, black skin and brillo heads. Egads."
Just do a google search for skull shapes of different races and albino black people... CAucasian and mongoloid skulls are about the same and both these races have obviously exceeded negrito races in culture and civilisation. Even the obscure native americans constructed early civilisations. Their hunter gatherers tribes only existed due to their isolation, deprived of the circumstnaces that allow for agrarian civilisation. Given another 1000 years after the SPanish arrived, and the Gulf of Mexico would be like the Mediteranean circa 1000 B.C..
Though I can't say the same for black civilisations, they were not isolated, theywere exposed to the Egyptians, who were arabic, im not one of these nuts who thinks they are white. I really am not a racist or even a far right conservative...
I can't contain what i think anymore and I shouldn't be afraid of expressing my thoughts. They do look so animal like, it is as if they are a relic from evolution before human civilisation. In fact that's what they are, the only tribal systems outside of sub-saharran africa left by around 1300 were in areas which didn't have much food. Yet in the rich jungles of africa they still lived in the stone age, never utilising the wide range of plants there.
I think the out of africa theory is correct and that blacks haven't evolved much whilst caucasians and mongoloids have had to deal with the ice age.
How should I approach these facts rationally? Liberals say I should just ignore them, conservatives say I should become a whtie supremacist nut. Surely there is another way? Surely there is a way to get society to accept these facts without sinking into depths of paranoia and stupidity.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:26
Fully half of all chess champions are ashkenazi jews. Shut up Anti-chan.
Name:
ANTI-CHAN2006-01-04 19:29
I'M ANTI CHAN AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN RACE BLACK PEOPLE ARE POOR BECAUSE WHITE PEOPLE RAPED BLACK BABIES IN THE BUTTOCKS AND IT HURT AND MADE THEM MAD FOR GENERATIONS SO THEY JUST HAVE TO BREAK STUFF THAT EXPLAINS THE DIFFERENCE IN RACES!
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS RACE! EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE HAVE BLACK SKIN AND DIFFERENT FACIAL FEATURES THERE'S A MAGICAL WALL AROUND THE BRAIN THAT KEEPS IT FROM BEING AFFECTED BY GENETICS SO THERE'S NO SUTCH THING AS RACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:31
>>282
Anti-chan never said that there was no difference in brain structures, he said that in the end it didn't matter because we're all basically the same.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:33
...so basically he's going to shoo off a ton of empirical data because it doesn't fit with what he wants to believe about reality?
THAT'S SUCH A SOCIALSIT THING TO DO! LIEK FINANALAND! THE ARUGUMENT IS OVER BECAUSE FINLANAD WINS ARGUERMENT!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:34
...so basically he's going to shoo off a ton of empirical data because it doesn't fit with what he wants to believe about reality?
THAT'S SUCH A SOCIALSIT THING TO DO! LIEK FINANALAND! THE ARUGUMENT IS OVER BECAUSE FINLANAD WINS ARGUERMENT!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:36
>>285
No retard, it doesn't matter. Africans are poorer on average because of other factors, not related to their race.
And Finland is an awesome country, I don't care what you say.
>>286
Say that all you want, but we still have studies that show without a doubt that some people are smarter than others. Whether you believe that translates into being able to form a stable civilization or not, it can't be refuted. And it also can't be refuted that intelligence can directly correlate to one's ability to succeed in life. For example, the Ashkenazi jews; they posess 30% of the wealth (thereabouts) and only make up 3% of the population.
And if you do believe that intelligence (or at least inhibition and ability to pay attention to the world around you) plays a role, like me, you have a lot of data to back you up. Why is it that wherever populations of negroids go, there ends up being crime and blight?
Can it all be blamed on culture?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:45
>>288 Can it all be blamed on culture?
Yes. Quite neatly, in fact.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:48
>>289
For example, if the caucasians are so awesome, and if you say the arabs and the semites are the same as aryans, why then is the middle east in such disarray now and Finland so awesome?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 19:52
That's different. Their civilization went down the toilet when they got a religion that told them to constantly bicker and fight each other. Before that, they were awesome as india. India wasn't all that bad and has never been all that bad.
Europeans aren't infalliable either... They had a dark age.
But throughout history, there has been a consistent pattern of negroids amounting to nothing.
Really, in all honesty, since you all deny that intelligence has anything to do with civilization, we're at a standstill. You're going to keep insisting that culture determines everything, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-04 23:08
What evidence? Where is the data backing the claim that the percieved failure of any civilization is absolutely related to the lack of- or exclusive inclusion of- any set of genes? We aren't at any sort of stalemate, because you simply do not have the data to back up what you're saying.
Also, Africans have similar religions that actually shun the idea of modernism. Frankly, the only way I can see you saying the things you have been is if you're completely ignorant of human history and african culture.
You entire argument is based on the idea that any one "white civilization" has been "successful". Why do you not tell us what makes a "successful" civilization? Why so vague?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 0:48
>>292
Rome, Greece, The British Empire... Ancient asia and india were also similarly well off while the africans NEVER did anything like that. There isn't any analouge for Greece among negroids.
A successful civilization is one that has stability, a set of laws that keeps things peaceful and moving forward, an environment where individuals don't constantly undermine society as a whole.
Ok, so how exactly did Ancient Africa lack these things? Up until around the 1600's Africa did have the kind of prosperity you speak of. Unless of course, you're still trying to convince everyone that the Moors weren't black.
Second point: Rome, Greece and the British Empire? FAILED. Where are they now? A successful civilization is one that *HAS* stability, not *HAD*.
Third point: Where is data supporting the assertion that African civilization "failed" because of poor genetics?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 1:22
European "civilization" is the most unstable in history. Its entire history is made up of wars upon wars, violent upheavals and unparalleled atrocities.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 1:35
>>295
europeans took over the whole world and invented the internets. the wars are mere trifles.
That's the point. Material progress does not a civilization make.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-05 1:59
Many so-called "European/Anglo-Saxon advancements" are the products of things other civilizations have done. Chiefly amoung them were the plainly NON-Aryan civilizations- Asians, Arabs and yes: The Moors (blacks)
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 4:13
300get
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 4:16
>>299
Name these advancements... in fact, name the advancements the moors gave us.
I'm a different guy from the one you've been debating this thread. I'm not arguing that whites are superior but that blacks are inferior.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 4:19
For example: Arabs thought up mathematics (with the chinese) the greeks invented the first clocks and all of philosophy. The romans devised many of the city planning techniques we still use. (BTW, they may be "Moors" now, but back in egyptian times they were semitic. Populations mix over time. Look at the hieroglyphs... do they look african? No, they all have the aquiline noses and foreheads of the indo-europeans)
What have real blacks brought up?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 4:23
>>298
philosphy. fashion. monuments. too many to mention.
Whites: Philosophy, City planning, democracy
Arabs: Trigonometery, engineering
Chinese: Developed math independent of Indo-europeans, Art of War, government organization, stable civilization lasted over 2,000 years
The indo europeans (That includes indians, semitics, mediterraneans and aryans) aren't stable, but they are smart. The chinese are stable AND smart.
What have the blacks given us?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-05 5:09
First off, all civilizations have had their sense of monuments, fashion and philosophy- as to which ones were "great"- that's clearly subjective. An opinion formed by the so-called "winners of history". Not actual fact.
Secondly, I see the contention that certain peoples (in this case, the Moors) "weren't black" is false simply because if you had seen these peoples you would have considered them black. Yes- there were some "white Moors"- but when any reference is made to the Moors it is made to someone with Dark Skin. Tell me: Do you think the comedian Sinbad is black? His skin coloring is what one could call Berber. Frankly, if the Moors weren't black- they would not have been called Moors. The argument is mooted by the very name.
If you want to know what these advancements are I suspect you can google "The advancements of the Moors", can't you? This is what I don't get- all these questions and yet no one has thought to look for these answers before jumping to the conclusion that blacks are genetically inferior.
"Blacks" were the first people on the planet, does it not stand to reason that they founded the first civilization? Look up these peoples: Zingh Empire, Nubia-Kush, Black Caribs, Black Dalits- These are all ancient nations and civilizations long since forgotten due to the very mindset that all advancement came from Europe and Aryans and not Africa and Negroids.
It's a mindset based on assumption- casual knowledge gleaned from "history's winners"
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 5:36
Might wanna look up the Olmec's as well.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 7:29
might want to look at Rwanda,Congo,Sierra Leone, Detroit, and Washington DC.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 7:50
Last time I checked, "blacks" are doing alright in European countries like the UK, at least relative to the US. Especially in terms of racism.
Personally, remember what colour and what steretype goes together is just too much hassle. Everyone sucks. Easier world view imo
Haha, that's right, my friend keep ignoring the facts. Looking up Rwanda, Congo and Detroit still doesn't provide the much needed data to back up your claims about genetics.
See: Older than America, therefore wiser than America. This fucking country (and Canada) has waaaaaaaaaaaay too many race issues. Everytime I've had a "Race debate" with someone on the internet- some brit comes along and aptly reminds me that this shit is a waste of time and boring.
Summary:
White ami nerdboys jealous of hueg black nigger cock and the pussy it gets the nigger, something they'll never get.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 12:16
>>312
europe, including britain, has race problems. don't pretend europe is some kind of utopia.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 13:08
Every country that was dominately white in the 50s is now a multi-cultural "haven", whereas other nations, even though that are wealthier than some european nations like Kuwait and Japan are as monoracial as they were 50 years ago. Why is this?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 13:58
>>315
I think it's mainly influence from America and them letting in guest workers.